Denver Development Etceteras Thread #5

[Fritzdude]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I think what my inner-lawyer (or undoubtedly someone else's inner-lawyer - probably the ACLU's) is going to do now is wander around downtown for a month or two, chatting up homeless folks, and start keeping an eye on who gets picked up and who doesn't. Where the city enforces the law, and where it doesn't. And at the slightest inkling of inconsistent, discriminatory, or other illegal enforcement practices, which seem almost inevitable, considering the impossibility of enforcing the law in its entirety, I am going to sue the bajesus out of the city. Why? Not because I particularly care, but rather because the city needs to be held accountable.

Granted, it won't help get more beds in the city if money that could be going to social services gets diverted to legal. But hey, the city chose to put the cart in front of the horse.

How is this any different than having ordinances in place that prohibit being in parks past 11:00 at night? It's kind of like bars that close up by saying "you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here".

I think this is a huge step to cleaning up downtown. More shelters are continually getting built and this should force action on more options as well. And it was made clear that homeless people are not going to be arrested; there is no desire to arrest people and house them in jails.

At the very least, the city should lease one of the many abandoned warehouses and buy several thousand cots at an army surplus store. It might not be luxurious, but having a secure shelter is better than sleeping in the doorstep of some business on 16th street. Pay a few night watchmen to keep order and the city can say they are at least providing an alternative for people.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

Granted, it won't help get more beds in the city if money that could be going to social services gets diverted to legal. But hey, the city chose to put the cart in front of the horse.

SO, how much does the City of Denver spend on the homeless? I'm looking for Denver's Road Home annual financial reports because I'm genuinely curious to see what kind of funding the City has provided and what other local governments have provided as well. Denver has the unenviable position of having the social services located in the city limits along with the corresponding shelters that target the chronically homeless. Other local governments, such as Aurora, Lakewood, Arapahoe County, and Douglas County, have no such facilities beyond women's and children's shelters which do nothing to solve the homeless issue.

I will argue that Denver's Road Home program, with the tens of millions spent on additional housing (for both temporary and chronic homeless) and services over the last five years is a pretty good example of being proactive in addressing homelessness. So, I'm less than supportive of those opposing the camping ban.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

More shelters are continually getting built and this should force action on more options as well.

Are they? Most of the reporting in the paper was that a shelter was slated to be closed next week, and the city had to throw some emergency money at the Salvation Army to keep those beds from going away. What new shelters are being built?

Originally Posted by Fritzdude

How is this any different than having ordinances in place that prohibit being in parks past 11:00 at night? It's kind of like bars that close up by saying "you don't have to go home, but you can't stay here".

I'm just saying, there is a huge legal problem with having laws that are enforced inconsistently. I suppose what distinguishes this from the parks closing is that it is more likely to be enforced inconsistently because it targets individuals (a city-wide ban inherently does that, because there's nowhere else to go, versus a park, where you just walk across the street and you're in compliance).

I would've probably voted for the ban. But it is probably going to cost the city a boatload before we're finished.

And it's complete bull that nobody will be arrested. Like I said, the math doesn't lie. Either this law has meaning, or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then you'll still see folks sleeping on 16th. If it does, then they'll be in jail. There is nowhere else to put them.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I will argue that Denver's Road Home program, with the tens of millions spent on additional housing (for both temporary and chronic homeless) and services over the last five years is a pretty good example of being proactive in addressing homelessness. So, I'm less than supportive of those opposing the camping ban.

The permanent/transitional housing doesn't make up for the lack of temporary housing, though. Our overall homeless numbers haven't budged, despite all the new construction. The economy is obviously a huge factor... but the numbers are what they are.

[Pedalrob]

[QUOTE=bunt_q;5685854]I won't even entertain that with a response.

Yet, you did.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by Pedalrob

I won't even entertain that with a response.

Yet, you did.

In bunt terms that's a half response. I tend to be... excessively verbose... when it's a real response.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The permanent/transitional housing doesn't make up for the lack of temporary housing, though. Our overall homeless numbers haven't budged, despite all the new construction. The economy is obviously a huge factor... but the numbers are what they are.

They have budged, there were over 6,000 homeless in the City of Denver in 2009 which is down to approximately 4,000 in 2011, though this is the same level it was in 2007. That's almost entirely attributable to the 2,000-plus housing units (permanent and transitional) that have been built in Denver which have kept homelessness level at about the same general despite a long-duration recession and lackluster recovery (which will be magically cured by the GOP and their Norquist-esque visions of austerity).

According to the point in time reports by Metro Denver Homeless Initiative, the data indicates there's been a chronic shortage of about 250 beds in Denver for emergency shelter over the last eight or so years. That's assuming that every single person who is on the streets wants to be in a shelter. We're ultimately quibbling over that number, which is manageable. That's five chartered motor coaches headed to Colorado Springs.

[glowrock]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

In bunt terms that's a half response. I tend to be... excessively verbose... when it's a real response.

Only thing better than a plane half-full of lawyers going down is... a plane fully loaded with lawyers going down.

Seriously though, I think you're right about the ordinance, Brent. It's not enforceable, and any enforcement that does occur will certainly occur in those areas where people complain the most. And besides, given that Denver has spent by far the most money on a problem that exists metro-wide, but is only really out in the open in Denver itself, I think the homelessness issue needs to be addressed regionally, not just by Denver.

Not fair for Denver to have to shoulder the entire burden for a homeless population that may congregate there, but originated throughout the metropolitan area.

Aaron (Glowrock)

[wong21fr]

How do cities such as Colorado Springs, Boulder, Seattle, Portland, etc. that have banned camping dealt with the issue? Boulder doesn't even bother to keep their one shelter open in the summer months and it's ban has survived a host of legal challenges and I'm pretty sure that their enforcement is probably "inconsistent"

I guess the lawyers are free to waste the taxpayers money on frivolous legal challenges since the precedent for banning camping seems to be pretty well established.

[bunt_q]

I think the scale of the problem is just different in Boulder. Denver is sort of the campground of last resort.

I'd be interested in Seattle's and Portland's experiences, though. Where'd the folks go after the ban?

[wong21fr]

^Not sure. It was passed in 1993 in Seattle so I'm sure there are some sociological papers looking at the effects on the homeless population over the last twenty years. Maybe I'll check it out this evening.

Aaron's little lawyer jab brought another one to mind:

Q: What do you call 25 lawyers skydiving?

A: Skeet.

[SnyderBock]

The other possibility, is this law and the overflow it creates, will motivate the city, to construct/acquire more beds.

[DownhomeDenver]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

I am going to sue the bajesus out of the city. Why? Not because I particularly care, but rather because the city needs to be held accountable.

Granted, it won't help get more beds in the city if money that could be going to social services gets diverted to legal. But hey, the city chose to put the cart in front of the horse.

Riiiight, because that is what this city needs is another f-ing lawsuit.

I mostly agree with you bunt that the city has put the cart before the horse. I live in the city and county of Denver with some of the lowest tax burdens in the metro area. I am pro tax for library districts, road repair and reconstruction, city beautification and homeless shelters/housing. This is my city and I want it to be beautiful, be efficent and be attractive to tourists and new residents. If the law does pass, then I am very expectant that there will be further work done to improve the accessibility of beds.

Does anyone think that this law might dissuade others from coming to the city because it has been seen as lackadaisical in its enforcement of its homeless camping, etc? Just throwing that out there.

[bunt_q]

I was sort of joking...

I don't particularly like the idea of a library district. I like it being under city government.

I do think we should start charging for trash pickup. It's an absurd subsidy of single family housing when multifamily residents don't also get free city trash.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by DownhomeDenver

Does anyone think that this law might dissuade others from coming to the city because it has been seen as lackadaisical in its enforcement of its homeless camping, etc? Just throwing that out there.

Probably not. Unlike the surrounding suburbs Denver actually makes an effort to provide temporary shelter and housing for the homeless. Looking at the Metro Denver Homeless Initiative website all of the surrounding suburbs range from adequate to refusing to acknowledge that anyone who's homeless would dare reside in their quaint community. As bunt said, Denver is the "campground of last resort". The city has the shelters and the social services, paid for by the city, state, and non-profits while the surrounding suburbs are content to give the issue lip service.

I don't think that the city is putting the cart before the horse with this camping ban. It's year six in the ten-year Denver's Road Home program and a lot of progress has been made in providing transitional and permanent housing. What the camping ban has done is refocused the program on the area where it's slipped: slightly increasing the number of emergency beds and providing additional day services. These were supposed to be in place by now but it seems that day services for the homeless just don't bring in the bucks like housing does.

[DownhomeDenver]

Oh btw, 2785 Speer has commenced asbestos abatement. Looks like demolition won't be too far off.

[rds70]

Originally Posted by Brainpathology

Is there something slated for 19th and Lawrence? There were crews drilling what looked like sample core holes all over the existing parking lot there today.

Coresites, a Denver based data center provider is looking at building a center on the property.

[rds70]

Originally Posted by EngiNerd

Ask and we shall receive Thanks Ken!

Does anyone have a count so far on how many units the approved and proposed developments will be adding to downtown?

Here is a list I put together about a month ago:

In light of the reported Denver growth, I thought I would update the list of multifamily projects in the central city. The numbers are amazing to me:

Under construction:

* Highland Bridge Lofts - 130 units
* CorePower Yoga Apartments - 126 units
* 2020 Lawrence - 231 units
* Manhattan Apartments Phase 2 - 134 units
* Prospect on Central - 57 units
* RiNo Center Apartments - 205 units
* Denargo Market Phase 1 - 301 units
* The Logan - 57 units

Total - 1,241 units

In building permit review:

* AMLI Riverfront - 242 units
* 2120 Blake - 160 units
* Cadence - 219 units
* 2300 Walnut - 310 units
* 2785 Speer - 332 units
* 777 Emerson - 38 units
* 2828 Zuni - 105 units
* 1490 Delgany - 285 units
* 19th and Logan - 292 units
* 255 S. Cherokee - 335 units
* South Lincoln Phase 2 - 93 units

Total - 2,411 units

Planned:

* 20th and Chestnut - 312 units
* Alta CityHouse - 282 units
* 16th and Wewatta - 300 units
* 15th and Little Raven Senior - 200 units
* 22nd and Stout - 78 units
* 1250 Cherokee - 289 units
* 1350 16th Street - 47 units

Total - 1,508 units

GRAND TOTAL - 5,160 units

You can also add a couple of new ones - 1736 Boulder Street in LoHi. It is a 74 unit, 4 story building currently under building permit review.

And, the 375 unit building Shea Properties is planning at 18th and Curtis.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by rds70

Coresites, a Denver based data center provider is looking at building a center on the property.

Oh alright... I guess that would be better than a 1/2 block parking lot? Is that a center with workers etc or a computer center similar to what's in the old Public Service Building? Or are details not really out

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by rds70

Here is a list I put together about a month ago:

You can also add a couple of new ones - 1736 Boulder Street in LoHi. It is a 74 unit, 4 story building currently under building permit review.

And, the 375 unit building Shea Properties is planning at 18th and Curtis.

rds70, thank you for keeping the list going. The amount of development going on in Denver is truly amazing. You are also the undisputed champ when it comes to being the early-bird on the renderings!

I've been looking into the 1736 Boulder property and I'm glad you found out what's going on there! However, rds70 my friend, you used said LoH* and oh, how that pains me. [sniff]