DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[The Dirt]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

An Aussie friend of mine told me that in Sydney, the gov't just builds homeless camps outside the city and ships them there where they have some sort of services. At least it gets them off the streets.

Seriously, I've been thinking about this. Why can't Denver buy a farm in Adams county? We could provide shuttles for work, relocate all of the support services there and add security so that drug dealers can't target the homeless.

[Agent Orange]

Denver's homelessness crisis seems much more akin to West Coast cities than East Coast. I too have not seen anything remotely close to Denver/Seattle style homelessness in NY, Boston or DC in the last few years. I was in NY for a week recently and hardly saw visible homeless people, and when I did, there were no tents involved and they were doing their own thing, not seeming at all threatening/unstable the way (some of) our local homeless can at times.

I'm no expert, but I suspect the robust street drug scene and Denver's relative tolerance for drug exchange and use plays a big role. Like job markets, you might say homelessness + drug markets have agglomeration effects. I also wonder if Denver/Western US cities have higher availability of P2P meth (as opposed to ephedrine based meth) as well as fentanyl presence in street drugs, both of these substances leading to higher rates of addiction and paranoia than previous substitutes.

Originally Posted by COtoOC

An Aussie friend of mine told me that in Sydney, the gov't just builds homeless camps outside the city and ships them there where they have some sort of services. At least it gets them off the streets.

This sounds like a potential solution, but I suspect many of the homeless who are meth and/or heroin addicts would not like the isolation/feeling of being trapped in one location without easy escape. If they're in greater downtown, they have unlimited paths to move around and untold nooks and cranies they could hide out in. In a field by DIA they'd be forced to be together with other (often) violent and paranoid people with no escape, save maybe an occasional bus to the city (which they'd have to ride with the people they may be trying to flee). Also, panhandling prairie dogs is a lot less lucrative than asking for money from bewildered Nebraska tourists or the occasional office worker.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by Arapahoe

People are starting to see through the vapid virtue signaling of the lefties. Leftist surmise-- oh, I'm a good person because I tolerate filth and drug use in our public spaces, but do nothing otherwise to improve the plight of the addicted, mentally ill and unhoused. Just look at the deplorable conditions in lefty controlled cities.

I'm really curious how things will go in 2023, for our city councillors and our mayoral election. (Though party affiliation doesn't really play into municipal politics here.) I think it's too soon to say, but I wonder if we'll have any actual good non-NIMBY, forward thinking candidates arise. In 2019, all of the Hancock challengers were far more skeptical of/hostile to the desperately needed zoning/land use reforms. Hancock was the only sane choice, even though he's a bit of a schmuck, but this is his last term. I fear Penfield Tate might do better next time. Also 2019 was when we lost our most YIMBY councilors (Susman, Brooks and arguably New) in a NIMBY wave. We'll see if there's a backlash, but I don't see much energy among more moderate, pro-development folks, whereas the DSA end of the spectrum are much more riled up. Guess we'll see where things stand in 18 months.

[TakeFive]

It sounds like a conspiracy but it's really an evil plot

I am impressed by this

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

I'm no expert, but I suspect the robust street drug scene and Denver's relative tolerance for drug exchange and use plays a big role. Like job markets, you might say homelessness + drug markets have agglomeration effects. I also wonder if Denver/Western US cities have higher availability of P2P meth (as opposed to ephedrine based meth) as well as fentanyl presence in street drugs, both of these substances leading to higher rates of addiction and paranoia than previous substitutes.

Last night after the Nuggets game I decided to do a deep dive. Your P2P piece links to the more comprehensive article in The Atlantic which I found and read.

Primarily from the perspective of a retired DEA guy it is a very, very, really good read. But yes, b/c it's in The Atlantic is is also very long. But I was able to 'cruise' through it and it will scare the bejesus out of you.

The plot is how the Cartel Crowd has honed the chemistry for all addictive drugs and Meth, in particular, virtually captures and destroys the human brain rendering addicts powerless.

More to say but not the time ATM.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Unless something else significant happens, I think the 2023 elections will probably look like NYC and Seattle where public safety perhaps played more of a role than one would've thought. I don't think the D'Baca and Calderon types will win against more moderate candidates.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...It's like the City has few rights in protecting itself, its public places from "lawlessness." Dare I say: "Give me the good old days when men were men etc"...

Good idea, I've long been a fan of legalizing the good old fashioned duel.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...Primarily from the perspective of a retired DEA guy it is a very, very, really good read. But yes, b/c it's in The Atlantic is is also very long. But I was able to 'cruise' through it and it will scare the bejesus out of you.

The plot is how the Cartel Crowd has honed the chemistry for all addictive drugs and Meth, in particular, virtually captures and destroys the human brain rendering addicts powerless...

I have a former DEA agent in my family. The stories they are actually able to tell me are mind blowing and downright frightening. The stuff that happens in movies is quite literally child's play compared to what happens in real life with cartels. There is a reason people are walking from South America to North America to seek refuge, it's not an easy trip! It's too bad our news media doesn't report on this aspect of American life more thoroughly. Local news does bits here and there on gentle homelessness, but the drug epidemic in America is accelerating and intensifying in so many different ways and at astonishing rates.

Why are homelessness and drug cartels relevant to development? A top cause of homelessness is housing affordability. Once in homelessness, more than 1 in 3 become addicted to something, if they weren't before. The only proven method for getting someone off the streets and sober over the long term is through access to stable housing and simultaneous addiction treatment. Likewise, one of the strongest forms of homelessness and drug addiction prevention is access to stable and affordable housing.

Why this matters in Denver? We're heading in EXACTLY the same direction using the same strategies with the same predictable results as every other City that has major housing cost and homelessness issues. It's the definition of insanity.

https://www.denvergov.org/files/assets/p...ability/eha_proposed_policy_approach.pdf

[The Dirt]

Denver is looking into an inclusionary zoning ordinance, with pretty much the same features of every other existing IZ ordinance in the country. They want to make new multi-family developments provide affordable housing, have others pay a linkage fee, and do virtually nothing about zoning and land use. Anyone doing a single-family scrape to build a larger single-family pay a tiny linkage fee, while 80+ AMI renters have to subsidize <80 AMI renters. Meanwhile, no homes are listed below 140 AMI.

This sort of policy has had exactly the opposite of the intended effect in every case. Less new homes get build overall and less affordable homes get built as a result. It's maddening, but at least we get to pat ourselves on the back because we did "something".

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

Denver is looking into an inclusionary zoning ordinance, with pretty much the same features of every other existing IZ ordinance in the country. They want to make new multi-family developments provide affordable housing, have others pay a linkage fee, and do virtually nothing about zoning and land use. Anyone doing a single-family scrape to build a larger single-family pay a tiny linkage fee, while 80+ AMI renters have to subsidize <80 AMI renters.

This sort of policy has had exactly the opposite of the intended effect in every case. Less new homes get build overall and less affordable homes get built as a result. It's maddening, but at least we get to pat ourselves on the back because we did "something".

This is exactly what I expected to happen with the Julie Gonzales led effort earlier this year. It doesn't take a PhD in economics to see that IZ exacerbates the problem for everyone *except* the subsidized unit lottery winners. Yet that opinion expressed among housing advocates in Denver is received as foaming at the mouth lolbertarian talk.

[mhays]

I wish we had an upvote button. Linkage fees etc. are a serious problem in my city and others that have them.

You can still get a lot of construction, eventually. But it only happens if rents jump, so they can cover the new fees.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

This is exactly what I expected to happen with the Julie Gonzales led effort earlier this year. It doesn't take a PhD in economics to see that IZ exacerbates the problem for everyone *except* the subsidized unit lottery winners. Yet that opinion expressed among housing advocates in Denver is received as foaming at the mouth lolbertarian talk.

Eh. I am not sure the affordable housing problem can be solved. If housing is going to be a problem regardless, I'd love to put in place a program that I can subsequently say "you told us this would fix it, we did it, now shut up." Sound logic and economics haven't found their way into the left-on-left crime affordable housing discussion in any major U.S. city that I am aware of. I am not foolish enough to think that if nobody else can solve it, we in Denver will be able to. So I want a "now shut up" tool.

[rds70]

AMLI 8th and Broadway rendering (16 stories, 366 units):

[mhays]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Eh. I am not sure the affordable housing problem can be solved. If housing is going to be a problem regardless, I'd love to put in place a program that I can subsequently say "you told us this would fix it, we did it, now shut up." Sound logic and economics haven't found their way into the left-on-left crime affordable housing discussion in any major U.S. city that I am aware of. I am not foolish enough to think that if nobody else can solve it, we in Denver will be able to. So I want a "now shut up" tool.

True, nobody has gotten it right. But the answer exists.

At the 30-80% level, we can do several things in combination. We can upzone enough that land is affordable on a per-unit basis, reduce square footage requirements, expand tax credits, eliminate parking requirements, streamline entitlements, and avoid fees. We can build good transit to help people live well without cars. Some of these factors aren't useful everywhere, but it's a tool kit. Misslng middle zoning can help provide family-size units while avoiding elevators.

For middle-class housing, we can do some of the same things. Zoning, entitlements, etc.

At the true poverty end, we can subsidize construction, more than we've typically done. We can also allow the smallest units, all the way down to ones like college dorm rooms for single people.

[TakeFive]

Source

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Eh. I am not sure the affordable housing problem can be solved. If housing is going to be a problem regardless, I'd love to put in place a program that I can subsequently say "you told us this would fix it, we did it, now shut up." Sound logic and economics haven't found their way into the left-on-left crime affordable housing discussion in any major U.S. city that I am aware of. I am not foolish enough to think that if nobody else can solve it, we in Denver will be able to. So I want a "now shut up" tool.

I hadn't posted this b/c it's a hot mess - but if not now, then when?

Developers pause St. Paul projects after rent control vote
NOVEMBER 6, 2021 By Katie Galioto and Shannon Prather Star Tribune

Unlike most cities with rent control, St. Paul will not exempt new construction, which opponents argue will force lenders and developers to look outside the city.

Less than 24 hours after St. Paul voters approved one of the country's most stringent rent control policies, Nicolle Goodman's phone started to ring. Developers were calling to tell the city's director of planning and economic development they were placing projects on hold, putting hundreds of new housing units at risk.

Don't they want new affordable housing?

Ryan Companies warned before Election Day that the rent control ordinance could prevent them from finding investors for the 760 affordable housing units the city pledged to bring to the former Ford site.

Ryan Companies is a really big developer in Phoenix but Minneapolis is their home. With the noted affordable apartment project I'd assume Ryan was wanting to contribute their efforts towards affordability.

For many, the voter-approved rent control may work fine as landlords will be able to raise rents 4% every year. So whether good weather or bad you just raise your rents 4% every year like clockwork.

I still contend that when it comes to "designated" affordable housing, Denver continues to do a credible job especially by utilizing LIHTC program.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mhays

True, nobody has gotten it right. But the answer exists.

At the 30-80% level, we can do several things in combination. We can upzone enough that land is affordable on a per-unit basis, reduce square footage requirements, expand tax credits, eliminate parking requirements, streamline entitlements, and avoid fees. We can build good transit to help people live well without cars. Some of these factors aren't useful everywhere, but it's a tool kit. Misslng middle zoning can help provide family-size units while avoiding elevators.

For middle-class housing, we can do some of the same things. Zoning, entitlements, etc.

At the true poverty end, we can subsidize construction, more than we've typically done. We can also allow the smallest units, all the way down to ones like college dorm rooms for single people.

Oh, I know what the solution looks like on paper. I don't know what a politically achievable solution looks like in dense areas. (There's a reason why sprawl - which is another solution - has been the route taken by the only cities we have that have managed to remain affordable. Grass and cattle don't complain at public meetings.)

[DUPio]

Originally Posted by RyanD

I've lived in Union Station since 2019. It really isn't super safe at the moment. I've been threatened multiple times around my building, been followed down Chestnut, had homeless follow me inside my apartment building, dealing with 11 straight months of break-ins, hard drugs (mostly meth) being used in my hallways, stairwells, trashed areas inside and outside the building. We are moving next month and couldn't be more excited to get out of this neighborhood. We aren't super happy about moving but it's become such a background stress, it's the only right thing to do.

Your description really hits home.

I moved to the Union Station neighborhood in 2015 just across the industrial train tracks by the glasshouse. It was such an amazing place to live for several years. Easy access to the Cherry Creek trail, Platte St, LoHi, lightrail/train, LoDo and eventually even had multiple grocery stores in walking distance. Was truly something special. But slowly the homelessness started to creep up. Started to feel unsafe at dusk then slowly to the point where I felt uncomfortable with my wife walking around in the middle of the day. Drugs and needles out in the open, mentally ill homeless people yelling and acting aggressively, finding homeless people sleeping in the common hallway of our apartment (on multiple occasions and not just when freezing cold), multiple car break-ins in our underground garage etc.

We left around 2019 and it probably wasn't as bad as I'm sure it is now but you could sense it wasn't going in the right direction. When you don't feel particularly safe in a place like that and are paying a premium to live there, it's very hard to justify.

We were also very saddened to leave but it was the right thing for us to do. It still makes me sad to think about because living there before a lot of the negatives was such a cool experience that I probably won't get to replicate again in my lifetime. I hope Denver can find leadership to help steer it in the right direction as it goes through growing/urbanization pains. We're in Phoenix now but will be back in a few years. There are lots of awesome places to live both in CO and beyond, I'm sure you'll love your new digs. In the meantime I hope Denver can avoid going the same route as San Francisco.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by rds70

AMLI 8th and Broadway rendering (16 stories, 366 units):

Is this at the SW corner of 8th and Broadway (i.e. the southernmost lot in Golden Triangle)?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

For middle-class housing, we can do some of the same things. Zoning, entitlements, etc.

At the true poverty end, we can subsidize construction, more than we've typically done. We can also allow the smallest units, all the way down to ones like college dorm rooms for single people.

Denver is very different from Seattle. Downtown is nice but it's not the hot location and not nearly as dense as Seattle.

Ken/DenverInfill has been living his dream. The great majority of new development has been on the periphery where there was endless amounts of land, much of it bought when it was relatively cheap by today's standards. Touted RiNo is a vast area of acres and acres of land but there are other areas like Arapahoe Square which is attached to the CBD.

Over the last decade thousands of units have been added some in nice building and some not so nice (architecturally) but if there's one thing worth noting is the wide variety of styles and types of apartment units. X Denver is building their third project, a 22-story beauty that includes your rent a (dorm) room style of option. There has been a number of microunit buildings also developed.

The bulk of new construction of 'luxury' apartments varies as to rent levels but Denver has only a modest amount of higher end rentals. It has a good variety of 'market rate' options.

[mhays]

The same principles apply. And you can (and apparently do) avoid some of our mistakes, most notably the lengthy and demanding entitlement process and some of the millions in fees for any significant project. And land is cheaper.

[Agent Orange]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Eh. I am not sure the affordable housing problem can be solved. If housing is going to be a problem regardless, I'd love to put in place a program that I can subsequently say "you told us this would fix it, we did it, now shut up." Sound logic and economics haven't found their way into the left-on-left crime affordable housing discussion in any major U.S. city that I am aware of. I am not foolish enough to think that if nobody else can solve it, we in Denver will be able to. So I want a "now shut up" tool.

Has that worked in any other city? Has mandatory inclusionary zoning without any other land use reforms or upzoning shut anyone up? Even if it did, is less bitching on Twitter/NextDoor worth the consequences of a regressive, supply suppressing policy? More expensive housing and less of it isn't going to make Denver a better place. At least a lot of other cities that have implemented IZ have coupled it with upzoning and parking reform, etc. Still not a fan of forcing market rate buyers to subsidize "Affordable" units - but maybe with major upzoning and other reforms you can dilute IZ's distortionary effects.