DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[mhays]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

No - this is a well supported, data-driven approach driven by behavioral economics. You make people pay more for trash, they'll produce less of it. You make composting free, they'll start using more of it. You make trash more expensive and recycling more frequent, people will recycle more.

Exactly. The local details are a variable, but the concept is proven many times over, and in many categories--cigarettes, driving habits, shopping bags...

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by mhays

Exactly. The local details are a variable, but the concept is proven many times over, and in many categories--cigarettes, driving habits, shopping bags...

And there are just as many examples of these schemes not changing behavior because of a total lack of enforcement.

If everybody has to pay some base amount, it will not reduce consumption unless you can reduce to zero, which few people can.

If you intend to reduce the level of consumption by charging more for more, then you need to ensure that you can't still still consume more without paying for it. We have no plan for this.

This is also basic economics and proven many times over. My neighbor's bin is essentially a black market for producing trash. And it's a black market that nearly every house in Denver has ready access to at no cost to themselves.

EDIT: I do agree that making composting free will increase usage. Recycling was already free; I have not experienced a problem with infrequent pickup causing diversion - it was no effort at all to get a second recycling bin. And I can use my neighbors'...

[BG918]

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

If you search redfin or zillow for homes in Denver, and sort by price, the very cheapest piece of real estate you will find in the entire city is a 330 square-foot condo in a new-build on 6th and Inca. $150K. They’re income restricted. I don’t qualify for one but a close friend of mine does and he recently bought one. I worry a bit for him. Something doesn’t smell right. And these recent stories of new-builds falling apart don’t help. I hope everything works out okay for him.

One thing I wonder is how exactly does this income-restricted new-build condo concept work in terms of equity. A new-build studio in this city typically goes for well over $300K at a minimum. Does that mean my buddy instantaneously doubles his money the moment he signs the paperwork? My assumption is no fucking way. Obviously. My guess is, whatever monetary value the place gains is completely disconnected from reality. But I haven’t looked into it. It’s one complicated little slice of the market I’ve never taken the time to understand.

Anyway, I worry about the guy. He’s so excited about this place but something about the idea of a $150K new-build condo just doesn’t smell right.

I don’t trust new-builds right now.

The 6th & Inca condos are deed-restricted. So you just get your money back if you sell, no appreciation

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

This is also basic economics and proven many times over. My neighbor's bin is essentially a black market for producing trash. And it's a black market that nearly every house in Denver has ready access to at no cost to themselves.

Cameras in the alley and overzealous neighbors can help.

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

No - this is a well supported, data-driven approach driven by behavioral economics. You make people pay more for trash, they'll produce less of it. You make composting free, they'll start using more of it. You make trash more expensive and recycling more frequent, people will recycle more.

I already recycle and compost. My behavior won’t change but thanks for the fee. What will change is even more distrust will grow between neighbors and leftover trash will end up collecting in the alleys. Again, did this so called data driven approach calculate how neglecting recycling and composting prior factors in? You are suggesting people will suddenly compost and that will save the day. The logical hole asks why not do that without the trash fights and see what happens? Nobody tried. But the fact that they don’t want you reducing bin size says it all.
This is 100% a revenue grab. The mailer also clearly stated that it was one of the few legal ways they could raise money.

So my guess is that the supporters here probably work of the city and are just pumping party line bullshit

[bulldurhamer]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

And there are just as many examples of these schemes not changing behavior because of a total lack of enforcement.

If everybody has to pay some base amount, it will not reduce consumption unless you can reduce to zero, which few people can.

If you intend to reduce the level of consumption by charging more for more, then you need to ensure that you can't still still consume more without paying for it. We have no plan for this.

This is also basic economics and proven many times over. My neighbor's bin is essentially a black market for producing trash. And it's a black market that nearly every house in Denver has ready access to at no cost to themselves.

EDIT: I do agree that making composting free will increase usage. Recycling was already free; I have not experienced a problem with infrequent pickup causing diversion - it was no effort at all to get a second recycling bin. And I can use my neighbors'...

Nothing is free about this composting. Same as before except we all get bins now. They’re forcing us to pay for composting now. Don’t get it twisted.


The city will claim a win and con the next city with this “data driven” approach
1 charge a fee = revenue = win
2 finally add enough recycling and composting services to fulfill the city’s needs, something lacking prior, so obviously some old landfill waste will go elsewhere. Another win if there’s no context.

More money, less landfill. Makes a great headline.

[bunt_q]

The city seems to have found a lot of new revenue sources in the last decade. And still, there's never money for anything.

[TakeFive]

Rhetorical Question: Is there anything left for the City of Denver budget to fund?

Originally Posted by bunt_q

The city seems to have found a lot of new revenue sources in the last decade. And still, there's never money for anything.

Voters will decide in November whether to help fund Denver Public Libraries through a property tax increase
Aug. 22, 2022 By Desiree Mathurin/Denverite

Come November, Denver voters will get to choose whether they want to help increase funding for Denver Public Library services by increasing their property taxes.

Surely there's other awesome causes that deserve dedicated funding.

I hereby propose a new Dog Park Tax so that Denver can have dog-worthy parks and be Poop-Free.




.....

Can anybody else think of a good cause deserving funding?

[TakeFive]

Pinkard Awarded Sun Valley Affordable Housing Infrastructure Project in Denver
August 25, 2022 - Mile High CRE


Sun Valley Neighborhood southbound view, courtesy of Pinkard.

The Sun Valley Neighborhood is currently comprised of a disconnected street grid and an island of concentrated poverty, which isolates Sun Valley from economic opportunity and area amenities.

The scope of work restores the historical street grid, updates sitewide civil infrastructure, and develops the first phase of a new Riverfront Park along the Platte River trail. Speaking about the project, Construction Manager, Jess Becerra, said, “Our teams have shown Denver Housing Authority we truly want to be a partner of their vision and change the Denver Metro area in a good way.”

The project site is located within the Sun Valley neighborhood, between 11th Avenue on the north, 9th Avenue on the south, Decatur Street on the west and the Platte River on the east.

I can recall back when the masterplan for this neighborhood was debated and approved. New affordable housing projects have been built recently and the masterplan vision continues to develop.

[TakeFive]

From Coors Field to CoorsTek mixed-use development in Golden



Rendering courtesy of Tryba Architects.

Coors family spending $900 million on new Golden development
Jul 19, 2022 By Kate Tracy – Reporter , Denver Business Journal

The Coors family has owned a prime piece of downtown Golden property since 1884, and instead of selling it, the family has decided to spend $900 million and 10 years to redevelop it.

The 12.4-acre site, located at 600 9th St., encompasses approximately five city blocks and is home to multiple buildings previously used for high-tech ceramics-maker CoorsTek Inc. manufacturing. Now, CoorsTek, owned by the same family that founded Coors Brewery, plans to build and renovate existing buildings into 1.25 million square feet of residential, office, retail and hotel space. CoorsTek will also be moving its global headquarters to the site from its current location a few miles away.

....
Renderings courtesy of Tryba Architects and AC Development

I know I speak for wong and many of us in celebrating this amazing mixed-use addition to downtown Golden.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I hereby propose a new Dog Park Tax so that Denver can have dog-worthy parks and be Poop-Free.

I think a poop-free Denver could win a lot of votes.

But I am not sure the poop people are most worried about comes from dogs.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

...If you intend to reduce the level of consumption by charging more for more, then you need to ensure that you can't still still consume more without paying for it. We have no plan for this...

Where's your sense of humor?! This is America, buddy - standard operating procedure!

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bulldurhamer

Nothing is free about this composting. Same as before except we all get bins now. They’re forcing us to pay for composting now. Don’t get it twisted.


The city will claim a win and con the next city with this “data driven” approach
1 charge a fee = revenue = win
2 finally add enough recycling and composting services to fulfill the city’s needs, something lacking prior, so obviously some old landfill waste will go elsewhere. Another win if there’s no context.

More money, less landfill. Makes a great headline.

If you exchanged trash above with housing, the same is essentially true of the City's affordable housing strategy. Let's charge a fee to the many, that will solve the problem for the few!

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

...Can anybody else think of a good cause deserving funding?

More parks and better quality parks in historically underserved neighborhoods, including pocket parks in the urban core so that families might one day have a chance of living dtown. Also, a real tree scape in the entirety of downtown and A-square.

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

More parks and better quality parks in historically underserved neighborhoods, including pocket parks in the urban core so that families might one day have a chance of living dtown. Also, a real tree scape in the entirety of downtown and A-square.

We did that, dedicated funding. Ballot Measure 2A, Parks and Open Space Sales Tax (November 2018)

Then we did it again, dedicated bonding. Ballot Measure 2D: Denver Parks and Recreation System Bonds (November 2021)

Tell me, have you seen any improvement?

Or did they, perhaps maybe, use this money to reduce the equivalent amount that used to go into the General Fund for parks? (Shhhhh.) Just like they do every time we create any dedicated funding source. (Like maybe, oh, say a trash fee.)

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Where's your sense of humor?! This is America, buddy - standard operating procedure!

Ha. So true.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

We did that, dedicated funding. Ballot Measure 2A, Parks and Open Space Sales Tax (November 2018)

Then we did it again, dedicated bonding. Ballot Measure 2D: Denver Parks and Recreation System Bonds (November 2021)

Tell me, have you seen any improvement?

Or did they, perhaps maybe, use this money to reduce the equivalent amount that used to go into the General Fund for parks? (Shhhhh.) Just like they do every time we create any dedicated funding source. (Like maybe, oh, say a trash fee.)

They are spending real money on parks. Methinks you might not notice it because 1) it isn't downtown and 2) it's in those neglected neighborhoods....but it's happening and we need to supercharge it!

[bunt_q]

Originally Posted by laniroj

They are spending real money on parks. Methinks you might not notice it because 1) it isn't downtown and 2) it's in those neglected neighborhoods....but it's happening and we need to supercharge it!

You’re probably right. Real question, if I wanted to go see some of that investment, where would I go? (Bonus if the new parks have amenities for terrorist toddlers; Cheesman is a bit lacking in that department.)

I have noticed the new Stout Street Children’s Park in Curtis Park. It looks awesome.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You’re probably right. Real question, if I wanted to go see some of that investment, where would I go? (Bonus if the new parks have amenities for terrorist toddlers; Cheesman is a bit lacking in that department.)

I have noticed the new Stout Street Children’s Park in Curtis Park. It looks awesome.

This link is kind of cool to see how the City looks at where to allocate resources and how they identify underserved neighborhoods (officially) - though most of us could just come out and put our finger on the maps...https://geospatialdenver.maps.arcgis...4a14680a62a18e

I can't point you to the best playground, but I can post this link...the city is busy on the parks front!

https://www.denvergov.org/Government...ility-Projects

[DenvertoLA]

I did some exploring from your Denver Parks link... this master plan for Bannock St is amazing

https://www.denvergov.org/files/asse...onceptplan.pdf