Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive
For starters, are you familiar with the history, the original intent and purpose of the "small lot exemption"?
Not that it matters but how long have you lived in your current residence? Have you met many or even any people who have lived in their homes 15, 20, even 30 years? I have and they're generally wonderful souls. It may be quaint but they are the ones who typically care about their neighborhoods. Who knows how long most millennials will stay before moving to a suburb or other city?
It seems reasonable to me that a neighborhood with an historical designation have some reasonable means of oversight. Hopefully not many but some developers who intend to get in and get out could give two shits what they leave behind.
When you mention 20 NIMBY's are you referring to the spokespersons that represented the hundreds of neighbors and residents that they've heard from?
Perhaps the councilors are just representing their constituents which is presumably what they're elected to do. Erica Meltzer writing for Denverite points out that less than 1% of the city's land area is affected. She also had this sub-headline:
FWIW, I preferred the less restrive original proposal by Council President Albus Brooks but it's history now. I do believe the affordability argument (specific to small lot development) is a red herring argument.
Let the city evolve naturally as time goes along which it will do. |
I didn't mean to insinuate that any of the residents or their representatives are bad people in this instance. I just think the city would benefit greatly from getting neighborhoods and city planners on the same page regarding the benefits of the original legislation. It seems that the benefits of these small lot exemptions aren't necessarily explained to residents well, leading to the immediate reaction of lost parking and historic character. I also preferred Albus Brooks's proposal, but it is what it is now - I would have much preferred the existing limitations on parking with additions to restrict combining lots, or limiting the number of units, etc.
I just wish it was better explained all around, how this could prevent the "landscrapers" we're seeing in Uptown/Arapahoe Square by encouraging smaller scale development instead of accumulation of lots and also to encourage an environment where people might realize that with more people vying for less parking, transit is a better idea. The discussion of "we can't have this without better transit" is a fine point, but something tells me we also won't garner the push for better transit in these areas we need unless people feel the pinch of less car focused development.
It was my understanding that the objections by existing residents was the coming fight for on-street parking which I hope is something this city can put in its rear view mirror in the near future (parking being free and on street spots a right for those already living in an area) - if the objection is to historic character, I think that's warranted and we do need more review of the quality of development going into our neighborhoods.
Prev
Linear Mode
