John Rebchook is a former Rocky Mountain News reporter with more than 30 years of experience in writing and communications... 
This home on Raleigh Street may not look so bad at first blush, but it is in such bad shape that if it isn't scraped, it will end up as a foreclosure.
Video: Developer makes his case
Take a POLL at the bottom of the blog
Former Denver City Councilman Rick Garcia described his northwest district as “ground zero” for clashes between some homeowners and developers razing houses and replacing them with modern homes. Perhaps the epicenter of ground zero can be found on the east side of a tree-lined block of Raleigh Street between West 32nd Avenue and West 33rd Avenue. There, Realtor and fledgling developer Jeff Plous and partners are hoping to tear down a small home that is falling apart and functionally obsolete, and replace it with a three-story, energy efficient duplex designed by architect Anchen Wang.
Developing a high-end, spec home in this market is tough, given the challenging market and battered economy. But for Plous, a broker with One Realty and Robert Plimpton, the owner of the development site, the job is much more difficult because their proposed duplex on Raleigh Street is adjacent to a home owned by Anthony Cooper, one of the most vocal critics of three-story developments in northwest Denver.
Developers “rape, scrape and prostitute” the neighborhood, according to Cooper, who has lived on the block for almost 14 years. He has placed a sign in front of his yard saying that he may be living next to a “huge puky duplex.” Similar signs are sprinkled on neighboring lawns.
Anthony Cooper placed this sign in his front lawn.
Plous believe that Cooper represents the worst of NIMBYism, or Not In My Back Yard, a knee-jerk reaction to development, even smart growth, which he believes he is proposing.
Zoning appeal set for June 22
Cooper is trying to stop the development on a technicality. The area is part of a moratorium zone spearheaded by Garcia before he left the council to be HUD’s Region VIII director. Plous and Plimpton applied and received the permit for the duplex before the moratorium went into place. But Cooper argues they took 217 days to get their zoning in place, missing the 180-deadline. But Plous counters that the city made a mistake – they hadn’t violated an open-space requirement that the city originally thought it had- and when the city realized its error, it granted the zoning, without another hearing. In other words, the 180-day deadline did not apply. But Cooper, with the help of 26 neighbors, raised $300 to appeal the zoning with Denver. A Denver Board of Adjustment meeting on the matter is scheduled for June 22.
Duplex would help neighborhood
The duplex would replace the home, which Plous considers an eyesore, and the lone bad home on the block. The new duplex, he believes,will help the neighborhood and community in several ways, Plous contends. First, he believes an attractive duplex replacing a home that is little more than a dump, will raise the value of other homes on the street. The new duplex also will be green, with average utility bills expected to be less than $100 month – about a third of the current utility bills, even though the new homes will be more than three times the size of the current 949-square-foot home, he said. Each side of the duplex will have about 3,500 square feet, including the basements. In addition, current tenants park on the street, while the new homes would each have two-car garages, helping to reduce congestion, according to Plous.
DPS benefits
One thing that is often overlooked, Plous notes, is that most of the property taxes go to the Denver Public School District, and not to the city. So homes such as this, in the $650,000 price range, will bring more money to the financially struggling DPS. New homes such as this, he argues, also will keep or attract people to the city, who otherwise might buy a home in the suburbs.
Plous, who lives in the neighborhood, said he has no interest in tearing down and replacing houses that are attractive, in good shape and make economic sense. “I wouldn’t want to tear down any of the homes across the street, or Tony’s (Cooper’s) home for that matter,” Plous said. “He has a nice house.”
House plagued with problems
But there’s little to like about the home he wants to replace, Plous said. The home, built in 1924, has a side-entrance, which prospective buyers do not like. That design error is compounded, because it has resulted in long, narrow rooms and a tiny bathroom, all turn offs to buyers, he said. The roof, electrical and plumbing systems all need to be replaced. For the past six months, Plous said he has unsuccessfully tried to sell it for $325,000, “which is way below market.” A similar-sized home across the street sold last year for $405,000, he said.
“We could put another $100,000 into it, which would mean we would have about $425,000 invested in it, and we would be able to sell it for about $400,000,” Plous said. “And the numbers just don’t pencil out for a single-family home on the site.”
Foreclosure could replace development
Plous said if they can’t develop the site, the home will fall into foreclosure. “There is just no way we could hold on to it,” as a rental, Plous said. “Believe me, we have already put a lot of money into this. This is my first development, the one I’m cutting my teeth on. Whatever happens, we’re not going to make a ton of money on this. But the last thing the neighborhood wants to see is a foreclosed home on the block. That would be terrible.”
Plous lives a few blocks from the development. He resents people who think that he is a carpetbagger who is looking to make a quick buck and leave the West Highland neighborhood.
“I’m not the bad guy,” said Plous, who sold the home to Plimpton, then joined him as an equity partner on the development. “We’re not some heartless developers. We love this neighborhood.”
They bought the house in a pre-foreclosure deal. The woman who owned it prior to Plimpton kept two, 200-pound dogs that she rarely let out, Plous said. “The smell was so bad you had to wear a mask when you entered,” Plous said. “You could smell it from the street. The basement was full of dog feces. We had to spend $10,000 right after buying it, just to make it livable.”
Cooper, however, counters that the new owners have “let the property fall into disrepair.” He said the weeds in the yard “are over a foot tall, and they have done nothing to abate them.” And as far as the garage on the property, he said there is a “motor vehicle” parked in it.
Protests hurt design
Aesthetically, he said architect Wang will design the duplex to blend in the neighborhood. Indeed, he said Wang was working on a different design, which would have set-back the third-floor element of the homes to the back of the lot, so it would have looked more like a two-story home from the street. Ironically, Cooper’s protest killed that plan, he said.
“He pushed our backs against the wall,” as they can’t go back to the drawing board with the second elevation, Plous said.
“If Tony (Copper) had played nice, I think we would have ended up with an even more neighborhood- friendly home,” Plous said. “But we are going to use most of the same kind of materials you find in the neighborhood, with brown and red bricks. It will have a little bit of metal, because it is going to be modern.” Also, the design calls for one front door, with the entry into each unit in the interior, a little touch that will make the duplex look more like a single-family home, he said.
“Rape, scrape, prostitute”
Cooper, for his part, doesn’t buy any of it.
“I, and I think most of the neighbors, don’t like the idea of a lot-line to lot-line, three-story duplex with a flat roof that is gong to steal the sun from the neighbor on the north side of it and allow people to look into my back yard,” Cooper said. (Plous says the duplex will not run from the line of the lot to the other, which he said Cooper knows.)
Cooper said he viewed a public filing of what the duplex will look like, and he doesn’t like it at all.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” Cooper said. “But this home is butt-ugly. It will fit into this neighborhood like galoshes fit on a duck.” He said the developers never ran their plans by any of the neighbors. Plous said that was not required.
Asked if he considers himself a NIMBY, Cooper had this to say: “Well, none of us want this. That is why we did the moratorium here. Developers come in and they rape, scrape and prostitute the neighborhood for their own profit. Mr. Plimpton and Mr. Plous don’t plan to live there (although they both considered it, Plous said.) They’re just going to prostitute the property and make it as big as they can.”
Cooper said he could care less if the homes falls into foreclosure.
“Who cares? If it goes into foreclosure, someone else will buy it and either live in it or tear it down and build a single-family home on the property,” Cooper said. “If they were planning to build a single-family home on the property, I don’t think anyone in the neighborhood would care.”
City Councilwoman Paula Sandoval, recently elected to replace Garcia in District 1, does care if the home becomes a foreclosure statistic.
“We don’t want to see houses end up in foreclosure,” Sandoval said. “You have an empty house. That is just the start of it. It brings crime and a slow decline in a neighborhood.”
Sandoval doesn’t see win-win
That said, Sandoval said she is quite familiar with the dispute and she can see both sides.
“It is a sticky situation,” Sandoval said. “It sounds like the city made a mistake when they asked the developer to cure a defect in their first application; it sounds like because it was a mistake on the city’s part, there was nothing to cure. On the other hand, Anthony Cooper is saying that they had a six-moth time period and they didn’t meet the six-month time period to get their permits in order, and technically, it doesn’t matter why they didn’t meet the deadline.”
She said the dispute almost rises to the need of a “Solomon-like” outcome, but she doesn’t think it is possible.
“Sorry I can’t come up with a ’split-the-baby’ solution,” Sandoval quipped. “I would love to see this end up as a ‘win-win,’ but I don’t see that happening. This is a very difficult and interesting one. I’m going to have to keep my eye on this one.”
Plous said that while Cooper doesn’t like the new breed of buildings in the neighborhood, for his part, he doesn’t care for some of the decisions Cooper has made on his property. For example, Cooper placed a toilet bowl in his front yard and filled it with flowers, which Plous finds unattractive. “Too bad, so sad,” Cooper said. “It’s my right. I can paint my house Bronco orange and blue if I want. Whose deal is going to impact the neighborhood more? My design and landscaping choices or a duplex that will be there for the next 50 to 100 years?”
Anthony Cooper planted flowers in this toilet bowl in his front yard of his home on Raleigh Street. Cooper painted a smiley face on the toiler, after speaking to InsideRealEstateNews.
Plous knew about Cooper before he planned a duplex next to his house. But he had no idea that of all the homes in northwest Denver, he was choosing a development site next to Cooper’s home.
“He loves to use that line, ’scraping, raping and prostituting.’ He uses it every chance he gets,” Plous said. “We didn’t know he lived right next door until after the closing. We didn’t know how bad it was going to get. If we knew what we know now, we never would have bought it.”
Loading ...Contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com or 303-945-6865.
I support the developer, however Plous claiming that the present 949 square-foot home now pays $300 a month in utilities is hard to believe.
The short sightedness of these people confounds me. I’m a Real Estate Broker with an undergrad in Architecture and Masters in Real Estate from DU. I’ve helped many developers buy, develop & sell both multi-unit and single family unit development in these central Denver neighborhoods. I agree that some architecturally valuable homes should not be torn down, this isn’t one of them. The home is beyond repair. The benefits of two new units and the associated tax base are too many to list here. The businesses around the corner in Highland Square need the density to survive. And by the way Mr. Cooper, not only do the #’s not work to renovate the property with all the associated design flaws, the #’s don’t work for a single family residence to be built on the site either. My solution to this developer vs. neighbor issue is to create some architectural standards that allow for new construction like this BUT to also adhere contextually to the architecture surrounding the new development.
So if I read this correctly, Mr Cooper doesn’t like the idea of a new house next to his, but does like toilets with flowers in them in his front yard. Right? OOOK.
Temporary flower pot toilets and other lawn decorations can be easily removed. A overpriced, cement laden, boxy, multiplex, three story toilet that does NOT match any of the homes on this block is more permanent.
The developer/owner have intentionally allowed this home to fall apart. The weeds in the yard are over a foot high, the paint is chipping, the fence is falling apart and the lawn has not been mowed. These are not expensive fixes.
It is obvious to homeowners on this block, this fight has evolved because of greed. The developers want to make money at the homeowners expense.
So Donna, you’d prefer a neighborhood full of white trash front lawns?
NW Denver is a wonderful, eclectic neighborhood with many architectural styles. The NIMBYs want to halt history, and not recognize that energy efficiency and market forces demand our houses change in style and form. There are plenty of wonderful old homes that have been well preserved, but there are many that need to go! Replace them with nice, new, energy efficient homes that people actually want to live in…and halt the sprawl!
Donna,
That’s ridiculous. Of course a developer wants to make money! Isn’t that the point of developing. But in no way is he doing it at the “homeowner’s expense.” How much money are the other homeowners on the block losing? At the worst, they’re gaining a new home that replaces a dump! I’m sorry if you don’t like change. Go live in Amish country if you never want anything to progress with the times.
I live in the neighborhood too (so does the developer) and am all for new, nice homes being built over crappy old ones. Sorry you don’t like the style of today’s buildings. I really don’t either. This is what the market is asking for. If people wanted some SFR that looked like an old home, that’d be what was getting built. It’s not. Again, I don’t even like modern that much myself, but it’s what the free market is craving.
If it weren’t for these developers in part coming in and fixing these broken homes we would not have seen the neighborhood turnover we have enjoyed over the last 15 years.
When I bought seven years ago my block was a DUMP (32nd and Zuni). Pasquini’s was a nappy nail salon with used car paint all over the windows. Gallop wasn’t there. Nor was Duo…just some old broken building. No one wanted to live there at the time. I couldn’t beg people to be my roomate. Developers came in and fixed up houses and built new ones and the whole neighborhood turned around. We said “thank you! thank you! thank you!” as I watched my home value skyrocket $80k in 2 years.
Now that you’re here you don’t want any thing else to change. That’s not how it works. Get over it. You should be thanking these people.
Donna, do you really think that mowing the lawn, painting the outside of the house and fixing the fence then makes a home livable?
I would argue that your friend with the toilet in his front yard is a contributor to the immediate neighbor’s home values. When prospective buyers are riding around the area looking to invest in a home and they see this, I can be certain that they have second thoughts about moving to that immediate neighborhood.
The homeowner is complaining about a 3 story duplex while having that toilet in his front yard? Is it just me or is that outright laughable?
“Too bad, so sad,” Cooper said. “It’s my right. I can paint my house Bronco orange and blue if I want.”
Wow. Cooper sounds like the worst kind of hypocrite. Doesn’t he at least see the irony (idiocy?) in this comment?
A big problem is that there is no standing up to the neighborhood bullies and no one working to bring the rational sides together. The planning department is not. Our old and new Council representatives did not. So the normally calm and reasonable neighbors get all worked up by a a few loud and radical individuals. This is just the flavor of the month complaining. This is not NIMBYism, its personal objectionism. Hey neighbors: You could become the next victim of someone’s harassment. That’s why Jeff and his partners deserve the protection of the City in enforcing the law to allow them to redevelop the site. That’s why cooler heads must intervene. Like Jeff, I live and work in the neighborhood. A neighborhood which, by the way, developed into what it is now without any architectural standards. We don’t need more government rules. all that will happen – and already is – will be growth outside the City, further sprawl and a return of decay to NW Denver.
I used to hate the idea of these so-called scrapers, which have been sprouting throughout my neighborhood like dandelions. One is going up 2 doors down from us, and it seems we will be woken by noisy construction for the rest of the summer. I work at home, so it’s especially nightmarish. Yet, I’ll tell you that as I’ve seen these places go up, I’ve noticed that they’re reasonably attractive, make good use of space, and are often nicer than the homes they’re replacing. The one that used to stand on the property two doors down was a real eyesore. I used to worry that these places raised the physical profile of the neighborhood, blocking out more views of mountains and sunshine, but the difference is negligible. At a time when urban sprawl is damaging our environment, I think it’s positive to put two families on a piece of property that used to house only one.
We have a small old-fashioned Denver bungalow, and we like it, but I think the anger over scrapers, which I at first shared, is often just a fear of change. Yes, it’s painful to see neighborhoods with old-fashioned character give way. But change is inevitable. We hope that many of the well-kept, all-brick homes around us will stay. We certainly like ours. But there is nothing so constant as change, and I find it wastes energy to constantly fight it.
The Use by Right supports the developer. If the neighbor wanted more protection, he should have purchased with a deed restriction or another neighborhood. Property rights are being stepped on every day, we have to protect our property rights.
I could not agree more Tom!
Recently I was looking for a home in the Highlands to buy, fix up and live in. This one came up during my search. I drove by the house to see if I would be interested in a showing. That’s when I saw all the signs regarding the whole development issue. A message to all of you on that block: if you think you are helping the situation with your signs you are NOT. I don’t want to live next to a bunch of crackpots and that is exactly what those sign(s) screamed to me. So not only are you blocking legit development you are also turning off legit buyers that may just want to rehab the house to live in. The last thing I want to deal with is a bunch of neighbors with way too much time on their hands and concern for what I should and should not be doing. There are worse things to have next door than a duplex and I hope you all learn that lesson the hard way. Cheers-
Pity us who suffer without benefit of your magnanimity, Brian. People who call neighbors expressing their needs and opinions “crackpots” aren’t very nice neighbors anyway. You reject the voice of independent spirits standing up for the peace and quiet we need to function and live a good life in the neighborhood we love–full of character and history–continuously improving-not being mowed down. Building this duplex is a selfish act-we protest because we will suffer. Everyone, especially those of us who work at home, or at night, will be punished with months of noise, trucks, and trash-so that a few will profit. And we’ll be looking at this boxy monstrosity for the rest of our time here–instead of trees, birds, and sunlight. We would rather live our lives and get our work done, but we are taking time to work against the tide of destruction, for all the people on neighboring blocks who are also suffering this abuse. We are proud that this is one of the most desirable neighborhoods in the city–just as it is. Soon, all but the richest will be priced out of this market, forever erasing the diversity that once existed here, and raising property taxes for ordinary people. Ya see, some of us crackpots have values other than getting rich off of our property. We actually want to live here. If your plans are so great, why don’t you show us and talk to us about them, instead of hiding them?
Suffer. That’s a joke right? You’re suffering? No food on your block is there? Really?? If you’re a neighbor then yeah, I think you’ve got some crack-pot in you. All of these people are soo melodramatic. Using terms like “suffer, rape, prostitute, etc.” None of that is happening. At the most, you’ll be inconvinienced and annoyed. None of you will be prostituted and suffer if this building gets built.
Which leads me to realize you guys are operating out of fear and propoganda instead of facts and logic and progress. That’s no way to live.
FACT – one old unsellable dump is being replaced by 2 new houses.
FACT – nobody wants the old eye-sore house as is.
FACT – you think the new design is ugly (so do I, but if people want it, who am I to say no).
Wake up, dude. Every neighbor of this house has a sign protesting the duplex and does not want it built. It’s a fact. Drive by and see for yourself.
It is up to the officials to decide who has the right to do what under the law. We are all simply speaking up for what we believe and what meets our needs. And we happen to all agree that we do not want this house scraped and replaced with a giant duplex. Stunning, isn’t it?
I am amazed at all the people on this site that can’t see past the front of their nose to understand that vast numbers of people do not like this kind of development. You should get out more.
Sigh. To repeat, it’s ridiculous to say it’s a “fact” that the house is a dump simply because the developer has claimied as much (without verification) or to call the house unsellable and universally unwanted merely because it hasn’t sold at the price being asked. Lower the price, and the market will respond.
Regarding the qualification of your third “fact,” it’s hardly without precedent in our system for neighbors to have a say in what their neighborhood looks like outside their immediate property lines. One may validly argue with that as preferred public policy, but it’s hardly novel or radical. This fight is being waged both via established law and freedom of expression.
While there have been some horrible new developments, most are a welcome addition to the neighborhood. Let’s remember that when property owners are willing to invest hundreds of thousands of dollars into the neighborhood they supports jobs, schools, public services and local businesses.
I happen to live in a new development that is clean, has off street parking, and is mostly brick. I think I am a good neighbor. Of course, there are many older homes that are dirty, poorly maintained eyesores. I wish the zoning code would REQUIRE they be scraped…but I believe a property owner has his or her right to do as they wish (under the law). I wish those like Mr. Cooper would respect that.
I’ve built since 1977 and had my share of NIMBY’s. Once people see the stability and improved values this natural evolution of neighborhoods brings, the NIMBYs are overshadowed by the rest of the residents and go away. On the other hand, maybe our neighbors would like a yellow toilet with matching flowers in our front yard. I’ll see what Mag’s thinks of this idea.
Biased Article
The article looks to biased towards the development & real estate groups but that is where your bread is buttered so I expected it. Your article never mentioned the owner Jeff and Robert have let the home fall into disrepair. The weeds and grass are over 1 ft tall and Robert built a illegal bathroom in the basement with out a City building permit and questionable code comformance.
They never contacted any neighbors I am know of to ask for our input on the design plans. Yes you make the developers to be the victims but they are trying to build a duplex that will fit into the neighborhood “Like Goloshes Fit a Duck”.
Sincerely
Coop
We would like to thank you all for your feedback so far. I would like to take a moment to clarify a few points that have been made.
Most importantly you say that we have let the house run into the ground. This is incorrect. The woman who owned the house before us and who was going into foreclosure is the person who really let this house become run down. When Rob purchased this house he immediately put over $10k into the house just so it would be livable.
The house has been on the market for nearly 6 months now. In that time we have had a TON of showings. We have received zero offers for it as a house. All the feedback we have received says the floor plan is horrible, or that the value is in the land. We have even received a few comments stating they were turned off by the neighbors and their signs. We aren’t even trying to sell the house for a profit at this point.
This has left us with one option: build on the land. We can not build a single family home on this land because it just is not financially feasible. You say we are just acting out of greed, but we are not. Real Estate is what I do for a living. I can not work for free, I am not independently wealthy. However, I can try to ensure that every effort is made to design and build something that is well finished, well designed, and well constructed.
Thank you for pointing out that our grass is too long in front. The home is currently tenant occupied so I will go over there this week and mow it.
People have lived in that house with its floor plan for many years, generations even. Certainly there’ll be buyers available at the appropriate price. Whatever the true level of “disrepair” is or whose fault it is, there’s still a price at which the house will sell, even if that means it forecloses first. Jeff, if the house was purchased for more than it should have been and you could lose your shirt in lieu of scraping for a duplex, my heart goes out to you for your mistake, but that’s not the neighbors’ problem nor a legitimate issue regarding the property’s use. The only valid issue (that I see) is whether you can do whatever you want with that property in face of the opposition of all its neighbors. Because it’s clear that you want to build a big duplex (whatever the validity of your justifications (and BTW, I don’t blame you for wanting to maximize the return on your investment!)) just as it’s equally clear that the neighbors don’t want one there. Being various different people, we likely all have our various different reasons. NIMBYism would be a valid charge against any of the neighbors who say it should be perfectly fine and okay to build big duplexes in other, similar neighborhoods against the wishes of the neighbors there, but no one who’s making that charge on this thread knows any of the neighbors take such a position. Regardless, it’s only natural to care most about what’s happening right next door as that’s what mosst directly affects you. BTW folks, the signs and the toilets are reflections of the opposition to the duplex and that only, and they will be removed as soon as it becomes clear that a duplex is no longer being planned.
[...] Read the full story & let us know your thoughts. [...]
So let me get this straight. Cooper says this about his house: “Too bad, so sad,” but at the same time the rest of the neighborhood should have to get his approval? I mean, we’re not talking about historic homes here. Where does this guy get off? Why does this guy act like he owns the block? Complaining about parking on the street? Does he own that too!!!
Mr. Cooper, if you want to act like you own the block, I suggest you make an offer on the property your self.
This is another sad example of American society refusing to take any personal responsibility. Sometimes you don’t get everything you want in life. That doesn’t mean you sue the whole world!
Coop collected money from many neighbors to contest approval for the demolition and new duplex. All the nearby neighbors have protest signs on their lawn. Neighbor on the next block also had protest signs to prevent destruction of a beautiful home. The neighbors do not want the duplex. Shocking, but true.
Just another thought … if he neighbors that oppose the building of duplex and want to “save” the house, they should put their money where their mouths are and buy it. This
In this case I’m going to side with the Developer because the neighbor knew of the zoning when he bought his home, or at least it was HIS responsibility to know that. I am empathetic to the neighbors desire for no development, but he cannot arbitrarily change the zoning rights of everyone on his block by now objecting to the pre-existing zoning law. This is unreasonable and not his legal right. I’ve been a Real Estate Broker for 36 years and know this situation from all sides: neighbor & owner, Broker, & Developer. As a Broker I always try to make sure people understand their zoning and that both the neighbors AND the property next door can change. As an owner, I realize what the property is and where the neighborhood is likely to go prior to purchase, as a Developer I try to fit something “in character” & in concert with the direction of the area. No one is guaranteed that their neighborhood will not change over time! If the neighbor, indeed, wants to “downzone” his street he must get involved in the legal process to do so but I can guarantee he has neighbors who will resist such an action. On the other hand, if the Developer is asking for more than the zoning regulations allow, the neighbor has a perfect right to complain and the City will take that into consideration. Objection to a development by “right” will be heard and considered as to design elements, etc, but will not have the power to stop it.
I used to have a rental up/down duplex near this neighborhood that was built in 1925. Everything that went wrong was blamed on my tenants. One time I was cleaning up and a vociferous neighbor came by (2 doors down)and mentioned this and that and I politely took all the usual neighbor garbage, however my father was there and he did not take it well and nearly got into a fistfight with this neighbor. Also if the weeds were too high I would get a note from the city that I would be fined if not mowed. I also got garbage on one of my side lawns and witnessed it from my owner occupied neighbor next door tossing their stuff over the fence. This home was grandfathered in whenever I pulled a permit for work (for example no basement easement window required) and a new home there or in the neighborhood would definetely be an improvement since a new home would have to meet all current codes.
The developer wanting to scrape is an example of capitalism and we live in a mainly capitalistic society where the benefits of capitalism outweigh the negatives; increased density for business support, higher school taxes, affluence etc. Also keep in mind if your house was built after 1900 or so then your home resides on what was previously farmland and usually the farmer sold his land and he bought farmland in a more outlying area and this cycle repeated itself from generation to generation. This is how your subdivision probably got built. I have seen other areas near Wellshire and east of Colorado Blvd and by Porter Hospital where those developments have transformed the neighborhoods for the better and raised property values for all. In some areas people have fixed their single family homes up and stayed. Look at the vote, 85% are on the developer side and like the stock market a profit is not guaranteed. The developers deserve to try to make a profit in taking a chance in building and I believe the neighborhood in the long run will be better served by businesses and commerce. As for the NIMBY, he would be in the negative when it came to capitalism. However, I believe this is much better than socialism.
It is obvious this neighbor is full of fear for change.
An historic register listing could help preserve the quality of the neighborhood environment. It takes a lot of work to set these up, but in the end, they prevent this sort of ugly duplex problem from happening. I live in Kansas, and I’ve been involved in the process personally. Developers take heed.
An historic district is a special area established by National Register Nomination, with defined boundaries, which contains a high concentration of historically and/or architecturally significant buildings. An historic district is a group of historic resources that are deemed significant as a collection of structures. The principal purpose of the district is to protect significant buildings within its boundaries from unnecessary or insensitive destruction, alteration or removal. Structures or sites located within 500 feet of a property listed on the National Register of Historic Places are considered to be within the environs of the listed property and subject to state law review.
The stance of the “NIMBY’s” disgusts me. Change is inevitable in all societal structures. If there is one constant in our lives it is CHANGE. The NIMBY’s, by fighting change are denying progress. They hide behind the guise of “preservation”. Preservation of what …?
2bed / 1 bath bungalows a with a shallow ceiling basement that has pipes and air ducts running thru, small closets, and a choppy floor-plan that cannot accommodate more than a family of 2? There is a reason why the new builds successfully sell. Simply put, they fulfill a massive demand by consumers who want to continue living in the city and not have to succumb to a suburban life of tract homes and commuting. The duplex model allows for efficient density and continued urban living. If the NIMBY’s would get off their high horse of “architectural preservation” and actually do some architectural/social/societal research they would realize that the change of architectural styles has always been dictated by need. The new build duplex of today is the bungalow of the 40’s or the Victorian of the 1910. The desired “down zoning” comes from a place of ignorance, fear, and myopic thinking.
I did check with Mags. No dice on a yellow toilet in our front yard; even WITH matching flowers. See, I am getting to know her.
1. Boy, that BOA hearing on June 22 will be entertaining! “There Will Be Blood”. And shouting. Looking forward to Coop’s next goofy sound bite.
2. Congrats to J.R. for being far more prolific, entertaining, and relevant now than when he had an actual job at an actual newspaper. It must be gratifying that the Post now promotes this blog.
3. This controversy is really nothing compared to the fact that this summer tens of thousands of Denver households will be losing their duplex rights. The new zoning map eliminates most of the old R-2 and replaces it with single unit zoning. ADUs were thrown in as a consolation prize in a small percentage of neighborhoods.
4. Many of the current R-2 owners have been counting on the added value of the zoning they may have thought was permanent. Since most folks (unsurprisingly) ignore zoning, this will be a shock when they wake up.
5. This citywide downzoning comes about because all the councilpeople save Brown and Faatz have been pestered enough by the “whining minority”. (see poll results) They see the downzoning as the way to silence their phones at the expense of long-settled property rights.
I lived in a town where the beautiful “small” (2000 sq ft) brick homes were torn down to make way for massive McMansions. The beautiful, old trees were chopped down to make way for the perfect lawns. The streets were widened to make way for more cars. The taxes were raised so much that the existing neighbors had no choice but to sell their homes because they could no longer afford to live in the homes they had occupied for 40 years. The new homes lay quiet and vacant, their taxes unpaid, homeowners and builders alike in foreclosure. The neighbors that remain have lost their views of the sun.
What makes you think you are any different? We are in an economical and ecological period of distress. Yet, you build bigger homes that increase global warming by having more space to heat or cool. You temporarily put people to work in order to build a home which will later go “belly up” because the new inhabitants cannot afford it. What is wrong with you? Leave well enough alone. Respect these neighbors’ wishes to have peace and quiet. If they wish to live across the road from a 1924 “eyesore” than so be it. There are plenty of neighborhoods who would welcome you to built on their vacant properties. Just drive down the block and you will see properties that have been boarded up with the familiar forclosure notices on the front of them. If you have a mission to build, do so in a neighborhood that needs and wants you to be there. May I suggest you troll the streets of Chicago to find your next project?
It seems like there are a lot of preservatonists that are only willing to bitch and gripe. Why doesn’t Anthnoy Cooper raise money to buy and preserve the property? What has Anthony Cooper done to preserve the neigborhood? I don’t believe putting signs in your front yard should be allowed disparaging another persons home but it falls under “free speech,” just as building a new home to allow for higher density, that is also greener and more efficient, falls under “free economy.” These are pillars of American society and you can’t start picking and choosing based on personal convenience Anthony. This home will be better for the city and the planet but it seems Anthony’s major concern is Anthony.
I have a friend that drives a 1970’s VW Van that is awful for the environment and yet he calls himself a purist; when a new VW van is 30x less toxic for the environment. Anthony Cooper claims to be a purist/preservationist but does not care to look at the bigger picture and use some common sense.
A democratic society must operate under the rule of law, not a mob. The actions of the residents of this block to a development permitted by law is nothing short of mob rule. If you can be a mob, you can also fall victim to a mob. That is why this hysteria must be stopped. That is why every resident of this City should take note of this case and stand up for the rule of law.
This block is also being hypocritical. They used the rule of law (arguably improperly but that’s a different issue) to obtain a wide area moratorium on duplex development (the project at issue was already approved and is legal). So they benefit from law in one area (moratorium) but refuse to respect it in another (zoning rights). Disagree, but respect and follow law, rights and process. You ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
And finally, our elected representatives and City officials are a huge disappointment. They are far too concerned about re-election and job security to actually do their jobs and weigh in on a controversial issue.
These people are hypocrites. It’s all about property rights. Anthony Cooper has a right to have an ugly toilet on his property just like Plous has the right to develop a duplex on his property. Both are within the rights dictated by zoning.