John Rebchook is a former Rocky Mountain News reporter with more than 30 years of experience in writing and communications... 
Shown is a drawing of the five-story apartment building planned along Meade Street by RedPeak Properties.
A grassroots group opposing a proposed 147-unit apartment community in three buildings in the trendy West Highland neighborhood on Tuesday night decided to hold a rush hour rally next week near the development.
The rally is scheduled to begin at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 29th at West 32nd Avenue and Lowell Boulevard to protest the RedPeak Development luxury apartment project just north of that intersection. The date will be changed if there is inclement weather in the forecast.
The rally came near the end of a community update meeting of the No High Rises in West Highland group, in the wake of the decision last Thursday by Councilwoman Susan Shepherd not to seek to downzone the land, where RedPeak is allowed to build five-story buildings.
Laura Goode, founder of the group, told the 80 or so people who filled a basement room in the Highland Church proposed to be part of the new development that she was “sad, angry, and indignant,” when she learned of Shepherd’s decision.
But she said they are not giving up the fight.
“We are not out of options,” she said. “Our options are limited. But we are not out of options. I don’t want you to leave this room without hope.”
However, she declined to name the group’s next move, although she said and other members have met with “very high-powered” real estate attorneys during the past eight weeks.
She said she can’t be open about the options because if RedPeak, Shepherd and others in the city got wind of their strategy, they could create “roadblocks” that could make it more difficult for the efforts to be successful.
That did not sit well with one member of the group, Thad Tecza.
Tecza, who has vocally opposed RedPeak’s plans at other meetings, said he doesn’t like secrecy in government and doesn’t like secrecy from this group. Other people, however, said it would be foolish to broadcast a legal strategy too early. One woman in the audience said she would help fund a lawsuit to stop the project.
“We have to keep our eye on the goal – we want to win the war here,” Goode said.
She said she expects to elaborate on the next step the group will take on Monday or Tuesday of next week.
The clock is ticking.
Trevor Greco, an engineer familiar with Denver’s building approval process, said RedPeak filed its first set of plans last week on the Lowell parcel. He said it typically takes six to eight weeks before the plans are administratively approved and RedPeak is able to receive building permits. Once that happens, RedPeak will likely buy the land from an investment group headed by Tom Wootten.
He estimated that by the end of March, RedPeak could get its building permits and at that point the group may be out of options to stop the development.
Earlier, there had been rumblings of possibly launching a citywide election to downzone the property. And another group is seeking landmark status for the church building to protect a portion of it from being razed.
Meanwhile, Richard Montoya, who has been investigating mounting a recall election against Shepherd, said that won’t be happening in the near-term as he doesn’t want it to interfere with other efforts to stop RedPeak’s plans.
“I do think it is going to take place – it’s just a matter of time,” he said.
Before the meeting began, George Luce distributed a missive he wrote calling into questions the incident that took place one evening last month in Shepherd’s home when two women without an appointment ended being asked to leave following a shouting match.
“The ‘assault’ in question has two very different sides in the telling, contradictory versions of who really went ballistic on whom,” Luce wrote. Shepherd has since asked for additional police protection.
“But when a politician wants police protection from her own constituents, maybe the politician is out of sync with the voters and not the other way around,” Luce wrote.
Luce noted that he and his wife had voted for Shepherd, “foolishly assuming that she would respect the wishes of the residents of District One. Now we know better. And that’s why I’m thinking of running for her council seat next election.”
Much of the meeting was spent refuting what members claimed is “misinformation” spread by Shepherd, RedPeak, Mayor Michael Hancock and the media.
For example, members claimed that RedPeak had provided very little community outreach to date, reducing the number of units to 147 was in line with the 140 to 160 RedPeak planned from the get-go, and the height and mass of the buildings had not truly been reduced because they said the small size of the lots make it impossible to construct the buildings to the maximum size allowed by the U-MS-5.
Carrie Easton said that RedPeak’s decision to lower the height of the Moncrieff building to four stories, or 47 feet, was not a compromise at all. She said RedPeak admitted at a design meeting with the neighborhood that the reason it did so was because it could then charge premium rents on the fifth floors on the other two buildings which will have “phenomenal views of downtown.”
She said because of east-west constraints on the Moncrieff parcel it would be difficult to add a fifth floor. No one from RedPeak was immediately available for comment.
Contact John Rebchook at JRCHOOK@gmail.com
The Red Peak opponents should really study Euclid v. Ambler before hiring “very high powered” real estate attorneys. Cities just don’t lose zoning fights if the zoning is reasonable.
And it’s so ironic that they may throw a lot of money at the problem. How can they justify the expense? Answer: to preserve their own property values. But in fact, this type of apartment building has never been shown to hurt nearby property values.
More often, property values will go up, and here’s one reason among many: Now there are 147+ more gainfully employed people in the neighborhood, making friends and enjoying the amenities. Before long, they will want to buy a home nearby, and that increases demand which also increases prices.
Kevin are you a Real Estate agent? Because actually there are many Real Estate agents who attend the No High Rises meetings and have been vocal in the community about what will happen to property values. They say they will decrease. And personally I trust the experts in the field, not a bunch of here-say based on opinions. If the project was one of proper mass, height and character that fit the context of the surrounding neighborhood then it would be a different story.
CJE,
My family has been investing in Colorado for 150 years. I’m not hiding behind initials, you can google my name.
But this is just common sense and ECON 101, supply and demand. I too, am mystified by NIMBY realtors. If you were a realtor, why would you be against having 147 more potential clients nearby?
Popular places attract people, and more people can mean annoyances. But popularity and more people have never reduced real estate values.
“Nobody goes there anymore; it’s too crowded.” – Yogi Berra
Kevin, this neighborhood is already popular and attracting more people. Home values are on the rise or steady while most in this City are declining. Why push development in an area that doesn’t need, and probably won’t, benefit from it? Especially when there are so many other areas of this City that would. This City created Blue Print Denver which lists its goals for growth and development over the next 30 years. West Highland is listed as an area of Stability. Yet they are pushing a development here while the areas slated for Growth remain ignored. Why? Because the Developer can make more profit here. Let’s work on encouraging the City to make developments happen where we need improvement and growth. Not just allowing Developers to build where it suits them and their pocket books.
CJE,
I appreciate the civil discussion. I’m not pushing anything in NW Denver (I sold out in 2000 in a good example of bad timing).
I’m just trying to peel away the hypocrisy and expose the true motivation which is Fear of Change. And I’m OK with that or any other emotion as long as everyone is honest about it. If you love your neighborhood, it’s normal to believe that any change might be for the worse.
Elected councilpersons and well-trained city officials wrote the new code with unprecedented levels of citizen input. Developers and citizens alike must be able to trust the new rules. Fear of Change isn’t a good enough reason to waste money on high powered attorneys to sue the City or Red Peak or Tom Wooten.
I agree with you about encouraging development where it will help struggling neighborhoods. FWIW I’ve endorsed a 5-story apartment building that will block my sun and mountain views at Delaware and Evans. But I never thought that I had any control over what should be built just because I was an adjacent property owner and RNO official. My influence ended when the new code was passed.
Hear, not here.
So what happened to the effort to create an overlay district along 32nd? Did the group realize they did not have the support of the commercial property owners? I assume many of the business owners are tenants and not the actual owners of the property.
“In Denver, the city’s Landmark Preservation Commission looks over demolition permits to decide whether a property has the potential to qualify for landmark status.
The commission determined the house on Yourtz’s property had that potential, which gave the public 21 days to apply for landmark status for the house.”
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_16967886
Would be an option for the NIMBYs.
80 people in an echo chamber. And all 80 of them think they speak for all of NW Denver, and District 1. Last time I checked I didn’t elect any of them as my spokesperson. As surprised as these people will be, Susan Shepherd may BE “respecting the wishes of the residents of District !”
Susan has said she got more than 600 emails after the Dec 6th meeting. (The WHNA meeting where she asked us to email her our opinions and wishes for her course of action).
She stated that 95% of those were in opposition to this project. Plus she has released statements saying she feels the MS-5 zoning on Meade and Moncrieff were an error in judgement and requested that Red Peak come down in height to 3 stories on those parcels. The No High Rises group is NOT against these parcels being developed. We just ask that they are done so in a more responsible way. In a way that even Susan requested, but now for whatever reason is not following up on.
George Luce can talk himself blue about the incident occurring in Councilwoman Shepherd’s home but his position is not credible until the two women involved who so far remain “nameless”, come forward to tell their side of the story. And no, contrary to the North Denver Tribune and other media sources, the previously named “Ellen Cormack” who spoke on behalf of the unnamed two is not a real person but a fictionalization. This is the kind of stuff No High Rises is involved with? What’s up with that?
If you watched the interview with Channel 2 news the woman stated she was NOT a part of the No High Rises group. A couple rotten apples should not be allowed to spoil the whole bunch. It’s upsetting when people dis-credit an organization, comprised of hundreds of people, based on the actions of 2 individuals acting on their own will. Hundreds of people have gone about this fight the proper way, i.e. writing letters/emails, yard signs, petitions, meeting with Council, etc. These efforts should not be over looked and dismissed by our representatives just because they are upset over the wrong approach taken by 2 people.
The woman in the Channel 2 report… was a disembodied, disguised voice on the other end of a cell phone… the reporter never met her, and dropped the story after that for lack of her credibility.
I applaud “NO HIGH RISES” for seeking legal counsel (high-powered or otherwise). I suggest that worthy goals of these discussions are to (1) develop a discrete, prioritized approach to further efforts; (2) discuss what specific goals can be attained, and (3) implement this approach on a firm timeline, with both defined milestones and an end date. Counsel can also assist with further efforts towards implementing smart growth in the West Highlands, including linking “NO HIGH RISES” with like-minded groups and efforts.
This process has divided our neighborhood. Rightly or wrongly, “NO HIGH RISES” has contributed to this divide. There are people who are afraid to speak their minds about this issue, business owners who fear reprisal, and our Councilperson has requested additional security for her family. This is due to the efforts of “NO HIGH RISES,” no one else – it’s time to take ownership of these efforts.
At some point, “NO HIGH RISES” must shift from contributing to this divide to contributing to unifying the neighborhood behind whatever goals are attained, whatever compromise is reached, or to constructively influence further development in the area (and given the experience gained in this process).
I am increasingly concerned that “NO HIGH RISES” intends to extend its efforts indefinitely. How long will this go on? A year? Two years? Until after the buildings are completed, at which time the protests shift to renters? Or will “NO HIGH RISES” go from door-to-door, explaining to its constituency the goals obtained, the compromises reached, and that the current fight has ended – just as it went from door-to-door rallying the neighborhood behind its cause? Surely “NO HIGH RISES” understands that the longer this process continues, the worse it is for our neighborhood, and the deeper the divide.
I encourage “NO HIGH RISES” to listen to its voices against private meetings and secret strategy. “NO HIGH RISES” has been an outspoken proponent of a transparent process since the beginning; indeed, one of it’s main points is that the current problem was created through a lack of transparency. “NO HIGH RISES” cannot gain from secrecy.
A rally is unnecessary at this point. “NO HIGH RISES” has been consistently successful at rallying its constituency. Coherency and strategy have been less successful, and will not be aided by a rally.
I agree with “NO HIGH RISES” that it has other options available. It remains to be seen whether it will capitalize on those options.
@PapaJohn, you are misinformed and deluded by your own thinking re: what the No HIgh Rise group is actually about. Perhaps if you stopped criticizing the efforts of this group to seek a correction in zoning which would result in appropriate development, then you might be part of the solution. You have no idea what this group of neighbors is about, and no one is a card-carrying member other than being a concerned neighbor/homeowner who wants to see development that is in alignment w/the majority of neighbors, of which you’re not a part of, obviously.
Your fabricating and assuming the ideas of this group is a figment of your imagination. How is it you are ‘increasingly concerned’ that this group will extend its efforts indefinitely’? Sounds like a developer’s plea for padding his own bottom line, irregardless of what the majority of neighbors want. They certainly do not want their property values to decrease which most assuredly will IF such a development goes up next to their homes. Quality of life issues are paramount and need to be considered along w/lack of parking which will result in less traffic to our area which results in less monies spent at retail shops and restaurants.
These ‘private and secret meetings’ are just that. If you were there last night, you would have observed and heard that there are valid reasons echoed by many in the audience for not revealing key strategies. Only one person (Thad) spoke out for transparency in such meetings. If you were there, you would have known this.
As for your comments re: a rally not being necessary, you have no clue as to how attention is brought to an issue by such means. It will demonstrate how log-jammed traffic will be in our area which is a concrete example of what this set of apt bldgs will bring forth w/the lack of parking and an extra 300+ cars coming and going from these side streets.
Go back to your armchair and rock away while the rest of us take a stand for our neighborhood, which you most likely do not live in. You do NOT speak for the majority of residents which are over-whelmingly against this development along w/many retailers and shop owners. Do your homework before spouting off jibberish.
” Quality of life issues are paramount and need to be considered along w/lack of parking which will result in less traffic to our area which results in less monies spent at retail shops and restaurants.”
” It will demonstrate how log-jammed traffic will be in our area which is a concrete example of what this set of apt bldgs will bring forth w/the lack of parking and an extra 300+ cars coming and going from these side streets.”
Well, which is it, more traffic or less traffic? No fair working BOTH sides of the traffic straw man.
You’re right though, traffic and parking SUCK in Cherry Creek North, and it’s driven the property values and quality of life there right down to almost nothing.
In all of these discussions, it’s clear that the people of the Highlands are greedy and consumed with only their property values. What about affordable housing? In many cities, a development cannot proceed without at least a certain percentage of units being designated as affordable housing. No one has raised this point. It seems to me that no one really cares about creating a welcoming neighborhood with a diversity of housing options – just the almighty dollar. Way to go Highlands.
CJE you can attempt to disassociate the two “unnamed individuals” who accosted Councilwoman Shepherd in her own home from No High Rises all you want, and it is possible they initially acted on their own, however, No High Rise principals know who one or both of these individuals are, and are not saying. So in essence, they are culpable. I realize this may not be fair but the tactics No High Rises has used from the beginning, i.e., positioning Councilwoman Shepherd as the enemy instead of an ally combined with rowdy public meetings and social discourse; has shown the rest of Northwest Denver that No High Rises is not reasonable or credible with their demands – not unlike the two “unnamed individuals” as in – perception is reality – and both have been paired; like it or not!
Jax, all I ask is for people to not stereotype and dis-credit a group of hundreds of people based on the actions of 2. Just because these woman are opposed to the development does not mean the action they sought was supported by, encouraged by, or even known by other people who also oppose this development.
CJE, you try to disassociate the NHR people from the 2 women who went to Shepherd’s house, but it isn’t so easy. It’s not just about that one incident. What about the tenor of the public “listening session,” where people shouted and jeered? http://insiderealestatenews.com/2011/11/redpeak-gets-an-earful/ What about all of the hateful, insulting, and mocking statements that have been made toward others on the NHR facebook page?
The founders of NHR could have intervened a long time ago to try and make the communications around this issue more respectful, and they chose to let all of this disrespectful behavior go by without comment. Things stewed and fermented in our community, and then 2 women (who had nothing to do with NHR? Really?) did something inappropriate and it made the news. Suddenly the NHR group looks bad in the public eye, and everyone is feeling sorry for themselves.
Those of you associated with this effort need to take an honest look at the language and tactics that you’ve utilized/encouraged over the lasts few months, and recognize that you bear a lot of responsibility for where things have ended up.
Fair enough……
“don’t want you to leave this room without hope”
“we want to win the war here”
“can’t be open about the options”
Obviously this is from a meeting of a hopelessly oppressed minority in a third world country getting ready to try to topple a dictator from power before a genocide happens.
But wait, no.. it’s over a legal building, in a legal zoning area, which was decided upon during an open, transparent, LONG public process that a bunch of spoiled psychopaths are now equating with biblical catastrophes, in a neighborhood which is obviously so pathetically weak that a single building is going to destroy it. 147 new apartments are going to each separately and together be demonic forces, calling forth destruction and soul crushing despair on the poor helpless souls of Highland which will sit forlornly in the streets of the neighborhood in helpless desiccation and decay the hour after the new project is finished. Souls who obviously have nothing at all going for them in their neighborhood except short buildings will all be darkened on this fateful day. So important to your way of life are short buildings that you send 2 guerrillas after your councilwoman and then let them hide in anonymity while claiming “they don’t represent us”. So important are your short buildings that the next set of strategies must be hidden. I can only imagine a Muhahahahaaaaaaaa, rubbing of hands, your head slightly bent down and a maniacal smile spliting your face as you say “can’t be open about the options” you have left. All you need is a castle with thunderclouds circling it to hold your meetings in. (If, of course, a castle wouldn’t be FAR too tall for your tiny little minds to feel comfortable in.)
This is ridiculous…you all shame Denver and the good people in Highlands (all 11 of them?). You’ve lost – because you were apathetic and lazy when the zoning was rewritten, because you have no understanding of what the zoning was supposed to accomplish, and because you have no other problems to spend energy on. On that last point at least I’ll congratulate you… if this building is as all consuming of your energy as it seems then you all have lives that most Americans right now would very much envy. It’s time for you all to now shut up and let Denver get on with trying to continue to grow into a better world class city. Obviously none of you are on board with that…so, while you’re shutting up, perhaps you can look for a home in a nice covenant controlled gated community in the burbs where your whining and entitled demands will be far enough away that people who aren’t morons don’t have to listen to it.
Kevin, Aaron, Papa John,
Well said. I agree on all your points.
Those representing “NO HIGH RISES”:
Each of you need to take a step back and absorb the fact that you are not representing the majority of the neighborhood. You are representing those that agree with you. You are the obnoxious, outspoken minority of the neighborhood. Those in support or neutral on this project need to start speaking up and making your voices heard. I refuse to be spoken for by the NO HIGH RISES group thought to represent the Highlands community at large.
Attacking those speaking in support of the project doesn’t help your case. You need to listen to those that have differing opinions than you. Perhaps you’ll learn something. Furthermore, accusing such persons that are in support of the project as “having no clue” is insulting on more levels than one. I go to your meetings. I sit and listen to you slay and bend information to your benefit, hearing only what you wish you. It is despicable. In your mind, if persons are not able to speak intelligently in support of the project that live outside your sacred neighborhood boundaries, then you should personally walk and take down every “NO HIGH RISES” sign outside the Highland boundary limits. I’ve seen them. I laugh. I suppose they are the ones driving to shops and restaurants and congesting the streets making the parking situation such a nightmare. If supporters of the Red Peak project can’t exist outside your non-gated boundaries, than supporters of NO HIGH RISES can’t either. Period.
This development will improve the properties that surround it in multiple ways. Density increases profitability, walk-ability, safety, and value of real estate all making the neighborhood more desirable. Those that are claiming they are losing their sun or views shouldn’t have bought a property adjacent to a vacant parking lot zoned R-4 since the ‘50s. Its not going to be flat forever. This neighborhood is desirable because it IS changing. It is not what it was 10 or 20 years ago and is not today what it will be in the future. If a neighborhood expects to compete with the city at large of creating a desirable neighborhood above others it must not remain stagnant. Diversifying the neighborhood is important and necessary to create a well balanced, thriving commercial environment and personal community. If you don’t want diversity, move outside Denver city limits. This is a CITY, not a sprawling suburb. The denser we can make it, the lesser the congestion, traffic, and pollution above all else.
To the Chicken Littles that took it upon themselves to represent the ideals of the NO HIGH RISES group at Council Woman Shepherd’s home. I would hope that your small minds would at least be capable of not being a part of the on-going NO HIGH RISES communication and deliberate attempt to stop this development. If you can’t speak your name and be proud of the actions you took, you shouldn’t be able to share your thoughts behind closed doors. Furthermore, if NO HIGH RISES is asking that the community not to “stereotype and dis-credit” the entire group based on the Chicken Littles actions, then you should not be protecting their identify. Even more, it could be expected of a reputable group, that the unidentified Chicken Littles be removed from association with your group immediately if they were so off base and out of line. Protecting the Chicken Littles only demonstrates your acceptance of their behavior. Asking open transparency from Red Peak, but holding their identity a secret is absurd at best. The Chicken Littles are cowards who can’t show their faces, nor admit what they did was wrong. As a neighbor I am embarrassed not only to be living near Chicken Littles, but also each and every one of you who speak up at the neighborhood meetings in opposition to the development without having the slightest ability to accept change in opposition to your personal desires, even as Red Peak demonstrates compromising abilites to your benefit. You are not the property owners. You don’t get to make the decisions. They don’t have to talk to the neighborhood at all, but are chosing to. You need to give them credit for actually listening, even if they aren’t meeting each and every demand. keep in mind these buildings could be 70′, not the much lower heights they have re-designed to and publizied. If you are all capable of spending this much time, and are capable of living in such an affluent, desirable neighborhood that defines “stability” as stagnant, then you should put your money where your mouth is and buy the property yourselves. Keep it black, ugly, unsustainable asphalt forever! You are barbaric and terrified of change. The new renters will be your new neighbors. Welcome them. They may buy your house someday and scrape it like those that you approved of in your last neighborhood meeting. Which, by the way, was also absurd; the gentleman who is asking approval for a change in garage access location from his alley to the street is proposing a house be scraped and a new home be built that is labeled 40’ in elevation on his plans as measured from grade. This dimension was clearly labeled on his drawings that he passed around at the last meeting. NOT ONE OF YOU noticed or stated that the elevation off of 35th is above the restriction that you are attempting to place on these three parcels of 38’. Shame on you. Based on your own rules, you should be protesting and setting up a rally in front of his property as well. Instead you thanked him and sent him on his way with smiles of approval.
Anyone is free to start their own support group for the project. I’ve seen a letter to Susan Shepherd with about 15 signatures on it supporting the development. If there are so many people that are in support, then make your voices heard. The fact of the matter is that a handfull of people can’t really get anyone’s attention, so nobody is bothering… Or they don’t really care that much in the first place.
Argue all you want with 2000 people that oppose this project on the record. Do all the name calling you want. The facts are the facts. The majority of the neighbors that are willing to put their name on something or write emails to the councilwoman oppose this project. The councilwoman herself has said that the overwhelming majority oppose the project – around 90-95 percent depending on which quote you read.
If there are so many of you that actually live here, make a showing. Do something to dispute No Highrises. Or be quiet. Sitting here and saying how many people support the project doesn’t accomplish anything other than proving that there really aren’t that many people that feel that way. Other than a bunch of people that don’t even live in the neighborhood that read this blog.
Why? No highrises’ case has been based on lies, bullying, and entitlement from the beginning. What reason is there to organize a “lets keep the laws we wrote together over the last 6 years” group? Those of us who showed up at public meetings when the zoning was being re-written have already had our voices heard (as have opponents of the new zoning). We have already expended energy helping the city get this right. There is nothing more needed than pointing out the deceptive, violent, misguided, more or less dumbfounding justifications that your group has been using from the onset.
You really think all of the people who were engaged and participating in the new zoning process over the last 6 years want to have to put in extra work to counter a bunch of lazy, uninformed thugs now? What are we going to demonstrate for? “What do we want?? Enforcement of existent zoning laws that were written after a transparent, public process through various public meetings and planning sessions over the past 6 years!!!! When do we want it? We already have it!!!”
Yeah that sounds fun.
Plus who knows what hidden secret tactics you guys have cooked up? Who knows who will be targeted by super secret bullying brigades like the one sent to harass the councilwoman (yes yes of course you guys didn’t send them). Given that the actual laws on the books seem to be doing the job nicely to defeat you guys what’s the point?
Just for the record lots of people DID use their voices to email and or call ALL the Denver city council members to voice opposition to changing the zoning, myself included. So just because those of us who support the new project haven’t assaulted elected officials, haven’t compared this development to a “War”, haven’t told ourselves losing this battle will be the end of the world, haven’t made up signs with lies about the appearance of the development, haven’t made public that we are hatching super secret ninja strategies for winning this issue doesn’t mean we haven’t used what resources we have (legally) to counter your tight little mob. We have, and it appears that common sense and the laws on the books are going to win out.
Agreed.
I’ll try to simplify our position:
We are not against or in favor of this development.
We are in favor of the laws that control it, and don’t want to see anyone to suffer undue financial hardship if they are obeying the laws.
If NHR can invoke future downzonings for other similar parcels through the public process, that’s fine, and we would support those new laws going forward.
Don’t expect much help from the Denver planning staff, however, since they just spent 7 years on the project, and thought they were done.
What letter of 15 people are you referring to? Was it the one in the Tribune? If so that wasn’t a letter of support for the project, just a letter calling for civiity and generel respect and support of Susan Shepherd as a Councilwoman. As for the 2000 signatories on the petition that keeps getting touted, NHR has yet to even submit it to RedPeak, Mayor Hancock, City Council, or CPD. Futhermore, I’ve heard that many of them aren’t even residents/constituents in the district, and that even some of them are residents of Germany.
A few other facts people did show up in 2009 and 2010 and and voiced thier concerns during the rezoning. And if the NHR people were so adament about these parcels, why didn’t they speak up when they had the chance. The only letter from WHNA in June of 2009 represented 100 members, and in August 2009 at the next Zoning workshop, when the map still had MS5, they didn’t speak up, nor in Nov. 2009, through all ov 2010. Facts are facts.
To their credit, had it not been for NHR, the design group stakeholders would never have been convened where RePeak has given up ground and compromised. But to NHR failure, they have been nothing more than a din of noise of offering nothing and refusing to compromise their issues.