DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

https://gazette.com/denver-gazette/s...fc1a1.amp.html

Pretty spot-on op-Ed from councilman Flynn on how half baked the sidewalk fee proposal is.

I researched my property and being on a corner, I have 140 linear feet of sidewalk, which looks like it comes out to about $500 per year for us. The sidewalk is currently 17 years old and like new.

I looked up total replacement for it and it looks like maybe $9K to replace all of my 140 feet of sidewalk. So under this proposal, I'd be paying to replace my entire sidewalk every 18 years. I'd much prefer to just fix any part that becomes unusable as that occurs.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by UrbanT

Denver gazette is trash. I voted yes. It’s not perfect but we will never get sidewalks if we keep waiting for perfect. We need sidewalks.

Have folks never been to old Europe and experienced just how poor accessibility on many levels (in addition to sidewalks) is there for the majority of Europeans? All of the large European city centers and the smaller but dense towns strewn throughout have generally terrible sidewalks or none at all. Europe is big on shared infrastructure (ie road is the sidewalk) because they just don't have the space we do. There are spots of the big European city centers that offer amazing accessibility, but the vast majority of that continent has poor accessibility and somehow manages to out-live and out-smart us Americans. That said, their public transportation blows us out of the water. Are we missing something here?

I am all for sidewalks - we are a rich country and government on it's own should be able to provide this stuff for how much money they take in. That said, this conversation is one of luxury relative to much of the rest of the world.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I researched my property and being on a corner, I have 140 linear feet of sidewalk, which looks like it comes out to about $500 per year for us. The sidewalk is currently 17 years old and like new.

I looked up total replacement for it and it looks like maybe $9K to replace all of my 140 feet of sidewalk. So under this proposal, I'd be paying to replace my entire sidewalk every 18 years. I'd much prefer to just fix any part that becomes unusable as that occurs.

Looked up where? That is even less than the proponents' assumed replacement cost that has been heavily criticized by Councilman Flynn and others.

At DOTI's average replacement cost, you'd pay $53,000 for that job. You'd probably pay $40-50k if they did it for you (which under current law, they could order without your permission).

Sounds like you agree with the proponents that sidewalks could be replaced better and cheaper. You just didn't know it.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Looked up where? That is even less than the proponents' assumed replacement cost that has been heavily criticized by Councilman Flynn and others.

At DOTI's average replacement cost, you'd pay $53,000 for that job. You'd probably pay $40-50k if they did it for you (which under current law, they could order without your permission).

Sounds like you agree with the proponents that sidewalks could be replaced better and cheaper. You just didn't know it.

What happens if/when the program ends up costing 4x the proponents estimate? Do our taxes go up 4x, or we just wait 4x as long for the city to replace the sidewalks?

Everyone agrees that sidewalks can and should be dealt with better and cheaper in this city - but that doesn't mean you should support this fee structure. Opponents, like Mayor Webb think it should actually reflect a user fee, not a provider fee as Flynn alludes to in the op-ed.

And I still can't get over the fact a bunch of progressive white people behind this thought the best way to make it equitable was to give a tax break to other progressive white people who are moving into gentrifying neighborhoods

[TakeFive]

Social Equity and Justice; Where the Sidewalk Ends

I have developed very different thoughts about these concepts than those who are much smarter, or at least better educated than I am. I did think Keven Flynn did a nice job of poking holes in how this was handled for sidewalks.

I spend plenty of time 'driving' east of the '51' freeway in Phoenix and in Scottsdale. For variety I like to spend a few hours a day, a couple of times a week 'working' the West Side.

Lots of immigrants in Phoenix and I recently had a string of Asians from China, from So Korea and even Taiwan. Regardless of where in the world we come from people are quite intuitive. It's obvious I'm an elder white guy but riders quickly pick up that I'm friendly and without prejudice. That opens the door to a few minutes of feedback.

Immigrants are of course concerned about the cost of housing. They also are concerned about the rising costs of groceries. Uber/Lyft obviously provide access to wherever they want to shop for groceries. One thing they all have in common is that the safety and welfare of their children are of utmost importance. They may live in crummy houses or modest apartments but I've never heard anyone complain about the crummy sidewalks.

One thing I've found curious is that educated liberal elites are convinced they know what's best for 'the poors' - what they should want and not want. I question their 'street' wisdom.

Being NOT a hard right conservative, one thing I fear about the results of tomorrow's elections (maybe not in Colorado/Denver) is that Republicans will increase their support from minority voters; whether deserved or not is a different question.

Wherever the Sidewalk Ends after tomorrow's vote will be fine with me.

[CONative]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I researched my property and being on a corner, I have 140 linear feet of sidewalk, which looks like it comes out to about $500 per year for us. The sidewalk is currently 17 years old and like new.

I looked up total replacement for it and it looks like maybe $9K to replace all of my 140 feet of sidewalk. So under this proposal, I'd be paying to replace my entire sidewalk every 18 years. I'd much prefer to just fix any part that becomes unusable as that occurs.

As I do, you live in Central Park and your extra mill levies and property taxes (which are considerably higher than a house in Denver that isn't part of a metro district) have been paying for the infrastructure that includes your sidewalk and the sidewalks of Central Park for years (and years to come). You will continue paying for that ON TOP of putting into the general pot for you and everyone else if the proposal passes. Just another 'unfair' portion of the proposal for thousands of homeowners.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by CONative

As I do, you live in Central Park and your extra mill levies and property taxes (which are considerably higher than a house in Denver that isn't part of a metro district) have been paying for the infrastructure that includes your sidewalk and the sidewalks of Central Park for years (and years to come). You will continue paying for that ON TOP of putting into the general pot for you and everyone else if the proposal passes. Just another 'unfair' portion of the proposal for thousands of homeowners.

Unfair if you don’t think sidewalks are a common good. I think the proposal is fair in the long-term, but there’s certainly a lot neighborhoods, well at least Central Park, that did pay their infrastructure that get screwed.

I have a short sidewalk frontage so if it passes the impact on me is minimal. Ultimately I’m ambivalent.

[bunt_q]

Metro districts and HOAs rarely if ever pay for sidewalk replacements. Central Park is still paying for the original construction - but that's no different from any other new development that has to repay its capital costs while also paying for citywide ongoing maintenance. That's fairly rare in Denver but totally common elsewhere - it's the price of new development. I would be shocked if the metro districts has any intention of doing long term sidewalk maintenance. That would be pretty unique in Colorado.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Unfair if you don’t think sidewalks are a common good. I think the proposal is fair in the long-term.

If its a common good then everyone should pay a (relatively) fair share, no?

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

If its a common good then everyone should pay a (relatively) fair share, no?

I buy into the argument that the linear feet of sidewalk fronting a property is analogous to the storm water fee. But I can see how someone on a corner lot would be pissed with the proposal.

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I buy into the argument that the linear feet of sidewalk fronting a property is analogous to the storm water fee. But I can see how someone on a corner lot would be pissed with the proposal.

Curious how you see the analogy. The less impervious land on your property the more you are putting pressure on the storm water system. It is a user fee - your use is directly linked to your fee.

The sidewalk fee has absolutely nothing to do with use - calling it a ‘user fee’ is patently fraudulent. It is a cheap way to get a proposal approved by voters by pushing the costs onto the fewest possible while promising fantasy returns for the investment given. As we have already gone through, it is not linked to the cost of replacement, nor the existing liability for each property owner — it just uses a poorly thought out proxy to estimate each. The proponents admit as much by essentially saying ‘city council should fix our half baked proposal’ when it passes. That’s not how good policy is made.

Ultimately this is a proposal for corner lot owners to build out the missing sidewalk infrastructure in neighborhoods while the rest of our sidewalks will undoubtedly fall into worse disrepair in the next decade

But seriously, what happens if/when the build out costs 4x the amount suggested by the proponents?

[bunt_q]

How is it “not linked to the cost of replacement, nor the existing liability for each property owner”? The fee is directly proportionate to the square footage of concrete in front of a house. You can agree or disagree with the proposal, but you’re factual wrong in saying the fee isn’t linked to a property’s liability today.

To answer your question, if it comes in 4x more expensive, then it’ll take longer to finish. Like every other major project that experiences cost overruns.

Bet it would still get done before rail to Boulder.

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Have folks never been to old Europe and experienced just how poor accessibility on many levels (in addition to sidewalks) is there for the majority of Europeans? All of the large European city centers and the smaller but dense towns strewn throughout have generally terrible sidewalks or none at all. Europe is big on shared infrastructure (ie road is the sidewalk) because they just don't have the space we do. There are spots of the big European city centers that offer amazing accessibility, but the vast majority of that continent has poor accessibility and somehow manages to out-live and out-smart us Americans. That said, their public transportation blows us out of the water. Are we missing something here?

I am all for sidewalks - we are a rich country and government on it's own should be able to provide this stuff for how much money they take in. That said, this conversation is one of luxury relative to much of the rest of the world.

I agree that this used to be somewhat true - a lot of European city centers were cobblestones that maaaybe had little slivers of concrete on the side for people to walk. Cars and scooters were everywhere and even though the cities were pedestrian-friendly they were still centered around the car because, like you said, the streets were narrow and people still wanted to be able to drive to wherever they needed. But it has changed a LOT in the last 10 years and especially over the last 3-5.

I was in Bavaria and Tyrol with my family over the spring and almost every town and city had moved to a pedestrian-first and commuter-first model. I hadn't been back to Munich and Salzburg in a decade and both had closed off their Altstadts to traffic and created large pedestrian-only areas that used to be busy streets.

Every city we went to had narrowed large boulevards, added more pedestrian crossings, removed lanes for bike lanes, and most importantly built civic infrastructure like parking garages to make access to these areas easier. They all had automatic bollards to allow deliveries and locals to access the inner streets, and so many more ramps, lifts, and bypasses for accessibility.

And it wasn't just the big city centers and tourist traps - we re-visited a few suburbs and small towns for first time in 30+ years and they had been transformed too, with sidewalks and bike lanes added and streets narrowed or slowed. This was true even in Italy, which is not even close to the US in terms of GDP and is not traditionally known for the quality of their infrastructure.

At the same time the highways were surprisingly well-maintained considering the weather in the Alps... And new interchanges and bypasses were being built to shuttle people in and around the dense (and now even slower-moving) city centers. It's not like the Germans are just giving up their cars or not driving, and they seem to be able to manage the idea of balancing driving and living in a city better than we are. Or at least they haven't descended into a death cycle of favoring the needs of ever-larger trucks with ever-brighter lights over anything else.


I came back from that trip depressed to be honest. You could see the civic investment in action throughout Europe and the commitment to building infrastructure. Coming back to the US and to Denver it felt like returning to a third-world country. We've spent the last 40 years dismantling the social state and refusing to pay taxes and now it's really starting to show itself. We are debating whether it's worth paying for sidewalks, transit, and services while everything crumbles around us. And the crumbing is only getting worse and the resistance to paying greater.

[coolmandan03]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Looked up where? That is even less than the proponents' assumed replacement cost that has been heavily criticized by Councilman Flynn and others.

At DOTI's average replacement cost, you'd pay $53,000 for that job. You'd probably pay $40-50k if they did it for you (which under current law, they could order without your permission).

I live on a corner lot. I already paid $2800 to fix about 8% of my side walks back int he original sidewalk plan in 2018 (my neighborhood was first). Now I have to pay to replace 100% my sidewalks every 18 years even though they'll never be touch again? How is that a cheaper alternative that leaving my sidewalks alone or fix them as they go?

It's like you're suggesting "don't pay for the maintenance on tires every 2 years... just buy a new car every 5! it's cheaper!!"

[Robert.hampton]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

How is it “not linked to the cost of replacement, nor the existing liability for each property owner”? The fee is directly proportionate to the square footage of concrete in front of a house. You can agree or disagree with the proposal, but you’re factual wrong in saying the fee isn’t linked to a property’s liability today.

Its not linked to the cost of replacement because many sidewalks don't need to be replaced, and won't need to in the next 30-40 years. The financial liability for a home with new sidewalks is essentially zero for the lifetime of that owner. And the replacement cost for a home with no sidewalk is exponentially higher than those that have already been installed and need 1-2 slabs replaced. So again - big disconnect with fee structure and actual costs.

Where does the money for someone with no replacement needs go? To build sidewalks across town in a neighborhood that doesn't have them. Its a redistribution of funds from some neighborhoods to others, but not related to the costs that property owner is facing.

Another example of where there is a complete disconnect between the fee structure and replacement costs: The fee structure forces those on 'residential arterials' to pay 70% more than 'local' or 'collector' sidewalks, despite the fact Denver's Complete Street Guidelines indicate the preferred width for residential arterials is 6 feet - the same as 'local' and 'collector' sidewalks. So why are they taxed 70% more, despite having the same amount of concrete as local collectors? Or is this one of the areas where the proponents wrote a half baked proposal '...that city council should fix because we didn't have time to put thought into it and accidentally overcharged some by 70% TEE HEE OPSSSSS! :') '

[CONative]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

I agree that this used to be somewhat true - a lot of European city centers were cobblestones that maaaybe had little slivers of concrete on the side for people to walk. Cars and scooters were everywhere and even though the cities were pedestrian-friendly they were still centered around the car because, like you said, the streets were narrow and people still wanted to be able to drive to wherever they needed. But it has changed a LOT in the last 10 years and especially over the last 3-5.

I was in Bavaria and Tyrol with my family over the spring and almost every town and city had moved to a pedestrian-first and commuter-first model. I hadn't been back to Munich and Salzburg in a decade and both had closed off their Altstadts to traffic and created large pedestrian-only areas that used to be busy streets.

Every city we went to had narrowed large boulevards, added more pedestrian crossings, removed lanes for bike lanes, and most importantly built civic infrastructure like parking garages to make access to these areas easier. They all had automatic bollards to allow deliveries and locals to access the inner streets, and so many more ramps, lifts, and bypasses for accessibility.

And it wasn't just the big city centers and tourist traps - we re-visited a few suburbs and small towns for first time in 30+ years and they had been transformed too, with sidewalks and bike lanes added and streets narrowed or slowed. This was true even in Italy, which is not even close to the US in terms of GDP and is not traditionally known for the quality of their infrastructure.

At the same time the highways were surprisingly well-maintained considering the weather in the Alps... And new interchanges and bypasses were being built to shuttle people in and around the dense (and now even slower-moving) city centers. It's not like the Germans are just giving up their cars or not driving, and they seem to be able to manage the idea of balancing driving and living in a city better than we are. Or at least they haven't descended into a death cycle of favoring the needs of ever-larger trucks with ever-brighter lights over anything else.


I came back from that trip depressed to be honest. You could see the civic investment in action throughout Europe and the commitment to building infrastructure. Coming back to the US and to Denver it felt like returning to a third-world country. We've spent the last 40 years dismantling the social state and refusing to pay taxes and now it's really starting to show itself. We are debating whether it's worth paying for sidewalks, transit, and services while everything crumbles around us. And the crumbing is only getting worse and the resistance to paying greater.

This is WAY dramatic -- and frankly, wrong. I have been to Europe (mostly western European countries) many times in the past 5 years... and spend time in the real neighborhoods of several cities for work (not the tourist areas), and I can tell you that European cities have dilapitaded areas just like we do. They have infrastructure that is "crumbling" just like we do. They also have nice fresh highways and infrastructure -- just like we do.

[Denver]

Construction permits were just issued for 255 22nd St. in Uptown. Opus is the developer. It is 12 stories with 270 Units with retail fronting 20th st. Unfortunately the design appears to be significantly VE'ed from the original design proposed for the site.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

...Every city we went to had narrowed large boulevards, added more pedestrian crossings, removed lanes for bike lanes, and most importantly built civic infrastructure like parking garages to make access to these areas easier. They all had automatic bollards to allow deliveries and locals to access the inner streets, and so many more ramps, lifts, and bypasses for accessibility....

...Or at least they haven't descended into a death cycle of favoring the needs of ever-larger trucks with ever-brighter lights over anything else.


I came back from that trip depressed to be honest. You could see the civic investment in action throughout Europe and the commitment to building infrastructure. Coming back to the US and to Denver it felt like returning to a third-world country. We've spent the last 40 years dismantling the social state and refusing to pay taxes and now it's really starting to show itself. We are debating whether it's worth paying for sidewalks, transit, and services while everything crumbles around us. And the crumbing is only getting worse and the resistance to paying greater.

Europeans have gone from being stuck in the entitlement state 20 years ago to now solving problems - actually making government work - and it's showing. I think we are about 20 years behind them in that regard with respect to political will. We don't HAVE to solve these problems yet, but we will soon NEED to. That said, while their infrastructure may be improving, ours is still vastly more accessible - think sidewalks, building entry, vertical building transportation, etc.

Not sure why you think we've dismantled the social state - it's actually bigger, more complex, and better funded at this moment today than it ever has been in the past. We have more dollars, more people, and more legislation than ever before and I would argue it's providing less and less as it grows because of point #1 above regarding political will. Diminishing returns.

Case Study 1: In a 20' Right of Way (errrr, 2,000 year old roman wagon road) in a Euro-village they can accommodate pedestrians, bicycles, scooters, cars, trucks, small buses, fire trucks, and ambulances. We need a minimum of 60' to accommodate all of that, at the very least.

Case Study 2: In a 60' Right of Way (boulevard) in a Euro-city they fit pedestrians, bicycles, scooters, cars, delivery trucks, transport trucks, fire trucks, ambulances, small buses, large buses, and a train WITH manicured beautiful tree lined park spaces separating directions. In that same amount of space, we require 11' travel lanes (2 in each direction and room for turning lanes) which leaves us with 16' for everything else - tree lawn, sidewalks, bike lanes, etc. The Euro-equivalent basically has 32' of roads (which can accommodate trains and buses) and the other 28' is dedicated to peds, bikes, sidewalks, open spaces/trees, etc.

The simple fact is that this country prioritizes industry over people - that has advantages ie resilient economy, lower cost of business, etc but it comes at the expense of our quality of life as it pertains to the built environment. People are waking up to the reality that living in a function, beautiful place has tangible benefits - DOTI not included.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

...Where does the money for someone with no replacement needs go? To build sidewalks across town in a neighborhood that doesn't have them. Its a redistribution of funds from some neighborhoods to others, but not related to the costs that property owner is facing...

It's a simple progressive tax, that's all. It will take from those who have and give to those who don't for the benefit of the poorest amongst us - ie folks who HAVE to take public transport, or HAVE to walk to the grocery store, or HAVE to catch Access-a-Ride.

Looks like it narrowly passed...sidewalks, or at least money for them, here they come...

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by CONative

This is WAY dramatic -- and frankly, wrong. I have been to Europe (mostly western European countries) many times in the past 5 years... and spend time in the real neighborhoods of several cities for work (not the tourist areas), and I can tell you that European cities have dilapitaded areas just like we do. They have infrastructure that is "crumbling" just like we do. They also have nice fresh highways and infrastructure -- just like we do.

Sure, it's not a perfect wonderland - Paris is a little like New York in the 90s, most industrial cities in France and northwestern Europe are dirty and covered in graffiti (in fact, every European city is covered in graffiti), Northern Italy outside of Milan, southern Spain, and most of Portugal have a ton of rotting industrial... It's even more pronounced when you go east - even amazing places like Prague and Lviv have huge swaths of old Soviet bloc housing and factories that are slowly rotting in place.

BUT all these places are still re-investing in their infrastructure and pouring money into transit and pedestrian experiences. Paris keeps closing off more of the city to cars and improving bike and pedestrian infrastructure... And unlike NY in the 90s or now, the trains and subway stations have been maintained. Even the ones covered in graffiti or full of gabber-listening tweakers aren't as ramshackle as ones in NY that sit under billion-dollar properties. There are new high-speed train lines in Southern Spain and cities are adding bike lanes, despite endless cycles of strikes and economic hardship and being surrounded by abandoned towns and rapid desertification. And even the bleakest industrial towns continue to expand and improve their train systems. Hell, unless you're talking the small, way-off-the-beaten-path towns, every town over 10k people has at least semi-decent train service.

Once again, we're fighting tooth and nail over money for sidewalks while the "dilapidated" cities of Europe are investing in their cities. We are never going to build trains to Boulder, or Fort Collins, or Colorado Springs in the current fiscal climate and BRT down one arterial has taken forever and was a battle and I can guarantee the next one will be even harder to approve.

And I agree with Laniroj - the issue here is one of political will, and not the specifics of what one European city or Asian city or African city or American city is doing or not doing. We have so many opportunities and abilities here and we don't have the leadership in Denver to have anything figured out. 30+ year timelines or a high cost to certain individuals are failures of civic leadership and planning. Once upon a time this city built DIA despite a lot of pushback and ugly media coverage, but 30 years later figuring out the most basic infrastructure is nigh-impossible because no one in power is advocating for it effectively or fighting for workable solutions and therefore paying for it has become a nightmare of competing concerns.

If we want to plan for a bright future for Denver, we have to start comparing ourselves to places much better and not just saying "Not everywhere in Europe is better" or "We're doing so much better than Omaha, or Gary, or Mogadishu". We have to be able to convince people that future improvements are actually good, that quality of life improvements are worth small inconveniences, and that sometimes paying a little more in taxes can make the place better overall if it helps maintain the city. We should be looking at places that are much nicer and saying "we want that" and planning on how to build it. But we have local, state, and national civic leadership that struggles with paying for anything outside of public safety.