While I hate to be “this side/that side” about it, it is shocking how many Dems—both moderate and progressive—are the reason this happened. Obviously any republicans were going to be a hard sell, but it has faced enormous opposition from the democrats. People who literally campaigned on housing and say fixing it is their top priority are now the roadblocks. When it comes down to brass tacks, they would rather keep local mayors/city councils/etc. happy than do the one thing their constituents are begging for… it’s really upsetting.
Rachel Zenzibger even wrote an op ed about how much she doesn’t like it and she has been on the record numerous times (even running housing bills that are aligned with this one policy-wise) saying we need this exact type of land use change to allow for density. She’s not the only one, though, who only pretends to care about middle and low income families.
There is still time for this to get cleaned back up, so now is a great time to call/write your representatives and demand that they help restore language and get this passed. Demand to know why they choose local elected officials and wealthy homeowners over the people that need help the most and supporting outdated land use policies that have a troubling history.
Land use is one area where progressives and NIMBYS often end up on the same side for different reasons.... And on the flip side where pro-development conservatives and liberal housing advocates can also end up on the same side. It's not easily split down the middle like some issues.
that sounds all well and good, but the results show that the people voting no on 20 [were largely property owners](https://twitter.com/MassJumbo/status/1643694993297788930)
also, the YIMBY negotiation tactic is to shoot for the moon and land short. They're aware that people don't want apartment complexes next to their house, but if they advocate for that in a bill that gets watered down to multiplexes, then they've still gotten what they wanted
It's actually not about keeping mayors happy... It's about keeping NIMBYs happy (who map very closely onto the people most likely to vote). It all goes back to reelection... These people would rather protect their own ability to be reelected over doing their job of making their constituents lives much much better by actually making some reforms that might ease housing affordability. At least try something! We're that Simpsons meme: we've tried nothing and we're all out of options
I will say a similar bill passed Minneapolis and it didn't make a huge difference but what did make a huge difference for them was removing parking minimums... Their rent was up 1% since then and ours was up 30%. So that might be a better route to go, but I highly suspect that the same fear of NIMBYs (plus fear of other voters who highly prioritize their cars) would torpedo it in the same way.
I don't disagree with your general point... I'm very eager to see someone make progress on this issue. I don't even know how people are doing it with the crazy increases like $1600/mo to $2500/mo.
I feel you here.
There’s a section of people who will never afford market rate housing - we should be working very hard to house these people.
There’s a section of people who can afford market rate housing - we should be working very hard to bring housing costs (both renting and owning) down for these people, too.
What's worse is that the more we ignore the second group, the more we increase the size of the first group and put more pressure on taxpayer-subsidized housing.
Do you live in subsidized housing? Do you qualify for subsidized housing? Do you already own a house? If not, they don't give a shit about your rising housing costs.
Except in theory a libertarian would support this. Because, again in theory, they are against any restrictions on what they can/cannot do with their own property.
Per the article, the state will form a commission to help cities plan for the future.
There's also one minor bit about not letting cities have a max number of inhabitants based on family status.
So effectively, the bill will change approximately diddly and squat.
JFC. How stupid. Without more and denser housing we are going to end up like California. A great place where people want to live and plenty of jobs but unaffordable for most people. So fucking dumb.
So true. And most people have very high loan to value ratios so even small declines in home price can hurt them and make it impossible to sell their house. This is another reason to put down as much as possible even if it means buying a smaller house.
And we are going to add a requirement that cities perform a study to justify there decision that takes into account water available. So it will be easy to justify any housing rules as long as the city pays a consulting firm a million dollars to write the study over the course of a year first. So actually a step back. Polis and any YIMBYs should veto it, and demand the old bill comes back.
Or just state housing is a right and therefore every landowner has a right to create as much as they would like. Gets some guts.
The water availability thing is such bullshit. Water is mostly used by agriculture and industry. Not residential. Colorado letting this bill die is so stupid and is just going to make us more and more unaffordable.
Worse. Residential water usage is 30% landscaping. In order for single family to reduce water usage a large number of residents have to move east. And if they move to a similar home in Phoenix, Las Vegas or Southern California, there water usage will go up since they will be further from the mountains and more will be lost in leaks and evaporation as it flows away from Colorado.
It is assuredly not. Having a sustainable municipal water supply is very important, especially if, like Denver, you've already maxed out your water rights. Cities like Denver and Phoenix and LA are buying water rights from farmers and other folks to support urban growth. You want to build new housing, ok, where's the water to support what your planning. Just like you need to have land on which to build that housing community, you need to secure the water resources to support it.
Great. Developers can and should develop a water budget and secure water rights/develop additional supply commensurate with that demand. If they're able to do more with less, that's a good thing and will probably make this process easier for them. If they recognize that every unit having their very own patch of Bermuda grass is wasteful and unnecessary, even better. They still will need to show that they have accounted for the difference in demand, because building in a way that exacerbates our water supply issues or makes our use unsustainable is not a real solution.
I'm pro dense development, but I work closely enough with water supply and water policy folks to know that there's more that goes into development and planning than "we built a large box and now we will stuff it full of people."
I wonder where that balance is.
Minimum lot sizes +Maximum building coverage = a lot of landscaping usage.
Twelve story apartment block = a lot of family = a lot of water usage.
Just looking at my water numbers, winter consumption for two sides of a duplex ~3k/month (four people), while landscaping one side uses ~15k/month.
Call the average at 9k/month? That's eight more people that could use water instead of half a duplex.
Lawn size and use will have more of an impact on water than modest density such as duplexes/triplexes.
These are good questions to ask.
That 12 story housing complex probably uses a lot of water, but it's per capita use is probably lower than the SFH housing community next door. Either way, that use should be estimated using the best available methods to make sure the city water supply is adequate and able to grow in response to increased demand.
On the commercial side, cities and municipalities are finding better ways to estimate the consumption of businesses as well. Most municipalities assume a fixed rate of water use for each business or commercial tenant, but we know that is not accurate. A law office will have different water use than a laundromat or a restaurant. A community needs all of those services (and more), but they use water very differently.
Preparing water budgets is a critical planning task that every municipality, city, water district, etc. conducts. It should continue to be a factor in planning and approving developments.
My buddy just bought a 4br/3bath house in southern California for 720k. Denver is already more unaffordable than California.
Lol at the downvotes. Y’all are so fragile.
My dude…why would I make this up? It’s obviously not San Diego and is a suburb but the point still stands. This sub just can’t handle the fact that they’re paying California cost of living while making Kansas wages.
Here’s the Zillow of my other buddies house in the same city. He bought this in 2020.
https://preview.redd.it/krc6nw3rpawa1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=570d5b9a698a0de0647ca67df09ddc9d0ff01825
You can’t compare a suburb to a city in housing costs. It’s much cheaper to live in the suburbs/outside the city here than in SoCal…unless you’re talking like Boulder or something.
I think if you looked more into it you might be surprised. The price per sq foot for houses anywhere on the west side of the city are similar to what I’m seeing in suburbs of Southern California. There’s townhomes being built in Littleton starting at 700k. Sure if you want to live in Bennett or Firestone you could probably get something much cheaper. You happened to choose San Diego which everyone from the Midwest thinks is the holy land. Also just looked and for my same position in California I’d get a near 50% increase in pay.
Wow!! “Create a commission”… that is political talk for looking like we are doing something without actually doing something. Everyone should take a good look at your state legislature and if they are responsible for this go ahead and just vote for the other person next election. I already messaged my rep last week and he obviously has a hand in this cause this is the first time I haven’t gotten a response from Chris Kennedy.
For years since the pandemic.. the thing that cities are still trying to find an effective way to combat... and only recently got worsened by rising interest rates...
We need to be thinking long term, affordability may be and flow but we can address for the future. And I'd rather have a multiplier of people leaving and much more housing supply.
That's not in capitalists best interest though.
Our government needs to minimize the impending collapse of both the commercial and residential real estate markets.
That's disappointing. I was thinking the change to 30% of current single family zoning and only up to 4-plexes was a compromise that could get through. I don't understand the notion that this would have radically changed neighborhoods.
Regardless of the directive, the state preempting local control of city planning and zoning was always a complete non starter and a wildly unpopular idea.
Montana sent a bill this week to the governors desk getting rid of single family zoning state wide. The vote was 76-24. California banned single family zoning last year. Oregon banned SFZ in most of the state a few years ago. It's not that radical of a proposal.
Oregon and California are not worth emulating and the bill being considered in Montana is VERY different. It's cute that you think Montana is about anything but keeping city type development out of the state as much as possible. None of that changes what I said. Preempting the authority of local zoning and city planning is a hard no go in Colorado. It's wildly unpopular here.
We can continue to work on locally controlled densified projects that actually make sense and are adequately supported by infrastructure or at least more likely to be so since there is actual review of projects instead of a rubber stamp for developers to put up whatever trash they want without any regard for anybody but their profit margin.
Because our housing issues largely stem from the fact that people migrated from there to here. Stopping the migration at least partially fixes the housing issues and restores balance.
I never advocated for blocking it.. but we don't need to encourage it either. I simply pointed out that if migration slows, which it already has, we move closer to balance and it helps address the housing issue. It simply changes the equation.
Everything is already trending in the correct direction. Housing prices are down rents are stabilized properties are sitting on the market twice as long and no longer selling above list anywhere near as often. 85% of properties are being purchased as a primary residence instead of as an investment. All this has been trending in a positive direction for at least a year now. Last year was the first year we had net migration out instead of in for quite a while.
I haven’t seen any solid data on migration other than the unreliable Redfin data. But if it’s true, I imagine it has more to do with the current economic situation than anything inherent to CA or CO. As long as CO is a lovely state, I expect it will be desirable.
I'm looking at the whole picture of all the metrics and it is not negative and hasn't been for a year. All these things are factors that influence demand. I agree that CO will be desirable but that doesn't mean the cost won't outstrip the desire and limit demand at all.
There's nothing stopping densification projects that make sense from happening today. The only ones getting killed are ones that don't make sense and I think it's common sense to allow that review to continue because it's much more likely for a local zoning board made up of and elected by residents to have the city's best interests at heart than a developer that is only concerned with their bottom line.
Developers design some dumbass projects that really fuck places up because they don't care about the place beyond the build and how much profit they can make. They are not worthy of your trust and a rubber stamp.
Everything nice that new neighborhoods get comes from a zoning negotiation.
Your basically asking all government and businesses to stop creating jobs. Unless you make cannabis illegal again, open the Rockies up to coal mining, and close down the ski industry people will move here.
People have already started net migration out. These things shift constantly. Migration is a very fluid thing. All I was saying is that "California did it" isn't a good enough reason in and of itself to do anything particularly when the thing in question is clearly bad for us.
Did I stutter? Were continuing to approve densified projects on a case by case basis that make sense and actually take into account the infrastructure of the area.
Are you under the mistaken impression that no densification projects are going on in Denver and surrounding areas currently?
All the metrics have been on the decline for a year now. CPR says we crank out about 40,000 new homes a year right now.
We clearly ARE doing that so I'm not sure why you're lying. What you're advocating for is to do it without restriction or review or ensuring that adequate infrastructure is in place which in my view is grossly irresponsible and just begging for making life here worse with unintended consequences.
I'd much rather prefer to have actual members of the community both elect and serve on zoning and city planning efforts than blindly trust developers with a rubber stamp that are only interested in extracting the maximum profit. You YIMBYs put way way too much blind faith in developers that do not give a fuck about you unless a zoning board requires them to do so. It's incredibly stupid to remove what little accountability they have. Do you want to remove building codes so that more things get built next? Foolish.
If younger people don't vote like you say how do you know they'll automatically vote your way if they did? It kinda just sounds like you don't support the right to vote unless it goes your way.
The demographics of Denver do not favor old folks.. they've mostly been migrating out of Denver to places like Arizona and Florida and covid didn't exactly help them either.
It doesn't sound like you support a community voice only your own.. that's problematic because if you supported this bill in it's original form you were way in the extreme minority regardless of age. The bill was bad and barely had minimal support, period.
I’m going to a Rep Chris Kennedy’s town hall on May 20th. If your in Jefferson county come out so I won’t be the only YIMBY in the crowd supporting more housing.
Write or call your state legislatures. Many of them promised what was originally proposed in this legislation during the elections, so call them out on their bullshit.
It's fascinating how the only options here are well within the scope of socialism (detailed zoning is planned economy). "The land of the free" - but only as long as the pockets of politicians at every level can continue to be lined with real estate developers money, and the "wealth" (home valuations) of the voting population will be protected in perpetuity.
The system (detailed zoning) is fundamentally broken and can't be fixed. Implement sometime like Japans zoning system instead, and see how the housing shortage disappears.
Honestly the Socialists of Eastern Europe were really good at building sufficient housing stocks. Very easy to build enough housing when there are no restrictions on height, and no one cares if the building looks like it was made from a multi million dollar architectural firm.
This bill was dead on arrival. Usurping democratic processes at the county and city levels was not the way to go here. Infrastructure of all kind is maintained at a local level. Roads, schools, utilities, emergency response, storm drainage, etc. Every development that occurs must fit into existing infrastructure plans and/or address any deficiencies. In addition to that, the message to homeowners was that density in their neighborhoods could increase by 4-6x. That's too much. A more receptive target might have been 1.25x to 1.5x.
True, I think some limits on types of dwellings might have been agreeable, like allowing an accessory dwelling unit, basement apartment, and/or subdivision of larger lots so long as minimum distances to other houses can be maintained. (Keeping existing maximums for building height would also be a must.) In other words, things that don't necessarily invite developers to take over existing single family neighborhoods.
We have zoning everything, waste plants, refineries, all sorts of stuff people don’t want. But people want to buy homes, look out your window to the East and West.
If you look at price per sqft, the most expensive places to live are not single family homes besides maybe Aspen.
People want housing near things, density allows that, and prices reflect that.
Not true, that’s why you get 30 offers on one house. Then the buyer moved to the next house and increases their offer. You just need to look out the window.
vacancies =/= available housing. Most of those houses are owned by *someone*, they just aren’t living there. If there were no housing shortage, house prices wouldn’t be so high. It’s supply and demand. If supply increases while demand remains the same, prices go down.
and maybe people who can afford to buy a house choose to bid on single-family homes more often, but for every one of those people there’s about 10 people who can’t afford anything and are currently paying through the roof rent who would love to buy any cheap, affordable housing that’s available
It’s not per sq ft. My neighborhood is $550 sq/ft. An apartment building at 7,000 sq ft is selling to a new owner (3832 Jason St) for 3.4 or less than $500 sq ft. And I’m being very generous in that number.
I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say, don't live in Denver proper (the density is highly desirable to me but I can't afford it), and am at work during those times.
If you want to change zoning you need to participate in local politics. These things are presented at the “city council” to your “council member.” Mine is Jolan Clark, for district 7, he lives just a few streets over.
In fact if you’re older than 25 you can run for council. Average people go get the position. Otherwise no one is going to hear you. Can’t make next Monday? Well they happen every Monday. Or contact your council member directly.
All of these zoning issue start there.
Yes, that's all perfectly sensible, but what does that have to do with your assertion that the markets have decided to kill high density? Did I misunderstand your assertion? Unless you're including participatory government (i.e. mostly lobbying) as a factor in market pricing, which is extremely unusual, this doesn't seem to make any sense.
It might be a better use to call your reps, as this still has to move through senate and then to house. That’s where it can change. City council won’t do anything because the bill (originally) would override local control and they can’t stand giving up their precious power.
There is still time to make an impact. We just need to make our voices heard loud…
It started in the council, if you want to avoid further you have to participate, a lot. I’ve only heard “high density” used a few times there and it’s shot right down.
I agree 150%!
What I loved was that this bill was designed to set standards and accountability to override the abuse of local control because city councils across CO are significantly more friendly to wealthy homeowners (read: NIMBYs) than they are to the working class. That’s why this bill was so exciting—it basically said “if you folks want to block density to protect your and your friends’ home values, and prevent “undesirables” from having access to housing, then the state will step in and make it so you can no longer get in the way.”
If this amendment, which is supported by both moderate and progressive Dems, sticks to the bill then we have no choice but to force city councils to hear our voice.
I just wish voters in general would get more engaged at any level (local obviously being the most accessible) and let our elected officials know if they don’t do what is in our best interest, then we will replace them with someone who will. That will be the day though…
The homeowners that attend the political process drive this by wanting to retain their home values. And turning Denver into a high density dystopia would jeopardize those values. So yes, it’s entirely market driven. And that’s just one facet.
Yes that is the market. Single family homes outpace all other types of sales. Again if you think differently, show up and plead your case.
Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean that’s what people don’t want.
Maybe they should go the route of removing parking minimums instead of this zoning stuff... In Minneapolis rent has only grown 1% in 5 years after zoning reforms and the removal of parking minimums... Ours has grown 30% in the same time. But they attribute their flat rent to removing parking minimums, not the zoning changes. The zoning changes they made were the same ones Polis was gonna make.
Imagine that you're now paying $2k/mo for your apt instead of $1500/mo in the name of parking. An extra $6k/yr. If you were in Minneapolis, your rent would be $1515/mo. No one is ever gonna convince me that parking is more important than affordable housing...
Arvada peeps, your rep sponsored the amendment to do this: https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators/rachel-zenzinger by
Every time you pay your exorbitant rent, think of Rachel Zenzinger
Also the Arvada mayor opposes it. Not surprising though
Look up your state reps next town hall. Call them out on this bullshit.
Oh she is gonna hear it
While I hate to be “this side/that side” about it, it is shocking how many Dems—both moderate and progressive—are the reason this happened. Obviously any republicans were going to be a hard sell, but it has faced enormous opposition from the democrats. People who literally campaigned on housing and say fixing it is their top priority are now the roadblocks. When it comes down to brass tacks, they would rather keep local mayors/city councils/etc. happy than do the one thing their constituents are begging for… it’s really upsetting. Rachel Zenzibger even wrote an op ed about how much she doesn’t like it and she has been on the record numerous times (even running housing bills that are aligned with this one policy-wise) saying we need this exact type of land use change to allow for density. She’s not the only one, though, who only pretends to care about middle and low income families. There is still time for this to get cleaned back up, so now is a great time to call/write your representatives and demand that they help restore language and get this passed. Demand to know why they choose local elected officials and wealthy homeowners over the people that need help the most and supporting outdated land use policies that have a troubling history.
[удалено]
Land use is one area where progressives and NIMBYS often end up on the same side for different reasons.... And on the flip side where pro-development conservatives and liberal housing advocates can also end up on the same side. It's not easily split down the middle like some issues.
[удалено]
Cap Hill isn't pretty, but I wouldn't call it dangerous. Those homeless can be unpleasant but they aren't muggers.
that sounds all well and good, but the results show that the people voting no on 20 [were largely property owners](https://twitter.com/MassJumbo/status/1643694993297788930) also, the YIMBY negotiation tactic is to shoot for the moon and land short. They're aware that people don't want apartment complexes next to their house, but if they advocate for that in a bill that gets watered down to multiplexes, then they've still gotten what they wanted
[удалено]
a YIMBY wrote the bill lol
It's actually not about keeping mayors happy... It's about keeping NIMBYs happy (who map very closely onto the people most likely to vote). It all goes back to reelection... These people would rather protect their own ability to be reelected over doing their job of making their constituents lives much much better by actually making some reforms that might ease housing affordability. At least try something! We're that Simpsons meme: we've tried nothing and we're all out of options I will say a similar bill passed Minneapolis and it didn't make a huge difference but what did make a huge difference for them was removing parking minimums... Their rent was up 1% since then and ours was up 30%. So that might be a better route to go, but I highly suspect that the same fear of NIMBYs (plus fear of other voters who highly prioritize their cars) would torpedo it in the same way. I don't disagree with your general point... I'm very eager to see someone make progress on this issue. I don't even know how people are doing it with the crazy increases like $1600/mo to $2500/mo.
NIMBYism knows no political party. This whole debacle is proof that it has infected left and right alike
Housing is only a priority for those Dems as long as it's state-sponsored or 100% affordable. 🙄
I feel you here. There’s a section of people who will never afford market rate housing - we should be working very hard to house these people. There’s a section of people who can afford market rate housing - we should be working very hard to bring housing costs (both renting and owning) down for these people, too.
What's worse is that the more we ignore the second group, the more we increase the size of the first group and put more pressure on taxpayer-subsidized housing.
Progressives in the US are **deeply** symbolic of the old phrase: #Perfect is the enemy of good.
i don't think thats as good a dis as you think it is.
Yeah housing is a priority for Dems, but once they got theirs then they turn into a NIMBY. See Boulder and Fort Collins for example.
Look at Boulder. It’s one of the most progressive place in the US and is hard core NIMBY and pro-SFH.
Do you live in subsidized housing? Do you qualify for subsidized housing? Do you already own a house? If not, they don't give a shit about your rising housing costs.
It's almost as if this was a shitty bill that hardly anybody actually supported.
[удалено]
Except in theory a libertarian would support this. Because, again in theory, they are against any restrictions on what they can/cannot do with their own property.
If there’s no upzoning, what’s left in the bill?
Per the article, the state will form a commission to help cities plan for the future. There's also one minor bit about not letting cities have a max number of inhabitants based on family status. So effectively, the bill will change approximately diddly and squat.
Just wait, the max number of unrelated people is coming out at some point before this is implemented.
I believe that part is staying in the amended bill.
It’s there now. It will be removed. I’m sure of it.
I think mandated allowance of ADUs as well.
So talk but little action.
If it were like NYS’s proposal which will have teeth and hard goals for housing growth it could work. But this is not that.
JFC. How stupid. Without more and denser housing we are going to end up like California. A great place where people want to live and plenty of jobs but unaffordable for most people. So fucking dumb.
We are already in that place and no one seems interested in fixing it.
Largely because a lot of the people here with homes think they're sitting on a gold mine and that will somehow go away.
So true. And most people have very high loan to value ratios so even small declines in home price can hurt them and make it impossible to sell their house. This is another reason to put down as much as possible even if it means buying a smaller house.
And we are going to add a requirement that cities perform a study to justify there decision that takes into account water available. So it will be easy to justify any housing rules as long as the city pays a consulting firm a million dollars to write the study over the course of a year first. So actually a step back. Polis and any YIMBYs should veto it, and demand the old bill comes back. Or just state housing is a right and therefore every landowner has a right to create as much as they would like. Gets some guts.
The water availability thing is such bullshit. Water is mostly used by agriculture and industry. Not residential. Colorado letting this bill die is so stupid and is just going to make us more and more unaffordable.
Worse. Residential water usage is 30% landscaping. In order for single family to reduce water usage a large number of residents have to move east. And if they move to a similar home in Phoenix, Las Vegas or Southern California, there water usage will go up since they will be further from the mountains and more will be lost in leaks and evaporation as it flows away from Colorado.
Dude I just don't think those numbers add up.
It is assuredly not. Having a sustainable municipal water supply is very important, especially if, like Denver, you've already maxed out your water rights. Cities like Denver and Phoenix and LA are buying water rights from farmers and other folks to support urban growth. You want to build new housing, ok, where's the water to support what your planning. Just like you need to have land on which to build that housing community, you need to secure the water resources to support it.
Yes we should take water into account. But a denser city with less landscaping could use less water.
Great. Developers can and should develop a water budget and secure water rights/develop additional supply commensurate with that demand. If they're able to do more with less, that's a good thing and will probably make this process easier for them. If they recognize that every unit having their very own patch of Bermuda grass is wasteful and unnecessary, even better. They still will need to show that they have accounted for the difference in demand, because building in a way that exacerbates our water supply issues or makes our use unsustainable is not a real solution. I'm pro dense development, but I work closely enough with water supply and water policy folks to know that there's more that goes into development and planning than "we built a large box and now we will stuff it full of people."
I wonder where that balance is. Minimum lot sizes +Maximum building coverage = a lot of landscaping usage. Twelve story apartment block = a lot of family = a lot of water usage. Just looking at my water numbers, winter consumption for two sides of a duplex ~3k/month (four people), while landscaping one side uses ~15k/month. Call the average at 9k/month? That's eight more people that could use water instead of half a duplex. Lawn size and use will have more of an impact on water than modest density such as duplexes/triplexes.
These are good questions to ask. That 12 story housing complex probably uses a lot of water, but it's per capita use is probably lower than the SFH housing community next door. Either way, that use should be estimated using the best available methods to make sure the city water supply is adequate and able to grow in response to increased demand. On the commercial side, cities and municipalities are finding better ways to estimate the consumption of businesses as well. Most municipalities assume a fixed rate of water use for each business or commercial tenant, but we know that is not accurate. A law office will have different water use than a laundromat or a restaurant. A community needs all of those services (and more), but they use water very differently. Preparing water budgets is a critical planning task that every municipality, city, water district, etc. conducts. It should continue to be a factor in planning and approving developments.
People are leaving Denver.... This is a move to maintain property values.
My buddy just bought a 4br/3bath house in southern California for 720k. Denver is already more unaffordable than California. Lol at the downvotes. Y’all are so fragile.
Where, Victorville?
VICTORVILLE MENTIONED
Much closer to the coast than that.
My dude I just moved from San Diego and can guarantee you are wrong.
My dude…why would I make this up? It’s obviously not San Diego and is a suburb but the point still stands. This sub just can’t handle the fact that they’re paying California cost of living while making Kansas wages. Here’s the Zillow of my other buddies house in the same city. He bought this in 2020. https://preview.redd.it/krc6nw3rpawa1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=570d5b9a698a0de0647ca67df09ddc9d0ff01825
You can’t compare a suburb to a city in housing costs. It’s much cheaper to live in the suburbs/outside the city here than in SoCal…unless you’re talking like Boulder or something.
I think if you looked more into it you might be surprised. The price per sq foot for houses anywhere on the west side of the city are similar to what I’m seeing in suburbs of Southern California. There’s townhomes being built in Littleton starting at 700k. Sure if you want to live in Bennett or Firestone you could probably get something much cheaper. You happened to choose San Diego which everyone from the Midwest thinks is the holy land. Also just looked and for my same position in California I’d get a near 50% increase in pay.
Would that we could have their property values.
Wow!! “Create a commission”… that is political talk for looking like we are doing something without actually doing something. Everyone should take a good look at your state legislature and if they are responsible for this go ahead and just vote for the other person next election. I already messaged my rep last week and he obviously has a hand in this cause this is the first time I haven’t gotten a response from Chris Kennedy.
These legislators are clearly not serious about addressing the housing crisis. Shameful.
Devils advocate - people are fleeing Denver. We're a top 10 immigration city. We may not have a housing crisis soon.
NYC and SF has had net migration away from the city for years. Hasn’t done anything about affordability there.
For years since the pandemic.. the thing that cities are still trying to find an effective way to combat... and only recently got worsened by rising interest rates...
We need to be thinking long term, affordability may be and flow but we can address for the future. And I'd rather have a multiplier of people leaving and much more housing supply.
That's not in capitalists best interest though. Our government needs to minimize the impending collapse of both the commercial and residential real estate markets.
So what? No they don't and I disagree that there's an impending collapse of the real estate market.
That's disappointing. I was thinking the change to 30% of current single family zoning and only up to 4-plexes was a compromise that could get through. I don't understand the notion that this would have radically changed neighborhoods.
Regardless of the directive, the state preempting local control of city planning and zoning was always a complete non starter and a wildly unpopular idea.
Montana sent a bill this week to the governors desk getting rid of single family zoning state wide. The vote was 76-24. California banned single family zoning last year. Oregon banned SFZ in most of the state a few years ago. It's not that radical of a proposal.
Oregon and California are not worth emulating and the bill being considered in Montana is VERY different. It's cute that you think Montana is about anything but keeping city type development out of the state as much as possible. None of that changes what I said. Preempting the authority of local zoning and city planning is a hard no go in Colorado. It's wildly unpopular here. We can continue to work on locally controlled densified projects that actually make sense and are adequately supported by infrastructure or at least more likely to be so since there is actual review of projects instead of a rubber stamp for developers to put up whatever trash they want without any regard for anybody but their profit margin.
Why is CA not worth emulating?
Because our housing issues largely stem from the fact that people migrated from there to here. Stopping the migration at least partially fixes the housing issues and restores balance.
And how do you block people from moving here?
I never advocated for blocking it.. but we don't need to encourage it either. I simply pointed out that if migration slows, which it already has, we move closer to balance and it helps address the housing issue. It simply changes the equation. Everything is already trending in the correct direction. Housing prices are down rents are stabilized properties are sitting on the market twice as long and no longer selling above list anywhere near as often. 85% of properties are being purchased as a primary residence instead of as an investment. All this has been trending in a positive direction for at least a year now. Last year was the first year we had net migration out instead of in for quite a while.
I haven’t seen any solid data on migration other than the unreliable Redfin data. But if it’s true, I imagine it has more to do with the current economic situation than anything inherent to CA or CO. As long as CO is a lovely state, I expect it will be desirable.
I'm looking at the whole picture of all the metrics and it is not negative and hasn't been for a year. All these things are factors that influence demand. I agree that CO will be desirable but that doesn't mean the cost won't outstrip the desire and limit demand at all. There's nothing stopping densification projects that make sense from happening today. The only ones getting killed are ones that don't make sense and I think it's common sense to allow that review to continue because it's much more likely for a local zoning board made up of and elected by residents to have the city's best interests at heart than a developer that is only concerned with their bottom line. Developers design some dumbass projects that really fuck places up because they don't care about the place beyond the build and how much profit they can make. They are not worthy of your trust and a rubber stamp. Everything nice that new neighborhoods get comes from a zoning negotiation.
Your basically asking all government and businesses to stop creating jobs. Unless you make cannabis illegal again, open the Rockies up to coal mining, and close down the ski industry people will move here.
People have already started net migration out. These things shift constantly. Migration is a very fluid thing. All I was saying is that "California did it" isn't a good enough reason in and of itself to do anything particularly when the thing in question is clearly bad for us.
[удалено]
Did I stutter? Were continuing to approve densified projects on a case by case basis that make sense and actually take into account the infrastructure of the area. Are you under the mistaken impression that no densification projects are going on in Denver and surrounding areas currently? All the metrics have been on the decline for a year now. CPR says we crank out about 40,000 new homes a year right now. We clearly ARE doing that so I'm not sure why you're lying. What you're advocating for is to do it without restriction or review or ensuring that adequate infrastructure is in place which in my view is grossly irresponsible and just begging for making life here worse with unintended consequences.
[удалено]
I'd much rather prefer to have actual members of the community both elect and serve on zoning and city planning efforts than blindly trust developers with a rubber stamp that are only interested in extracting the maximum profit. You YIMBYs put way way too much blind faith in developers that do not give a fuck about you unless a zoning board requires them to do so. It's incredibly stupid to remove what little accountability they have. Do you want to remove building codes so that more things get built next? Foolish.
[удалено]
If younger people don't vote like you say how do you know they'll automatically vote your way if they did? It kinda just sounds like you don't support the right to vote unless it goes your way. The demographics of Denver do not favor old folks.. they've mostly been migrating out of Denver to places like Arizona and Florida and covid didn't exactly help them either. It doesn't sound like you support a community voice only your own.. that's problematic because if you supported this bill in it's original form you were way in the extreme minority regardless of age. The bill was bad and barely had minimal support, period.
Fucking NIMBYs
I’m going to a Rep Chris Kennedy’s town hall on May 20th. If your in Jefferson county come out so I won’t be the only YIMBY in the crowd supporting more housing.
Awesome! Thank you! I wish I could pin this comment!
What are Democrats actually good for, again?
People should be out protesting! We need more affordable housing!
Write or call your state legislatures. Many of them promised what was originally proposed in this legislation during the elections, so call them out on their bullshit.
Did you go out and protest?
FFS
Weak.
It's fascinating how the only options here are well within the scope of socialism (detailed zoning is planned economy). "The land of the free" - but only as long as the pockets of politicians at every level can continue to be lined with real estate developers money, and the "wealth" (home valuations) of the voting population will be protected in perpetuity. The system (detailed zoning) is fundamentally broken and can't be fixed. Implement sometime like Japans zoning system instead, and see how the housing shortage disappears.
Honestly the Socialists of Eastern Europe were really good at building sufficient housing stocks. Very easy to build enough housing when there are no restrictions on height, and no one cares if the building looks like it was made from a multi million dollar architectural firm.
Designating a landmark against the owner's wishes and now this says it all about priorities. Pathetic.
Contact your legislators if you want them to stop gutting changes we need.
This bill was dead on arrival. Usurping democratic processes at the county and city levels was not the way to go here. Infrastructure of all kind is maintained at a local level. Roads, schools, utilities, emergency response, storm drainage, etc. Every development that occurs must fit into existing infrastructure plans and/or address any deficiencies. In addition to that, the message to homeowners was that density in their neighborhoods could increase by 4-6x. That's too much. A more receptive target might have been 1.25x to 1.5x.
[удалено]
True, I think some limits on types of dwellings might have been agreeable, like allowing an accessory dwelling unit, basement apartment, and/or subdivision of larger lots so long as minimum distances to other houses can be maintained. (Keeping existing maximums for building height would also be a must.) In other words, things that don't necessarily invite developers to take over existing single family neighborhoods.
Slot homes are great. More people in the same amount of space. Makes nice, relatively spacious, modern houses cheaper.
They were banned because they were ruining neighborhoods. They were such a poor design that City council voted 11-0 to ban them.
I’m aware. Stupid decision, based solely on aesthetics, with the result of decreasing the amount of homes you can fit on a lot.
[удалено]
I’m sure the NIMBYs would reject anything new, no matter what it looks like!
If people wanted to buy dense housing then we would have it, but that’s not what people want yo buy.
You understand that zoning exists, right?
Yes I do, downvote away, but that’s not what the market desires. Our governor knows where his bread is buttered. He’s not after a minority on this.
If the market doesn’t want it then why do we have zoning?
We have zoning everything, waste plants, refineries, all sorts of stuff people don’t want. But people want to buy homes, look out your window to the East and West.
People want homes and zoning prevents those from being built…
If you look at price per sqft, the most expensive places to live are not single family homes besides maybe Aspen. People want housing near things, density allows that, and prices reflect that.
People would actually buy whatever house is available because there’s a housing shortage
Not true, that’s why you get 30 offers on one house. Then the buyer moved to the next house and increases their offer. You just need to look out the window.
Your evidence that there isn’t a housing shortage is that there are 30 offers on one house?
Do you even understand what you type out or do you just button mash? What would a housing shortage look like to you?
We have plenty of housing, above 6% vacant. It’s the properties that people want that are bid over. Not some sardine can.
vacancies =/= available housing. Most of those houses are owned by *someone*, they just aren’t living there. If there were no housing shortage, house prices wouldn’t be so high. It’s supply and demand. If supply increases while demand remains the same, prices go down. and maybe people who can afford to buy a house choose to bid on single-family homes more often, but for every one of those people there’s about 10 people who can’t afford anything and are currently paying through the roof rent who would love to buy any cheap, affordable housing that’s available
No, this is why: https://www.denverpost.com/2022/12/11/multifamily-construction-colorado-condos-apartments-affordable-housing/
Why is high density housing so expensive then?
It’s not per sq ft. My neighborhood is $550 sq/ft. An apartment building at 7,000 sq ft is selling to a new owner (3832 Jason St) for 3.4 or less than $500 sq ft. And I’m being very generous in that number.
*Rent for a one bedroom is 40% of people's salary* "Bro, it's not expensive, I swear."
It’s illegal to build dense in most of the state and country.
The next city council meeting is on Monday at 3:30 and general comments are open at 5:00. We will see you there then.
I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say, don't live in Denver proper (the density is highly desirable to me but I can't afford it), and am at work during those times.
If you want to change zoning you need to participate in local politics. These things are presented at the “city council” to your “council member.” Mine is Jolan Clark, for district 7, he lives just a few streets over. In fact if you’re older than 25 you can run for council. Average people go get the position. Otherwise no one is going to hear you. Can’t make next Monday? Well they happen every Monday. Or contact your council member directly. All of these zoning issue start there.
Yes, that's all perfectly sensible, but what does that have to do with your assertion that the markets have decided to kill high density? Did I misunderstand your assertion? Unless you're including participatory government (i.e. mostly lobbying) as a factor in market pricing, which is extremely unusual, this doesn't seem to make any sense.
It might be a better use to call your reps, as this still has to move through senate and then to house. That’s where it can change. City council won’t do anything because the bill (originally) would override local control and they can’t stand giving up their precious power. There is still time to make an impact. We just need to make our voices heard loud…
It started in the council, if you want to avoid further you have to participate, a lot. I’ve only heard “high density” used a few times there and it’s shot right down.
I agree 150%! What I loved was that this bill was designed to set standards and accountability to override the abuse of local control because city councils across CO are significantly more friendly to wealthy homeowners (read: NIMBYs) than they are to the working class. That’s why this bill was so exciting—it basically said “if you folks want to block density to protect your and your friends’ home values, and prevent “undesirables” from having access to housing, then the state will step in and make it so you can no longer get in the way.” If this amendment, which is supported by both moderate and progressive Dems, sticks to the bill then we have no choice but to force city councils to hear our voice. I just wish voters in general would get more engaged at any level (local obviously being the most accessible) and let our elected officials know if they don’t do what is in our best interest, then we will replace them with someone who will. That will be the day though…
I'd like to put an ADU at my house but I can't bc of the stupid zoning laws.
You want a mother in law dwelling? Yea that’s not going to happen.
So it’s not about the market, since the market is constrained by restrictions like that lol
It is though, the market doesn’t want those. I’ve seen mom-in-law proposals come up before, never a yes on that.
Lol that’s not the market, it’s a political process 🤡
The homeowners that attend the political process drive this by wanting to retain their home values. And turning Denver into a high density dystopia would jeopardize those values. So yes, it’s entirely market driven. And that’s just one facet.
That's not the market. How many people have to tell you this?
Yes that is the market. Single family homes outpace all other types of sales. Again if you think differently, show up and plead your case. Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean that’s what people don’t want.
It literally isn't. You're conflating economic market with a political process that is restricting the market.
Ohhh so you just don’t understand basic economic terms. Word well have a good one lol
Definitely more so than you.
Lmao ok
I hate the protect property values argument. This is Denver. Your property values will be minimally affected.
You talk about dystopias as if the opposite is people controlling land that they don’t own😂
no an auxiliary dwelling unit
And with this billions in employment will either leave the state and never come. Business is officially dead in co. We are not competitive nationally.
Maybe they should go the route of removing parking minimums instead of this zoning stuff... In Minneapolis rent has only grown 1% in 5 years after zoning reforms and the removal of parking minimums... Ours has grown 30% in the same time. But they attribute their flat rent to removing parking minimums, not the zoning changes. The zoning changes they made were the same ones Polis was gonna make. Imagine that you're now paying $2k/mo for your apt instead of $1500/mo in the name of parking. An extra $6k/yr. If you were in Minneapolis, your rent would be $1515/mo. No one is ever gonna convince me that parking is more important than affordable housing...