DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by RyanD

So this hilarity was waiting for me in my mailbox:

Wealthy Rug Merchants Plans Exposed

They won't let you copy text off their site to embed, so just click it and enjoy the read.

TL;DR - They said rug company has bigger plans for the Glendale site, was playing the city because they want to put up a highrise similar to something you would see in Tehran. They are calling it the 'Tehranian Death Star'. I'm totally not kidding. They drop names and faces like Dana Crawford, and Chris Shears too.

It is a crazy story, even if half true. But given the source . . . . . That "newspaper" is truly the worst piece of crap I've ever seen call itself a newspaper. It's reads like its written by schizophrenic 13 yo on meth. How the hell does it sell any adds? You would have to question the judgment (and business quality) of anyone would lend their business name to such a useless cesspool of "journalism" .

[The Dirt]

Dana Crawford is a monster. #NukeGlendale #wtfdidijustread

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Well it looks like the Supreme Court might be taking on Colorado marijuana legalization. The best defense I could personally think of is that Nebraska and Oklahome do not have standing to challenge it. But if the Court gets past that, I have no idea how we defend a state law that is clearly in conflict with federal law. I think there's a reasonable chance the Supreme Court just makes this whole marijuana nightmare go away.

Anybody have any other ideas how me might defend the legality of this? Here's the article btw:

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_295966...ide-colorado-marijuana-legalization-case

The political reasons are probably stronger than the legal reasons for the
Supreme Court to stay out of this.

This isn't just about Colorado. 20 states have "legalized" marijuana in some form or another. From a federal law standpoint, if federal law keeps states from allowing recreational marijuana it has the same impact on medical marijuana (federal law specifically bars doctors from "prescribing" marijuana).

I would defend the law by arguing there is no conflict, Colorado does not purport to pre-empt Federal law, and in fact since it's so-called legalization, the feds have continued to enforce federal anti-marijuana laws on a select basis in Colorado and in other states that have regulated marijuana (there have been raids of Colorado pot shops by federal authorities).

Also, there are other precedents of the Feds. limiting enforcement of federal laws such as immigration laws (also in front of the courts) and pharmaceutical laws. For example, it is illegal for Canadian pharmacies to sell drugs to American consumers but it happens all the time and the FDA has exercised discretion to not act to stop it. Also, there are precedents of states and the federal government adopting "regulations" governing illegal behavior - such as the requirement that criminals file tax returns for their illegal earnings.

Finally, ironically, the courts are faced with two choices: (1) uphold the state laws while noting that the feds can at any time enforce the "superior" federal laws, (2) strike down the state laws.

If they strike down the state laws where does that leave us? The feds can't make Colorado make marijuana illegal. Instead, ironically, the only laws they can possibly strike down are laws regulating the production and sale of marijuana. Thus, if they strike down those laws, I think marijuana (arguably) is still legal under Colorado law, but there would no longer be any regulations governing the production and sale.

Of course, hypothetically the feds could hire thousands of law enforcement officers in Colorado and in the 20 other "marijuana" states to "enforce" the federal law. That's exactly what happened during prohibition, when certain states stopped cooperating with federal authorities. They said it's your law, you enforce it - we aren't going to.

We know how well that worked, and what the ultimate result was.

Edit: Saw an update in the Denver Post that in fact the Supreme Court did not act today to accept the case. The Post speculates that the lack of 9 justices may defer consideration. For now, the potheads are safe.

[RyanD]

In other news, there's going to be a lot of 1401 Lawrence love this week. Exteriors, interiors, and views from the near-top! I got the exteriors up today on DenverInfill and there are a crap ton of photos for this post:

Central Downtown: 1401 Lawrence Update #11

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Also, there are other precedents of the Feds. limiting enforcement of federal laws such as immigration laws (also in front of the courts) and pharmaceutical laws. For example, it is illegal for Canadian pharmacies to sell drugs to American consumers but it happens all the time and the FDA has exercised discretion to not act to stop it. Also, there are precedents of states and the federal government adopting "regulations" governing illegal behavior - such as the requirement that criminals file tax returns for their illegal earnings.

I do not think this is a case of prosecutorial discretion, however, because of the litigants. If other states are incurring costs by following federal law, as a result of Colorado not, it's not just up to federal agencies to decide whether or not to enforce. The states of Nebraska and Oklahoma are enforcing their rights directly against Colorado.

It may be true that this is an area like immigration, that is solely federal jurisdiction. In which case it would be in the federal government's sole discretion whether or not to enforce those laws. But that would also be a reason to strike down conflicting state laws, as the courts have routinely done in the immigration area. It's one thing for the feds to not prosecute illegal behavior. It's quite another for a state to step in and do it itself. Or in this case, expressly condone such illegal behavior.

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

The political reasons are probably stronger than the legal reasons for the
Supreme Court to stay out of this.

This isn't just about Colorado. 20 states have "legalized" marijuana in some form or another. From a federal law standpoint, if federal law keeps states from allowing recreational marijuana it has the same impact on medical marijuana (federal law specifically bars doctors from "prescribing" marijuana).

We've all read cases where the Supreme Court was forced to do something it didn't really want to. If I'm the Court, my ruling looks something like this:

"Look, federal law on this is clear, and the case law on the Supremacy Clause leave us no choice but to strike down state laws clearly in conflict with current federal law. We the court recognize the impact this will have on the economies of states where these laws exist, but we are a nation of laws. However, it is on you, Congress, to fix this. And here is exactly how you can fix this. And if you do not want to pass legislation to correct this, then the consequences are on you, not us. We're doing our jobs here."

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

If they strike down the state laws where does that leave us? The feds can't make Colorado make marijuana illegal. Instead, ironically, the only laws they can possibly strike down are laws regulating the production and sale of marijuana. Thus, if they strike down those laws, I think marijuana (arguably) is still legal under Colorado law, but there would no longer be any regulations governing the production and sale.

Of course they could make it illegal. They can strike down Amendment 64 that legalized it in the first place. Which is what the other states are asking the Court to do. Without that amendment, the entire body of state law on sale and distribution goes along with it. (Those would be illegal under both state and federal law without Amendment 64, and even state courts would be compelled to strike down the rest.) That's what happened when Amendment 2 went away back in the day, right?

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Edit: Saw an update in the Denver Post that in fact the Supreme Court did not act today to accept the case. The Post speculates that the lack of 9 justices may defer consideration. For now, the potheads are safe.

Shame really. Maybe next session.

If I'm a state in the south, I refuse to do Obamacare. I stop administering Medicaid. I probably even re-instate poll taxes and ignore the Civil Rights Act. We have a federal government that picks and chooses which laws matters, and courts that refuse to apply the Supremacy Clause. It's dangerous precedent if you ask me. If I am Governor of Alabama, I might try some crazy stuff. If Colorado can ignore the law, why not me?

[corey]

1401 Lawrence is a well designed building. I love the mirror glass wall. I like that even though it is highly reflective they still articulated each window in a very restrained manner. It adds a nice layer of interest to the façade. It does seem like an exorbitant amount of parking though.

[corey]

is 1401 Lawrence topped off?

[EngiNerd]

Awesome photos as usual Ryan, thanks! I think this one best shows just how beige that part of town really is, and how desperately more of these glass buildings are needed to offset all that beige (and red).

[corey]

If the Supreme Court holds off on a marijuana decision until next year it will be interesting to see what they can do if California passes legal marijuana this November. With CA approximately 20% of the country's population will live in marijuana legal states, even higher percentage if it passes in the other states that have it on the ballot.

[rds70]

A big day for multi-family building permits. The following were submitted today to the City of Denver:

Gables Cherry Creek Phase 2 - 140 units, 8 stories - Superstructure permit

1707 & 1777 Chestnut (Shorenstein Project) - 506 units, 12 & 24 stories - Superstructure permit

AMLI Riverfront Green - 305 units, 8 stories - Superstructure permit

Alexan Arapahoe Square - 347 units, 13 stories - Foundation permit

[transistor]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

It is a crazy story, even if half true. But given the source . . . . . That "newspaper" is truly the worst piece of crap I've ever seen call itself a newspaper. It's reads like its written by schizophrenic 13 yo on meth. How the hell does it sell any adds? You would have to question the judgment (and business quality) of anyone would lend their business name to such a useless cesspool of "journalism" .

A lot of people offer their services in the advertisements. Sex therapists, exorcists, crystal healers etc.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I do not think this is a case of prosecutorial discretion, however, because of the litigants. If other states are incurring costs by following federal law, as a result of Colorado not, it's not just up to federal agencies to decide whether or not to enforce. The states of Nebraska and Oklahoma are enforcing their rights directly against Colorado.

Don't know what costs the other states could be incurring "by following federal law."

I don't think federal law even purports to require states to enforce federal marijuana statutes. All of the "costs" those states are incurring are more likely from enforcing state marijuana laws. Neither Colorado nor the feds are making them do this.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

It may be true that this is an area like immigration, that is solely federal jurisdiction. In which case it would be in the federal government's sole discretion whether or not to enforce those laws. But that would also be a reason to strike down conflicting state laws, as the courts have routinely done in the immigration area. It's one thing for the feds to not prosecute illegal behavior. It's quite another for a state to step in and do it itself. Or in this case, expressly condone such illegal behavior.

Clearly there is not complete federal pre-emption of marijuana rules. Marijuana has been regulated by the states for many, many decades, with the full collaboration and cooperation of the feds. Again, the feds do not even purport to mandate states to make marijuana illegal. That is likely beyond the constitutional power of congress. The real question then is whether Colorado law directly conflicts with federal law. I agree, there is a solid argument it does by expressly allowing what federal law expressly forbids.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

If I'm a state in the south, I refuse to do Obamacare. I stop administering Medicaid. I probably even re-instate poll taxes and ignore the Civil Rights Act. We have a federal government that picks and chooses which laws matters, and courts that refuse to apply the Supremacy Clause. It's dangerous precedent if you ask me. If I am Governor of Alabama, I might try some crazy stuff. If Colorado can ignore the law, why not me?

Different situation. There is no question the federal government can enforce federal law over conflicting state law. That's not what's happened here. Clearly the current administration takes the position that Colorado's law is not inconsistent with federal law. The states want to step in place of the federal government and "enforce" federal law."

Still you have a point, a future administration that, for example, did not have the votes in Congress to repeal Obamacare could take the position that the states are free to ignore any Obamacare requirements (or Clean Air Act requirements, or any other federal statute) and if the principal is that an administration can decline at any time to enforce federal law and allow states to act contrary to federal law without consequence, then suddenly whether particular federal laws apply will depend solely on which party controls the presidency.

The standing issues are the easiest way for the court to punt on this issue. Ironically, one party that probably would have standing is a Colorado marijuana business subject to regulation in Colorado. They could arguably sue the state to enjoin enforcement of the regulations on marijuana businesses as in conflict with federal law.

Maybe a marijuana opponent could buy a dispensary, then sue the state on the basis that the state has no authority to "regulate" the "legal" sale of marijuana. Lol.

It is a crazy situation.

[blm3034L!fe]

I read in the Glendale Cherry Creek Chronicle. A very interesting read a possible new Tallest tower for the State being considered.


http://glendalecherrycreek.com/2016/02/4189/

[corey]

I'm completely in favor of Muhammed Ali (the other one) building a high rise condo building on his rug store site in Glendale. Although his tactics reek of extreme douchebaggery. He just succeeded in unnecessarily turning people against his project. Fortunately it is in Glendale and he'll be able to build what ever he wants. A nice condo building will be an asset to the planned entertainment/retail complex.

[Midwest out West]

Originally Posted by corey

I'm completely in favor of Muhammed Ali (the other one) building a high rise condo building on his rug store site in Glendale. Although his tactics reek of extreme douchebaggery. He just succeeded in unnecessarily turning people against his project. Fortunately it is in Glendale and he'll be able to build what ever he wants. A nice condo building will be an asset to the planned entertainment/retail complex.

I think I remember reading that their plans weren't for a condo building but rather for something like 2.5 million sf of their own entertainment complex and hotel including retail and restaurants, which I imagine would more likely conflict with than complement the planned Glendale 180 project, and may be the reason for the land/development drawing the ire of the city.

Either way I hope whatever project ends up going in down there mounts additional pressure for some public transit in the Speer/Cherry Creek corridor.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by corey

I'm completely in favor of Muhammed Ali (the other one) building a high rise condo building on his rug store site in Glendale. Although his tactics reek of extreme douchebaggery. He just succeeded in unnecessarily turning people against his project. Fortunately it is in Glendale and he'll be able to build what ever he wants. A nice condo building will be an asset to the planned entertainment/retail complex.

Since its Glendale, it will probably include a ground floor dispensary and/or strip club.

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

Don't know what costs the other states could be incurring "by following federal law."

I don't think federal law even purports to require states to enforce federal marijuana statutes. All of the "costs" those states are incurring are more likely from enforcing state marijuana laws.

Don't forget that these "costs" are not really even costs.


The courts and police departments in these states are profiting massively from Colorado marijuana.


Surprised to see bunt with such curmudgeonly posts. I wouldn't expect someone like him to support prohibition of a plant that is safer than alcohol. Nevermind the horrible societal consequences of locking people up for a plant, and the war on drugs

[Scottk]

Originally Posted by blm3034L!fe

I read in the Glendale Cherry Creek Chronicle. A very interesting read a possible new Tallest tower for the State being considered.


http://glendalecherrycreek.com/2016/02/4189/

Hey!!!


Thanks for showing up for your bi monthly irrelevant post!!


This article was already posted on this forum less than a page ago.



See you next time to discuss DENVER'S NEW TALLEST TOwe5r!!!!!

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Surprised to see bunt with such curmudgeonly posts. I wouldn't expect someone like him to support prohibition of a plant that is safer than alcohol. Nevermind the horrible societal consequences of locking people up for a plant, and the war on drugs

It's not the legalization I care about. It's the picking and choosing which laws we follow based on which laws we like. If we want to legalize, then we should go through Congress. If you don't think you can make your "it's safer" case to Congress - well, then too bad. Lots of federal laws I don't agree with, yet still follow. If we can pick and choose our laws, then other, less-enlightened states can do it too.

It's sort of why I don't feel bad ignoring Colorado's new gun laws. I'd have no hesitation driving to Cheyenne and bringing back 20-round magazines. Because I only follow the laws I agree with, and I like Wyoming's better.

(EDIT: The "guns make us safer/guns make us less safe" divide in this country is just as stark as the "pot is safe/pot is dangerous" divide. Would you be okay if Nebraska legalized machine guns despite federal law to the contrary? Or is this a case of "I know what's best" and everybody else is wrong? I'm sure the next logical response is to say "I am right, look at the data on both of those issues." But our side is just as quick to ignore facts when it suits us. Look at debates on free trade, or bringing it home, transportation alternatives. Listening to some folks around here talk about transportation is not unlike listening to Republicans debate climate change - data be damned - it's all about ideological purity.)

[blm3034L!fe]

Originally Posted by Scottk

Hey!!!


Thanks for showing up for your bi monthly irrelevant post!!


This article was already posted on this forum less than a page ago.



See you next time to discuss DENVER'S NEW TALLEST TOwe5r!!!!!

I thought it was an interesting read, I was unaware it had already been posted. But I appreciate you pointing this out to me in a non hostile childish manor.

You're the best Skottk.