DENVER | Main Development Thread #6

[wong21fr]

So it's a non-voluntary camp for the homeless where they are required to go every night?

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

so it's a non-voluntary camp for the homeless where they are required to go concentrate every night?

ftfy

[mojiferous]

Don't confuse the anarchist hobos/street kids with the homeless. These are two very distinct populations with different issues and different motivations. The street kids have always been on the mall, and have always caused trouble. In fact, it used to be much worse, because they were the ONLY people on the mall sometimes.

And they usually aren't local, or at least don't stick around downtown for long. There are some "true" homeless people that have been around for years and that you see all the time. These kids come into town, beg for spare change, bum around, and then leave. Legislating against them is much harder...

And while the news claims that retailers are "concerned", but that's not always true. These kids hang out in front of places where people don't care -- like in front of Ross and in front of the Only in Colorado/Cotrells/former Arbys. It's not because there aren't enough security guards or cops or anything like that, because somehow places like the Pavilions, the Denver Dry, the University Building, and just about every other place on the mall keeps them from clumping up and causing the same kind of problems.

Activating areas works much, much better than turning into pearl-clutching suburban fascists and trying to throw them into jail. The two blocks of skyline park adjacent to 16th are much less like Barter Town when there is something going on. The areas in the middle of the mall where popular food carts sit are much less Dickensian than the dead space on California in front of Taco Bell. You want less annoying street kids? Make sure storefronts open to the street and people are using the mall. We should be dumping bags of human waste in front of Gart Properties' door as long as they keep the empty food court at 16th &
California in the terrible shape its in. Turning things like that around will do so much more than clubbing a bunch of punk kids because they don't look right to you.

[llamaorama]

So what's a hobo exactly? If I decide not to shave over a 3 day weekend would I get hassled?

I'd agree with Cirrus here. Being homeless isn't a crime, but panhandling and nuisance behavior is/should be.Also not all nuisance individuals are homeless. Also its hard to ban loitering in public places that specifically designed for people to loiter in.

How hard would it be to privatize the 16th Street Mall?

I think it would set a negative precedent. It was always meant to be a public space, like a park. If you want a mall, ride the train down to Park Meadows. Even though it was meant to be a mall, 16th Street feels like a very long plaza to me. There's not actually a whole lot of shopping, but a lot of diverse things attached to it and its a central point of interest for greater downtown.

Think of Michigan Avenue in Chicago. It might be the magnificent mile, but it's also a big city street. The malls with their rules of conduct and private security are separate buildings you enter from the sidewalk, like Water Tower Place.

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

So it's a non-voluntary camp for the homeless where they are required to go every night?

No. Nothing is mandatory and no constitutional rights would be infringed. However, it would be against the law to "camp" in Denver, which it already is.

A homeless person can freely move to wherever they may choose, but it can't be Denver if they decide they want to sleep on the ground. Just like Honolulu. They could potentially get friends to take them inside their home, they could try and get into temporary housing that is currently available, they could move to another city, or they could stay upright all night and walk around. They would just not be able to sleep and/or camp in the city. Anything and everything else is possible for them.


However, if they don't have any other options, the city is making emergency temporary housing available at no cost to them. It would not be luxurious by any means, but at least it would be safe, secure, and accessible. It would meet a moral obligation to provide that emergency option for people, but does so without being overly burdensome on taxpayers .. It would be much more financially feasible and putting in $24 million homeless shelters that have 60 apartment grade rooms, for example. This would simply provide the city a valuable resource to meet an emergency need, when people simply have no other option.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

Honolulu is being sued by the ACLU because they're not providing alternatives to being homeless.

Except the complaint is about taking property without due process. The ALCU concedes that homeless shelters were an option for other people, just not the plaintiffs.

29. Shelters are not a viable option for many Plaintiffs for a number of reasons. Most notably, there is not nearly enough shelter space to accommodate the nearly 2,OOO unsheltered homeless on O'ahu on any given night; there are often no shelters on O'ahu with available beds for women or families (or such shelter space that is available is prohibitively far away from Plaintiffs' places of employment or Plaintiffs' childrens' schools). Similarly, many (if not all) of Oahu's shelters require government identification. For the Plaintiffs who had their identification illegally seized and destroyed by the City, that factor can prohibit their access to shelters, even if there were suffîcient space. Other Plaintiffs reasonably fear that shelters are unsanitary or unsafe for themselves and/or their children.

. . .

32. The two City ordinances that prohibit Plaintiffs from possessing property when they are homeless are the Stored Property Ordinance ("SPO"), Revised Ordinances of Honolulu ("ROH") S 29-L9.I et seq., and the Sidewalk Nuisance Ordinance ("SNO"), ROH S 29-16.1 et seq.

33. The SPO provides that once the City issues notice to the owners of property that is "stored" on public property, the owner has twenty-four hours to remove the property, or it will be impounded. ROH SS 29-19.3- L9.4. This impoundment occurs whether the property has been abandoned or not. Other than perishable goods, the City is required to impound all property and store it for no less than 30 days before destroying it. ROH S 19-19.5.

34. The SPO contains an additional clause that is particularly devastating for the homeless: "moving the personal property to another location on public property shall not be considered to be removing the personal property from public property[.]" ROH 929-19.3(b). In other words, an individual who receives an SPO notice must find some private location to store her/his belongings; merely moving the belongings to another sidewalk or park will result in the property's impoundment.

35. Therefore, even if a homeless person were to reclaim his or her property from the City before its destruction, the property would be again subject to impoundment and destruction as soon as it is placed on public property, making retrieval from impound futile

36. The SNO is even more antagonistic toward the homeless. Under the SNO, the City may seize property at any time without any notice whatsoever if it is on or hanging over any sidewalk. ROH SS 29- 16.2- 16.3. As the Ordinance itself states, the property of homeless persons "shall be subject to summary removal." ROH g 29-16.3(a). The SNO, like the SPO, requires the City to hold the property for a minimum of 30 days before destroying it. ROH S 29-16.3(b). The SNO, like the SPO, allows for the immediate destruction of some items (such as perishable food items).

37. The SNO and SPO are particularly offensive to Plaintiffs' constitutionally protected property rights when considering their joint effect. Plaintiffs often have no feasible place to store their property other than the sidewalk when they are homeless, but even if they were to remove it to other public property, it would violate the SPO and still be subject to impoundment. As described above, Plaintiffs often do not have the ability to access shelters or the means to find permanent or temporary housing. And even if they did, it would not save them from the harsh effects of the SPO and SNO if they were to find themselves homeless again, which often occurs. Whenever they have to store their property on the sidewalk, it can be confiscated under the SNO. Unless they can find shelter with 24 hours, which is most times a virtual impossibility, their property will be subject to seizure under the SPO; if they have previously received an SPO notice, the City can seize the property immediately.

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

No. Nothing is mandatory and no constitutional rights would be infringed. However, it would be against the law to "camp" in Denver, which it already is.

Save the taking clause issues that Honolulu is facing, which I highlight above.

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

However, if they don't have any other options, the city is making emergency temporary housing available at no cost to them. It would not be luxurious by any means, but at least it would be safe, secure, and accessible. It would meet a moral obligation to provide that emergency option for people, but does so without being overly burdensome on taxpayers .. It would be much more financially feasible and putting in $24 million homeless shelters that have 60 apartment grade rooms, for example. This would simply provide the city a valuable resource to meet an emergency need, when people simply have no other option.

I'm not even sure the tiny houses you mentioned, and which LA is taking down, would even be habitable in the winter; they didn't appear to have any insulation. Not to mention that LA was citing that their tiny houses are not being maintained to a level suitable for the public, a point you also gloss over.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

No. Nothing is mandatory and no constitutional rights would be infringed. However, it would be against the law to "camp" in Denver, which it already is.

Seventwenty, you know what would be an interesting case? Second amendment rights of homeless people. You're not required to have ID. And it's not unconstitutional to be poor and homeless. So if a homeless individual (who's not camping) is carrying a handgun on his person without a CCP, and he was arrested - basically for not having anywhere better to leave his gun - would that be an infringement of that person's Second Amendment rights to own a firearm? I would love to litigate that. I kind of want to arm Denver's homeless to set up that test case.

[seventwenty]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Seventwenty, you know what would be an interesting case? Second amendment rights of homeless people. You're not required to have ID. And it's not unconstitutional to be poor and homeless. So if a homeless individual (who's not camping) is carrying a handgun on his person without a CCP, and he was arrested - basically for not having anywhere better to leave his gun - would that be an infringement of that person's Second Amendment rights to own a firearm? I would love to litigate that. I kind of want to arm Denver's homeless to set up that test case.

We need titles. Do you prefer Warlord Bunt or Lord of War Bunt?

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by seventwenty

I'm not even sure the tiny houses you mentioned, and which LA is taking down, would even be habitable in the winter; they didn't appear to have any insulation. Not to mention that LA was citing that their tiny houses are not being maintained to a level suitable for the public, a point you also gloss over.

Yeah - there is obviously a lot of things I'm glossing over with regard to something as complex as providing "emergency shelter" for people who need it. So, if tiny houses, or whatever appropriate shelter, needs to be winterized to be habitable in the winter; then they should be built with more insulation. The point is; anything is better than being exposed to the elements for so many people facing homelessness every night. But I find it frustrating that the city can't come up with a plan to have inexpensive, temporary shelters in place that are for use in overflow or emergency situations. Isn't there a way to bypass building codes to reduce the fixed costs on temporary structures? You don't need to meet plumbing codes when you put up portable toilets, for example. Extend that concept to finding shelter for the evening.

The alternative is to increase the supply and build more developments at market rate pricing in order to meet the rising demand for housing. If we could afford to build thousands of new buildings to house people who have no money - then we're truly a great society.

However, I don't see that happening. And as a result; people are left out in the open every night. So at the very least; I propose to give them somewhere to go that is financially possible.

I'm just throwing ideas out there, but I'm always interested to hear other people's alternatives.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

I'm always interested to hear other people's alternatives.

#killtherich Been seeing that on facebook a lot lately. Rather like it.

Realistically, in this city, it is unfixable. Do the best you can, help those closest to you, exploit those you can. It's every man for himself. They should move someplace easier to live.

[lumos]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

#killtherich Been seeing that on facebook a lot lately. Rather like it.

What a deeply saddening sentiment. I fled England on the last flight out during the calamitous Brexit vote on Thursday to come to my adopted home and find that bunt_q wants to kill the rich. I have found bunt_q to be intelligent and well informed but I am baffled why he would wish to portray the Land of the Free, the land that was reputed to celebrate success and not be embarrassed by it, as one wishing to take a leaf out of Robert Mugabe's book.

Is this really the mood of the people? At least explain how killing the rich will help the poor. How much should we be allowed to earn in Buntland? And each week, when we have reached that amount what do we do then; perhaps sit in 1 16th St gutter and shout a passers by.

I would hazard a guess that there are people begging on Speer today who would consider Bunt_q as rich as kings. It would be ironic if he were to be rounded up and led to the gallows hastily erected in the Lexus lane along with the rest of the rich.

Anyway, anyone see any designs for the Donald wall. I am hoping for soft red brick.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by lumos

I would hazard a guess that there are people begging on Speer today who would consider Bunt_q as rich as kings. It would be ironic if he were to be rounded up and led to the gallows hastily erected in the Lexus lane along with the rest of the rich.

Oh, Bunt would be leading the Council of Judgement that is rendering the sentences on the guilty. No way his head ends up on the chopping block.

The poor wouldn't be rendering judgement, rather they'd be employed as the massed instrument of change by a new elite that would quickly put them back into the gutter once the revolution had been achieved.

[FunctionForm]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Oh, Bunt would be leading the Council of Judgement that is rendering the sentences on the guilty. No way his head ends up on the chopping block.

The poor wouldn't be rendering judgement, rather they'd be employed as the massed instrument of change by a new elite that would quickly put them back into the gutter once the revolution had been achieved.

Well, hmmmm, I know... did you hear about all the great stuff happening in Denver right now?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by FunctionForm

Well, hmmmm, I know... did you hear about all the great stuff happening in Denver right now?

The rich are getting richer to the detriment of the poor Millenials are paying asinine rents for a taste of urban life? Or the latest craptacular bike lane that's going in that does nothing for the transit woes in Denver? Yeah. So great.

Man, talk about (me) being in a pissy mood tonight .

[TakeFive]

Award for best "in a nutshell" summary.

Originally Posted by corey

I agree that the homeless and transients are completely different groups and shouldn't be confused with one another. Every time I go to Pearl Street Mall in Boulder there are always some aggressive panhandling young transients hitting you up for money, and often giving you shit when you refuse. People half my age that could easily be working and not be societal parasites. I guess it's gotten worse since the legalization of marijuana. They can really taint my otherwise enjoyable experience of hanging out on the mall for the day. ... Homeless people, especially elderly or mentally ill, have my compassion and support.

Originally Posted by COtoOC

... I took my kids down to the 16th St. Mall last Friday and saw a few of them here and there, but no one bothered us. The only people I talked to were friendly people waiting for the shuttle and an old couple that wished me a happy Father's Day. I did give a buck to some dude playing the saxophone. I don't mind those people (if they have talent) since at least they're trying to earn the $$.

So the issues or problem can vary depending on circumstances and likely the perception of one's sensitivity. Time of day, time of year etc can factor in. BTW, someone playing the saxophone (or similar) actually adds an interesting flavor to the mall.

Being more of a big picture guy let's take a different look at things.

Is this more of a Red State vs Blue State problem?
Seriously though where is this MORE of a problem as opposed to LESS of a problem? Part of the answer I suppose is presence of urban density but that falls short of understanding the differences or suggesting a solution.

Create a bigger artificial pond and you'll attract more fleas
While Denver is approaching 700,000 population, Phoenix is approaching 1,600,000 in population. Leaving accurate specifics aside, I'll guess that Phoenix has roughly twice the level of poverty (per capita) yet half the "vagrancy" problem of Denver. Denver has dutifully spent millions upon millions for "transitional" housing and other services. Phoenix? Very little that I'm aware of.

Of course Phoenix has a big city homeless problem, panhandlers on street corners or intersections with signs. They also have a shiny new big Salvation Army facility due to a generous donation of millions. There's no shortage of food banks and outreach groups (AFAIK) which I believe are privately funded. Of course Phoenix takes advantage of HUD housing grants to do those sorts of things.

The most basic of issues boils down to tolerance, some liberal notion of obligation and priorities. Make the city overly homeless friendly and the homeless will come. Allow more aggressive panhandling and the news will spread. Some have thicker skin than others. Does Denver want the 16th Street Mall to be welcoming and comfortable for all or just for the more hardened visitor and citizen?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by RyanD

So I finally did another tower crane census and there was so much crane action going on. It was pretty sexy.

Here are a few examples of the 23 TOWER CRANES that are flying high, or getting taken down, around Central Denver:

Summer 2016: Central Denver Tower Crane Census

That’s a lot of tower cranes and about the peak number we are going to see this year. Our previous census, back in 2013, featured ten tower cranes with around three up in Cherry Creek at the time. 2016 has significantly more construction activity as the boom keeps on rolling!

Man, I love it when you crane me.

BTW, I wasn't sure if your link was about your wife or some porn site but it's obviously a nice clean shot.

So over twice as many cranes as in 2013. That's awesome progress.

So as not to get too carried away with ourselves, I read over the weekend about Seattle's boom where there's 65 buildings under construction downtown according to The Seattle Times. They didn't mention the number of cranes however.

Originally Posted by RyanD

I had to take some photos of 1401 Lawrence last night. It's a sleek building!


1401 Lawrence-02 by Ryan Dravitz, on Flickr

Yes, she's definitely a dandy.

[EngiNerd]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Man, I love it when you crane me.

BTW, I wasn't sure if your link was about your wife or some porn site but it's obviously a nice clean shot.

So over twice as many cranes as in 2013. That's awesome progress.

So as not to get too carried away with ourselves, I read over the weekend about Seattle's boom where there's 65 buildings under construction downtown according to The Seattle Times. They didn't mention the number of cranes however.


Yes, she's definitely a dandy.

I was up in Seattle a couple weeks ago, and it's insane how much construction is going on there....with a lot of it being Amazon related.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

I was up in Seattle a couple weeks ago, and it's insane how much construction is going on there....with a lot of it being Amazon related.

Trying to accumulate as much as Two Million SF downtown will move the needle. Of course it's more than just Amazon as well.

I've said before that Denver hasn't the luxury of having the Bell Cows like some other places and many of Denver's more prominent companies are based in the suburbs.

Just the same, Denver is doing great, moving nicely in the right direction and is a really nice place to live aside from the affordability which may just improve.

[mhays]

2,000,000? More than that is UC now. Amazon is going to shoot past 10,000,000 sf in this decade for its HQ. That's room for 70,000 people by their multipliers. They also say 20% of their HQ staff walks to work, which relates to a lot of the residential volume.

[TakeFive]

Stormy Monday Blues

Why they build all those new hotels?
The people, it's for the people; they just keep coming and coming.

"Denver attracts record 16.4 million visitors in 2015"
Jun 15, 2016 by Ed Sealover - Denver Business Journal

Visitors to Denver in 2015 came from farther away, stayed longer, spent more and showed up in greater numbers — 16.4 million, to be exact — than ever before, according to a study released Wednesday by Visit Denver, the area’s convention and visitors bureau.

Those visitors spent $5 billion in the local economy, a 9 percent boost from 2014. Lodging accounted for the greatest portion of that spending (30 percent), followed closely by transportation (29 percent) and eating/drinking (20 percent).

Tourism is up around the country is it not? How does Denver compare.

the fact that Denver’s visits are growing at three times the national rate of 2 percent shows that the city is making very good investments in targeting out-of-state markets and has put itself on the rise in terms of national destinations, said Amir Eylon, Longwoods president.

Can I assume that everyone took a moment of silence to acknowledge the passing of a torch?


Photo credit: Panoramio

"Historic Poet's Row apartment portfolio in Denver sells for $33.5 million"
Jun 22, 2016 by Molly Armbrister - Denver Business Journal


Lastly, good video included:
"Violent confrontation on 16th Street Mall caught on video"
JUNE 21, 2016, BY KENT ERDAHL - FOX 31 Denver