Denver Development Etceteras Thread #5 - Page 68

Fritzdude · #**1341** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 5:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DownhomeDenver

You forgot 28th and Speer which is in asbestos abatement now.

oh.. I know - I forgot plenty. I was just finding a good round number of 20 developments for consideration, but there are definitely more out there.

I am more curious to how this current era has compared to past building booms and how it might be a precursor to things to come.

Or not..

bcp · #**1342** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 6:54 PM**

man, very well put bunt...a couple straggler thoughts:

- the apartment boom is not really a boom in the sense that it is a last-resort, gotta have something built since home-ownership rates are plummeting.

- the burbs are bleaker than ever...no where to walk, no sidewalks, too quiet is now compounded with deteriorating stock and continued foreclosures...where's the fun?

- oh i'll tell ya where it is...in the city baby! this is an unintended positive consequence i believe...if you lose your house, why not move to the city and rent? at least you have lots of fun and interesting things nearby to distract you from foreclosure misery.

^^^ yes, regarding the mod furniture store...their lease has been cancelled...a few months to go they said - and they have a new location ready for them nearby, which is great because it is a cool store.

cona · #**1343** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 7:51 PM**

I saw this late last night. The No Highrises folks have filed a lawsuit, not against the developer but the City. Besides the obvious stupidity, what does this really mean? What can they hope to gain and what is Red Peak's risk? Sorry I don't have more details, this is all I've been able to find so far.

We're Back and ready to rock! Did you think we had disappeared? No way! It's been a long time coming and we are very thankful to all of our supporters for your patience during the preparation for this legal action. It was very important to keep a low proﬁle as the case was being developed, but on April 27,
nearly a dozen residents of West Highland ﬁled suit in Denver District Court, requesting
judicial review of the ﬂawed zoning near Highland Square.

After months of preparation and consulting some of the biggest names in land use law, we are conﬁdent of the merits of our case. But fighting City Hall won’t be cheap.

Here's the link:
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=...&id=1cc1327f13

Brainpathology · #**1344** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 7:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cona

Besides the obvious stupidity, what does this really mean?

There has never been anything but obvious stupidity from these people. Everything they do, say, cite, whine about.. all it ever does is show obvious stupidity.

EngiNerd · #**1345** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 8:05 PM**

Guess they have never heard of a thing called Sovereign Immunity...

wong21fr · #**1346** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 8:12 PM**

Time to win the lotto, buy the land from Red Peak, and build a 300-bed homeless shelter and addiction center.

Brainpathology · #**1347** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 8:21 PM**

Can the city create a tax overlay district there with a majority vote of the rest of the city to recover the costs they are about to incur defending this tripe? If so how do I help write it?

bunt_q · #**1348** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 8:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Guess they have never heard of a thing called Sovereign Immunity...

That wouldn't really apply in a case like this. Whether the neighbors have standing to sue would be a legitimate question, though. But then, I'm not one of the "biggest names in land use law" who was consulted, so what do I know?

Anybody go to last night's meeting? I am curious what their case is. If they're attacking the zoning itself (rather than alleging some sort of mistake, which would be odd but maybe more winnable), it's a very high burden. The zoning ordinance obviously gets the presumption of validity, and will probably be reviewed under an "arbitrary and capricious" standard. If the city (in its legislative capacity) had any conceivable legitimate rational motive for the zoning, it should stand.

I would guess they will be alleging some sort of corrupt illegitimate upzoning that was intended to benefit the property owner... but dear lord. The process was way too long, and far too well connected to the Blueprint Denver process/goals, to take that allegation seriously. The simple fact that the Council seems inclined to stand by the zoning now - including Councilmembers who weren't on the Council at that time - sort of implies that there must have been some rational basis for the MS-5 zoning. I certainly feel it is rational.

Couldn't possibly be a regulatory takings theory... as if this zoning stands to deprive the neighbors' homes of all their value. If that's the case, they need new attorneys.

The only other challenge, I suppose, could be related to the actual enactment of the new code. If they feel it wasn't properly noticed, or conflicts in some other way with the required process... but God... that would, in theory, invalidate the entire zoning code, which seems truly laughable.

So yeah... I won't lose any sleep over this, and I doubt RedPeak will either. I'd need to see the complaint, though, to know for sure. I'm just speculating my two cents worth.

enjo13 · #**1349** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 8:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Anybody go to last night's meeting? I am curious what their case is. If they're attacking the zoning itself (rather than alleging some sort of mistake, which would be odd but maybe more winnable), it's a very high burden. The zoning ordinance obviously gets the presumption of validity, and will probably be reviewed under an "arbitrary and capricious" standard. If the city (in its legislative capacity) had any conceivable legitimate rational motive for the zoning, it should stand.

I wasn't at the meeting, but I have discussed this with essentially the ring-leader of the whole thing. I feel I should note: I think these people have crossed the river into complete and utter insanity. After seeing the renderings my position on the buildings have changed. They don't seem to be so bad. At this point ego's are so wrapped up in this that the actual development doesn't even really matter anymore.

So with that disclaimer:

They're going after the zoning process itself. Essentially they are arguing that public input was ignored (with some heavy insinuating that the developer illegally bought their desired zoning) and that the public was fraudulently cut out of the process.

The case their making is pretty localized. This won't be an argument that applies in general to the rest of the zoning process. Apparently the big change from 2-story to 5-story from the first draft to subsequent drafts was pretty unique. It just didn't really happen anywhere else.

They're spending a small fortune on this. They'll be seeking an injunction on the development as their first matter of business which their lawyers are 100% confident they'll win.

The "rationality" of the zoning isn't in question. It's the process they are attacking. Particularly the big jump from MS-2 to MS-5 that happened between drafts 1 and 2.

They definitely do not have the money to fight this right now. I think support for their cause is pretty tepid in the neighborhood. They've mistaken a few people willing to put signs in their yards for people willing to actually start spending *their* money on the cause. If I had to bet, I'd wager that this whole thing will die long before it makes it even to arbitration.

bunt_q · #**1350** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 8:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by enjo13

I wasn't at the meeting, but I have discussed this with essentially the ring-leader of the whole thing. I feel I should note: I think these people have crossed the river into complete and utter insanity. After seeing the renderings my position on the buildings have changed. They don't seem to be so bad. So with that disclaimer:

They're going after the zoning process itself. Essentially they are arguing that public input was ignored (with some heavy insinuating that the developer illegally bought their desired zoning) and that the public was fraudulently cut out of the process.

The case their making is pretty localized. This won't be an argument that applies in general to the rest of the zoning process. Apparently the big change from 2-story to 5-story from the first draft to subsequent drafts was pretty unique. It just didn't really happen anywhere else.

They're spending a small fortune on this. They'll be seeking an injunction on the development as their first matter of business which their lawyers are 100% confident they'll win.

The "rationality" of the zoning isn't in question. It's the process they are attacking. Particularly the big jump from MS-2 to MS-5 that happened between drafts 1 and 2.

Okay, but that's not how the law works...insinuating and vagueries aren't enough. Specifically on that parcel, on the jump from MS-2 to MS-5 - are they saying it was (1) a mistake, (2) borderline corruption (in legal terms, illegitimate, therefore irrational), or (3) inadequate process/notice?

Those are all very different things.

(3) scares the bajesus out of me, because it would invalidate the entire zoning ordinance, whether they want it to or not. The City Council is free to ignore public input when they act legislatively; happens all the time. But if the public process was inadequate under the law... that's different, and couldn't (even if they want it to be) be contained to just Highland.

I'd be curious to know what evidence there is to support (1) or (2). (1) seems possible. (2) seems absurd on its face.

Interesting times we live in...

glowrock · #**1351** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 9:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cona

I saw this late last night. The No Highrises folks have filed a lawsuit, not against the developer but the City. Besides the obvious stupidity, what does this really mean? What can they hope to gain and what is Red Peak's risk? Sorry I don't have more details, this is all I've been able to find so far.

We're Back and ready to rock! Did you think we had disappeared? No way! It's been a long time coming and we are very thankful to all of our supporters for your patience during the preparation for this legal action. It was very important to keep a low proﬁle as the case was being developed, but on April 27,
nearly a dozen residents of West Highland ﬁled suit in Denver District Court, requesting
judicial review of the ﬂawed zoning near Highland Square.

After months of preparation and consulting some of the biggest names in land use law, we are conﬁdent of the merits of our case. But fighting City Hall won’t be cheap.

Here's the link:
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=...&id=1cc1327f13

I hope with all my heart for a bolt of lighting to crash down onto whatever building those asshats happen to be at one of their meetings some day... They are truly the lowest form of human filth...

Call Orly Taitz, there's competition for the loony bin she was planning on residing in for the rest of her life!

Aaron (Glowrock)

bunt_q · #**1352** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 9:51 PM**

Tell us how you really feel, Aaron.

SnyderBock · #**1353** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 10:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by cona

I saw this late last night. The No Highrises folks have filed a lawsuit, not against the developer but the City. Besides the obvious stupidity, what does this really mean? What can they hope to gain and what is Red Peak's risk? Sorry I don't have more details, this is all I've been able to find so far.

We're Back and ready to rock! Did you think we had disappeared? No way! It's been a long time coming and we are very thankful to all of our supporters for your patience during the preparation for this legal action. It was very important to keep a low proﬁle as the case was being developed, but on April 27,
nearly a dozen residents of West Highland ﬁled suit in Denver District Court, requesting
judicial review of the ﬂawed zoning near Highland Square.

After months of preparation and consulting some of the biggest names in land use law, we are conﬁdent of the merits of our case. But fighting City Hall won’t be cheap.

Here's the link:
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=...&id=1cc1327f13

frivolous lawsuits, are typically thrown out right away, by the judge. I'd expect the same to occur here.

SnyderBock · #**1354** Posted: **May 11, 2012, 10:07 PM**

Could someone compile a complete list of downtown projects, including any available project details (units, floors, cost, location, expected groundbreaking/construction status, renderings, etc,...)?

If someone can compile this list, I'll copy the code and use it to update the Denver, City Compilation thread.

seventwenty · #**1355** Posted: **May 12, 2012, 12:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SnyderBock

Could someone compile a complete list of downtown projects, including any available project details (units, floors, cost, location, expected groundbreaking/construction status, renderings, etc,...)?

If someone can compile this list, I'll copy the code and use it to update the Denver, City Compilation thread.

I started a spreadsheet about this a while back, if people would like to contribute (and please contribute,many of you are damn good at finding important info):
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/...DU1R2RSaFZaUUE

glowrock · #**1356** Posted: **May 12, 2012, 1:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Tell us how you really feel, Aaron.

Any time, my friend!

Aaron (Glowrock)

DownhomeDenver · #**1357** Posted: **May 15, 2012, 3:36 AM**

Cirrus was gracious enough to change the Denver City Compilation thread. So, if we want to start posting our list of projects..let's do it.

enjo13 · #**1358** Posted: **May 15, 2012, 3:38 AM**

Crane base at Union Station. Couldn't get a picture from the bus... it's going to be red

JonnyBoy · #**1359** Posted: **May 15, 2012, 4:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by glowrock

Any time, my friend!

Aaron (Glowrock)

No, Glowrock, please don't tell us how you feel... unless of course it's about the new cranes going up in the CPV.

P.S. Chuck Norris is coming to Denver; you should come see him and test your theory on whether he'll "listen" to you or not.

bunt_q · #**1360** Posted: **May 15, 2012, 5:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonnyBoy

P.S. Chuck Norris is coming to Denver; you should come see him and test your theory on whether he'll "listen" to you or not.

Oh dear... Don't make Aaron angry. Chuck Norris wouldn't like him when he's angry.