U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Denver
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-13-2018, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,804 posts, read 102,087,947 times
Reputation: 32917

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by EastwardBound View Post
The sprawl is out of control and I see some measures to attempt to encourage smarter and denser development via tax structures that reward a more historical type of development pattern as well as the adoption of form based codes as the way to go. The people living in communities should get a say in how their communities look, instead of developers simply throwing up tract housing and strip malls for the biggest profit.

That said, in an area, where affordable housing is already an issue, the major concern about an initiative such as this is that government meddling creates shortages, leading to less affordability which of course impacts those least able to afford housing.
Of course people living in the communities should have a say. Are you familiar with the process when a development is proposed? It has to go through the planning commission and the city council, or equivalent. During that process there are public hearings. Plus, municipalities have ordinances and requirements that have to be met.

And yes, affordable housing is an issue. Boulder has done a lot of this slow-growth stuff, which is why the median price of a home there is >$1 million.
Cost of average home in Boulder surpasses $1 million - Boulder Daily Camera
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-13-2018, 10:00 AM
 
4,618 posts, read 1,300,844 times
Reputation: 2885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Of course people living in the communities should have a say. Are you familiar with the process when a development is proposed? It has to go through the planning commission and the city council, or equivalent. During that process there are public hearings. Plus, municipalities have ordinances and requirements that have to be met.

And yes, affordable housing is an issue. Boulder has done a lot of this slow-growth stuff, which is why the median price of a home there is >$1 million.
Cost of average home in Boulder surpasses $1 million - Boulder Daily Camera
On point one, I was referring to the nature of development in general. Most people have grown so accustomed to sprawl, they don't really know anything else. They see more traditional development, including older neighborhoods and older commercial districts and think they are nice, but then go back to their sprawl and just think of it as normal.

Of course people have a say in the process via public hearings and such, but that is all within the framework that already exists. Until planning in this country is rescued from traffic engineers, we will continue to see what we see-hideous, bland sprawl.

Second point, I'm not advocating limiting growth, as you can see from both of my responses in this post. In fact, as I said earlier, it's this sort of government melding, which produces unaffordable housing and housing crises in the first place, such as in Boulder. That doesn't mean we can't have smarter growth, which promotes and encourages density within the already built up area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2018, 10:41 AM
 
Location: Denver via Austin
3,103 posts, read 6,459,966 times
Reputation: 3494
Dumb Baby Boomers and elitist natives finding yet another way to f*** over the younger generations. This is one of the most stupid ideas I've ever seen. Literally the only people it benefits are current homeowners who can afford for their property taxes to double and whose job isn't sway to the local economy. Congrats to the upper middle class executives. Screw everyone else because you got yours already.

Yeah, we should be reducing sprawl. You do that by incentivizing density and infill. Yeah, Colorado is getting more crowded. So is literally every place worth living on the planet because we won't stop reproducing.

If Colorado wants to put up a "no vacancy" sign, it should try seceding from the US. Assuming that could ever happen, the only hope its economy could ever have is pimping out its tourism (still more crowds) and becoming a shady tax haven like Switzerland.

If this were to actually pass, you better bet that I'm getting the hell out. I'd never be able to afford a home, and the message that young, educated, economically productive people aren't welcome (which I already get plenty of) would be unmistakable. This proposal is a collective "get off my lawn". This is a proposal to crash the state economy so that your commute doesn't get a few minutes longer. Sorry I was born in 1992 6 hours south of the Front Range. The ballot proposers clearly think they're better than me.

Last edited by Westerner92; 02-13-2018 at 11:22 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2018, 10:53 AM
 
25,913 posts, read 28,277,221 times
Reputation: 24533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vision67 View Post
Proposed initiative to limit new housing on Front Range ignites fears in real estate industry

https://www.denverpost.com/2018/02/0...g-real-estate/

"Ballot initiative No. 66, which is awaiting a review from the Colorado Supreme Court, would limit permits for homes and apartments to 1 percent of the existing housing stock in 2019 and 2020 in Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer and Weld counties.

After two years, the caps would remain in place unless 5 percent of the voters in a jurisdiction put a successful initiative to a vote. Denver, Douglas and Weld counties, which have seen new construction rates above 2 percent, could face some of the most severe reductions under the measure."


This is certainly a provocative idea. Control housing supply for the entire Front Range? I doubt it will go very far.

Seems to me it's an extension of the controlled growth policy enacted by Boulder years ago. It is NIMBY to the extreme.

However, I can understand the motivation. If you are already well suited in your own house, additional development just creates too much traffic, pollution, noise, and congestion. I can see how you feel that you have nothing to gain from that development.

Also, if the lack of housing supply forces the value of your house up, what's not to like?

I think that as long as developers pay the full costs for the additional infrastructure needed for that additional growth, they should be allowed to develop.

What do you think?
You'll end up just like California with 3BR tract houses going for $1,000,000 and studio apartments renting for $1700 a month (that's what studios go for in my 90 year old building in San Jose).

Even the New York Times and The Atlantic did articles on this issue:

California is the toughest market for first-time home buyers and the cost of housing is beyond reach for almost all of this state’s low-income population. Despite having some of the highest wages in the nation, the state also has the highest adjusted poverty rate.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/u...ng-crisis.html

"Even after adjusting for differences of income, liberal markets tend to have higher income inequality and worse affordability,” Kolko said.

Kolko's theory isn't an outlier. There is a deep literature tying liberal residents to illiberal housing policies that create affordability crunches for the middle class. In 2010, UCLA economist Matthew Kahn published a study of California cities, which found that liberal metros issued fewer new housing permits. The correlation held over time: As California cities became more liberal, he said, they built fewer homes.



https://www.theatlantic.com/business...rdable/382045/
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2018, 10:56 AM
 
25,913 posts, read 28,277,221 times
Reputation: 24533
Quote:
Originally Posted by brown_dog_us View Post
Boulder's problem is they added way more jobs than they added housing.
The two seem to go hand in hand. Same issue in California. They like the tax revenue from businesses, but the heck with actually building houses for the people who work in those businesses. Totally F'd up.

The situation has been aggravated by places such as Brisbane, just south of San Francisco, which has encouraged extensive office development while failing to build housing.

“We have cities around California that are happy to welcome thousands of workers in gleaming new tech and innovation campuses, and are turning a blind eye to their housing need,” said Mr. Chiu.


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/u...ng-crisis.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2018, 11:01 AM
 
25,913 posts, read 28,277,221 times
Reputation: 24533
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDog View Post
“An environmentalist is someone who already has a house with a view.”
That's no joke.

Joel Kotkin calls such people "the green gentry".

Historically, progressives were seen as partisans for the people, eager to help the working and middle classes achieve upward mobility even at expense of the ultrarich. But in California, and much of the country, progressivism has morphed into a political movement that, more often than not, effectively squelches the aspirations of the majority, in large part to serve the interests of the wealthiest.

Primarily, this modern-day program of class warfare is carried out under the banner of green politics.......in the past, early progressives focused on such useful things as public parks and open space that enhance the lives of the middle and working classes. Today, green politics seem to be focused primarily on making life worse for these same people.


The gentry, of course, care little about artificially inflated housing prices in large part because they already own theirs — often the very large type they wish to curtail.


Fixing California: The Green Gentry
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2018, 11:19 AM
 
25,913 posts, read 28,277,221 times
Reputation: 24533
Quote:
Originally Posted by Westerner92 View Post
Dumb Baby Boomers and elitist natives finding yet another way to f*** over the younger generations. This is one of the most stupid ideas I've ever seen. Literally the only people it benefits are current homeowners who can afford for their property taxes to double and whose job isn't sway to the local economy. Congrats to the upper middle class executives. Screw everyone else because you got yours already.

Yeah, we should be reducing sprawl. You do that by incentivizing density and infill. Yeah, Colorado is getting more crowded. So is literally every place worth living on the planet because we won't stop reproducing.

If Colorado wants to put up a "no vacancy" sign, it should try seceding from the US. Assuming that could ever happen, the only hope its economy could ever have is pimping out its tourism (still more crowds) and becoming a shady tax haven like Switzerland.

If this were to actually pass, you better bet that I'm getting the hell out. I'd never be able to afford a home, and the message that young, educated, economically productive people aren't welcome (which I already get plenty of) would be unmistakable. This proposal is a collective "get off my lawn". Sorry I was born in 1992 6 hours south of the Front Range. The ballot proposers clearly think they're better than me.
Spot on.

And, over time, policies like this price out even the upper middle class, as is happening currently here in the Bay Area.

This is how you create the Hunger Games Society. A few elite cities that only the 1% can afford, and every one else is turned into an impoverished peasant. Step by step, this is what's being done all over the world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2018, 11:27 AM
 
Location: Colorado
8 posts, read 3,672 times
Reputation: 12
CO is becoming another CA, I was born and raised in CA, lived there 30 years and moved out since it got so crowded and costly. When I moved to Castle Rock in 2006 it seemed like a small town, not anymore...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2018, 02:46 PM
 
918 posts, read 980,742 times
Reputation: 1069
Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainEarth View Post
That's not true at all. There is such a thing as sustainability. That is, shooting for a reasonable balance. There are also different ways of growing ... as in are we going to grow up? Or grow out? Put on muscle? Or put on fat? Is our growth smart, efficient and well planned? Or are we just gonna keep going with the lazy inefficient unchecked sprawl?

It is well within the development community's abilities to built smart, compact, efficient, affordable housing. But they're the ones choosing NOT to do this. Our growth around here is more like a cancer ... It is largely unchecked, unplanned, and driven by short-term gains. This, as compared to the long-term disasters it will bring to the Front Range.

I hope this bill wakes up developers, and real estate agents. They've been cashing in big on the growth. But they have been doing a terribly irresponsible job of caring for the community. They need to either get with the program, or face more of this kind of backlash in the future.
Says the guy whose location is Woodland Park. Home of large plots and suburban housing dependent on motor vehicles.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-13-2018, 04:13 PM
 
Location: Denver via Austin
3,103 posts, read 6,459,966 times
Reputation: 3494
Quote:
Originally Posted by wong21fr View Post
Says the guy whose location is Woodland Park. Home of large plots and suburban housing dependent on motor vehicles.
But don't you get it? They were in Colorado before others, so hypocrisy doesn't apply.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Denver
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top