Quote:
Originally Posted by texboy
New to Denver here. Its so odd to me that voters can even decide this kind of stuff here. I've worked in construction on the owners side for 10 years now and I can tell you green roofs are extremely expensive not only to build, but to maintain. I love them to be quite frank, but a 25k building... lets say like a small grocery store with tight margins? They'd end up staying away from Denver. This was an excellent compromise on the city's part. TPO roofs are now becoming typical anyway and last for 20+ years with little to no maintenance AND are eco friendly to boot.
|
Welcome to the Wild West! Voter initiatives can lead to crazy, ill-conceived results.
Wait and see what happens if Amendment 74 passes, and property owners unleash a flury of suits against governments for virtually every regulation they adopt claiming the regulation "hurt" their property's value. And those suits will be legitimate - virtually any government regulation or decision regarding land use impacts property values, positively or negatively. If Amendment 74 passes, lawyers will have a field day.
I could easily make an argument that zoning is unconstitutional under this amendment - or at least any zoning that keeps me from doing whatever makes me the most money with my property.
If I can get the highest value by putting up a dog food factory next to your cute little suburban development, then get ready to write me a check if you want to adopt regulations saying I can't do that. Conversely, if I've invested big money in buying an empty lot across from the expected location of a fabulous new transit hub, and government unexpectedly decides to go with Site B, I'm suing. Pay up, suckers!!