Proposed Initiative-66 to limit new housing on Front Range ignites fears in real estate industry (Denver: 2014, apartment)

[xeric]

Originally Posted by DrDog

Water will clearly be a problem but there is plenty of waste currently that could be fixed. Hopefully not by politicians doing what stealth rabbit suggests with 200 gallon per property random limit.

In my opinion, the biggest waste is that 40% of the potable residential water supply for the Front Range is used for yard irrigation. So yes, I'm certainly in favor of limiting waste. I lean more towards permanent restrictions on the number of days people can water (no more than 2 per week - and fewer than that if in a drought), and higher prices that reflect the true value of water in semi-arid region. After all, an absolute limit per house could have the undesirable effect of discouraging people in large families from showering regularly - and that would not be beneficial to anybody

[MountainEarth]

Originally Posted by bluescreen73

You're either growing or you're dying.

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.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by MountainEarth

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.

What responsibility do you think the developers and RE agents have re: "caring for the community"? I've been hearing this "disaster" talk since I moved here in 1980.

[Dport7674]

I imagine someone has already said this but..

Build up. Charge a small fortune for parking, encouraging public transit/ride sharing etc.

[xPlorer48]

Originally Posted by StealthRabbit

I think you will be in for additional property tax increases, which may force you out of your lifelong home (so happened to my family in Colorado during 1970's)

I see no benefit in increased valuations for a home which you have finally arranged to be "Well Suited" / sustained residence.

I fled to another desirable state.
results... my property taxes on my personal residence (new state) have gone from <$3/ day to currently $46/ day. Income has diminished to zip... (retired). Similar (but not as bad YET!!) on my CO props...

but... my Home is much more worn out (should be de-valued).

My simple 'place to sleep', has become a significant tax obligation (non-discretional spending).

No win, unless you sell out and move to Arkansas (tough to do with a farm and extended family). Takes many yrs to develop soils, shed, fences, water, orchards. Elderly do not have the time remaining to accomplish this. They are 'displaced' (this has been so in CO since 1960's, probably earlier).

I expect this type of restriction will and must happen in resource constrained CO... It will be difficult for the elderly / fixed income / non-wage earners. Everyone else will have significantly increased CoL, but possibly a better QoL.

Sad... but happens.

Have you seen your 2018 Washington state property taxes? Because of the state legislature being mandated to fully fund K-12 education, ours increased 15% plus our homeoeners insurance jumping about the same amount due to wealthy homeowners moving here thus increasing our homes value. I am not moving as i was born here but am finding it increasingly difficult to pay these increased amounts.

[ColoTroutlHntr]

If front range development is not a disaster what is? It's been an ugly eyesore, monotone blight since the the seemingly endless sprawl began 50 years ago. It has always been one floor/single story instead of multistory, utterly wasteful of land/habitat/water/energy/etc., awful to commuters, public transit that is next to useless. The new "architecture" is almost entirely without creativity/character/class, it is perfectly atrocious, without parallel. Denver has a few blocks here and there that remain historic/interesting. But the city, if it can be accurately described as such when it is a ghost town with nary a soul to be seen on many streets, swamped by an ocean of nondescript housing tract defecate, is nowhere to be found. At least there remain a (very) select/few near the core of Denver and in far flung reaches of the state with (some/little) taste. I could go on, but for those with any sense of place this regurgitation is cliche. Enjoy.

[MountainEarth]

Originally Posted by Katarina Witt

What responsibility do you think the developers and RE agents have re: "caring for the community"?

A human responsibility. Next question.

[EastwardBound]

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.

[TCHP]

Perhaps instead of a wholesale cap on housing what we really need is more pointed set of rules for implementation of the growth that have differing requirements that developers/builders must meet for their plan approvals and construction. X amount of mid-rise, y amount of sq ft limited areas, z amount of multi-unit housing styles, among other things.

I think we are seeing some of this now with the trend towards more walkable and community oriented developments, but there is still 50 years of infill from the city centers to the fringe where these new developments are occurring.

[Scott5280]

Who approved the Sterling Ranch? Not saying we need to implement the Danish plan, but do we really need this current sprawl.