by Mark Smiley | Sep 25, 2015 | Main Articles
by Charles Bonniwell
Mayor Michael Hancock’s appointment of CRL Associates lobbyist and former councilwoman Allegra “Happy” Haynes as newest executive director of the Denver Department of Parks and Recreation has been met with widespread criticism from across the Denver political spectrum.
An expensive national search was undertaken by the city for the new parks executive director headed up by a 10 person search committee which included Haynes. Denver Mayor Michael Hancock brought the search to a sudden halt declaring that he was simply going to appoint his long-term political ally to the $139,500 position without further ado. He declared sua spointe to the surprise of the search committee that “she is going to make one dynamic, awesome director of the city parks and recreation.”
Others were less enthusiastic about her appointment. Park advocate Trish Abbott noted, “She comes in the great tradition of Wellington Webb’s first appointment to the position, Charles Roberts, who went to jail for stealing a grease trap from the parks department to put in an A&W he had an interest in over in Aurora. The appointment demonstrates how little this mayor cares what the citizens of the city think. I would like to think this is the lowest of the low but we have got many more years ahead of us with Mayor Hancock.”
Denver historian Phil Goodstein declared, “Hancock has clearly shown he has a thorough contempt for parks and quiet open space. On the contrary, Hancock demands parks become commercial ventures. Where possible, he has even been ready to sell them off.”
As for Haynes, Goodstein opined, “She has been part of the nefarious machine of CRL Associates, a lobbying firm which puts Brownstein Hyatt to shame in terms of directing city council and assuring the adoption of very bad policy . . . If anything, Haynes is the personification of old institutional Denver: smug self-centered, utterly linked to the Democrats, and having no conception that any alternatives are possible.”
Few individuals were willing to go on the record praising her appointment although City Councilman Albus Brooks, a political ally of Mayor Hancock and Haynes declared that Haynes is “a stateswoman of Denver” who is well equipped to deal with the “complexity and the politics” of the job.”
Upon assuming the job Haynes declared that the job was “an appointment of a lifetime” although at age 62 she is approaching the normal retirement age for Denver employees.
Haynes has quickly become mired in controversy as she does not wish to give up her position as president of the Board of Directors for Denver Public Schools. She is up for re-election this November.
Denver Attorney Joe Halpern indicated that “Happy Haynes was a prime mover in the destruction of the Hentzell Park Natural Area. She advocated for the land swap as a Denver Public Schools board member.”
Community activist Dave Felice was not pleased by the appointment and her desire to hold two positions noting, “How can we expect better from someone who was in favor of giving away 11.5 acres of Hampden Heights North (Hentzell) Park?”
While some individuals publicly raised the question of finding serious conflicts of interest in being both the executive director of Denver and president of the Denver School Board, Haynes does not. She said, “During
the day, I’ll devote my work time to my role in Parks and Recreation,” and her nights she would work on being the president of the School Board. She has requested an advisory opinion from the Denver Ethics Board. That Board has come under fire itself for failing to find conflicts of interest in various other cases involving members of the Hancock administration including Planning Board head Brad Buchanan and interim Parks head Scott Gilmore and his wife Councilwoman Stacy Gilmore.
Trish Abbott noted, “I don’t see a problem. Ms. Haynes is best known for doing what she is told although with no small degree of utter incompetency. I am sure she can do two jobs very badly as easy as she can one. She is after all an all purpose political hack. In either position she is simply doing whatever the mayor or the people that control him want done, so I don’t see any conflict of interest. Moreover the Denver Ethics Board has indicated by and large that conflicts of interest don’t really exist as a theoretical concept in Denver government these days under Mayor Hancock no matter how blatant.”
Some citizens in Denver have indicated that they believe the entire Parks Department is under the control of lobbyists for real estate developers. When the Parks Advisory Board opposed Mayor Hancock’s giveaway of undesignated parkland in Hentzell Park he began to replace its members with real estate lobbyists like Marcus Pachner and Happy Haynes’ sister Khadija Haynes.
Regarding the appointment of Happy Haynes as executive director of Denver Parks, Joe Halpern stated, “She is the proverbial fox in the henhouse.”
Increasingly some good government advocates in Denver see the only solution to the destruction of the Denver Parks and Recreation Department is to advocate for voter approved Charter changes to limit the powers of the mayor. Joe Felice suggested, “Perhaps it is time for an elected independent park commission to take these decisions away from the mayor’s office.”
Trish Abbott and some other park advocates indicate that they concur with Felice’s concept. Whether they can make a vote a reality is an open question according to political insiders.
by Mark Smiley | Aug 31, 2015 | Main Articles
A Plea For A Bicycle-Friendly Denver
by Phil Kummer
After a slow start to the biking season, due to very wet weather, bikers are being seen more and more in Denver and throughout the Metro area. As you ride around and talk with fellow bikers you can’t help but notice that bikers, bike routes and bike transport are treated as second-class, second-rate citizens in Denver and the surrounding area.
Recently radio personality Mike Rosen wrote a column for The Denver Post about the comments of Denver City Council members Mary Beth Susman and Albus Brooks who propose to discourage driving in Denver and make it more convenient for bikers. He states that “bicyclists are junior partners” when it comes to transportation in Denver. Most bikers, though, would say that bike transport is barely a partner and more like a “Johnny come lately” and not given its due in the transportation scheme of things.
Bicycles are the transportation stepchild that nobody wants to commit to yet but are necessary to acknowledge because there are, and will be, more issues with moving a lot of people through cities. Rosen’s point that the primary purpose of a road system is “to move a high volume of traffic and people quickly and efficiently…” is partially correct. It fails though to consider issues such as car/bicycle crashes, freedom of mobility, parking, congestion, costs involved in maintaining a street for an automobile vs. a bicycle, air pollution, pedestrian safety, safety in general and neighborhoods.
As far as being efficient, it seems odd that one would consider commuting by a vehicle with generally one occupant, the driver, and having 25 percent occupancy as being efficient. Rosen’s article is a celebration of mindlessness and dogma that has 20/20 vision concerning what has worked for the past 60 years but has nothing to offer that might address the above issues.
The perception that bike transport is an unwanted stepchild is reinforced by the recent auditor’s report that shows a serious underfunding of the Denver Moves plan. Denver Moves is a citywide plan approved in 2011 that “expands the vision for the non-motorized transportation and recreation system in Denver.” Denver Bikes and the Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee are both doing yeoman’s work as far as promoting and overseeing the construction of bike friendly infrastructure as specified by Denver Moves, yet it seems an uphill battle.
The plan “focuses on integrating the existing off-street and on-street networks to create safe, comfortable corridors that link neighborhoods, parks, employment centers, business districts, transit hubs … in all parts of Denver.” Unfortunately, since 2013, the city has dedicated only $2.8 million for bike lanes and pedestrian-oriented projects from the capital improvements budget, a tiny fraction of the estimated overall cost of $119 million.
Although budget concerns are important, the bigger picture concerning bike transport is how to retrofit an entire city to produce a safe, convenient, efficient and effective way to travel that will be used by the multitudes. Denver, as most cities, is trying to fit a bike system into a preexisting system designed for cars, trucks and motorcycles so no matter how much sense it makes to promote bikes and other alternative modes of transportation it will always be difficult to retrofit a 60-year-old system to meet new and different transport goals.
Even though Vincent Carroll in a recent Denver Post column, sees this effort by the city as “a methodical, long-term effort to frustrate the use of the personal auto,” it is actually an effort to counteract the years 
of neglect and disrespect that bike transport has suffered by a society that is in love with motor vehicles. Our government, Federal, State and local, has long supported low density housing and the transport systems designed for that lifestyle. In the marketplace of transport alternatives we’ve been given one realistic choice — get a car and be happy.
In planning to retrofit a bike system the biggest factor is safety and how comfortable riders feel on the road or bikeway. In 2013, Michael Andersen of People for Bikes in his article “Selling Biking: Perceived Safety, The Barrier That Still Matters,” cited studies and surveys in Portland and San Francisco that indicate the vast majority of cyclists are concerned for their safety while on the road, and they especially feared a collision with an auto. On a national level 743 cyclists were killed and about 48,000 were injured in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2013. The average age for those killed is 44 and of those injured the average is 32 so it would seem that is not a young and reckless group. Colorado suffered 12 biker fatalities in 2013.
Bike to Work Day, an event promoted by Bike Denver and the Mayor’s Bike Advisory Committee, was held June 24 and drew approximately 32,800 bikers who rode an average of 9.2 miles one way to work. On a daily basis Denver has generally fewer than 7,000 bike commuters or about 2 percent of the total number of commuters. Although this is a small number, it is actually very significant given the difficulties and dangers that bikers have to put up with while riding on Denver streets.
This suggests that if Denver streets were actually biker friendly we could reduce the number of vehicles and congestion, make parking easier and spend less money on road maintenance. But the bigger question for the biking community is, “how do we make biking a general form of transportation and not just for a small number of hard core bikers?” Mobility freedom then should be promoted for all Denver citizens not just those who have a motor vehicle or who brave the mean streets on a bike.
An interesting solution to mobility freedom was highlighted in the April 2015 Glendale Cherry Creek Chronicle in a front page article by Heather Brecl, “The Sunny Side to An Eco-Friendly Revolution: the ELF.” The article describes a new, high tech vehicle that is powered by both the rider with pedals and a solar powered motor. Neither Bike Denver nor the Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee have addressed new technologies such as three- or four-wheeled bicycles that are part human powered and part motor driven. The ELF, which is 9 feet long, over 4 feet wide and 5 feet tall, is larger than your standard two-wheeled bike. It is attractive as a commuter vehicle but there does not seem to be a place for it on Denver streets. This type of vehicle, which is technically a bike, has the potential to be a transportation game changer but will there be a place where the multitudes can use a vehicle such as this?
One solution that has yet to be discussed is to have bike only streets that welcome a variety of human powered or combo-powered bikes. A few strategic, long streets in Denver could be selected that would lend themselves to a different type of commuting and biking experience. Only then, will we as a city be able to say that we did our best to solve the transportation and parking issues that dog us every day.
by Mark Smiley | Aug 31, 2015 | Main Articles
Part II Of City’s Attack On Its Own Neighborhoods?
by Glen Richardson
Denver has been known for its highly livable neighborhoods which contain more single family homes than almost any comparable city in the United States. But single family homes have been deemed by some progressive urbanists as a villain in the fight against urban sprawl and the cause of much hated suburbia.
There has been a call for ever more density in Denver by individuals such as Denver Planning Executive Director Brad Buchanan (who lives on a 1,500 acre ranch outside of Denver) and former councilman and failed auditor candidate Chris Nevitt. Nevitt demanded in a speech explaining why he was voting for high density rezoning of Mount Gilead Church property that every neighborhood in Denver must do its share to absorb high density. His views were condemned by neighborhood groups and even by The Denver Post in a scathing editorial. But his views are believed to be supported by a significant majority on the Denver City Council.
But building high-rise apartments on former park and church land has been deemed by Nevitt and others as not sufficient to destroy the single family neighborhood character of neighborhoods like Washington Park, Hilltop, Crestmoor, Congress Park and Cherry Creek North. Thus some members of the Denver City Council have turned to doing away with concept of “single family” homes at all. By pushing the idea of “short-term rentals” where every former single family home can be turned into a mini apartment house, high density can also be obtained.
What were once sleepy streets throughout the city are suddenly waking up to the fact that the Valley’s homes-as-lodging trend is growing fast albeit not without controversy.
Neighborhood advocates say the trend is creating parking, trash and noise issues plus in a few instances disruptive or illegal activities. Furthermore, they argue these rentals detract from the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of neighborhood homes and property.
Despite currently being illegal (City’s Zoning Code requires month-to-month or longer tenancy), Denver’s short-term rental market is among the hottest in the nation. Airbnb alone has 1,000 Denver properties listed, according to Denver City Councilwoman Mary Beth Susman, the Council’s task-force chair. In fact Zillow — the online real estate database company — ranks Denver fifth among the country’s 50 top markets. Zillow also puts Denver as the eighth most expensive rental market in the U.S. and the most expensive between the two coasts.
Tech, Money Driven
Technology startups have emerged to encourage home rentals and host short-term retail platforms such as Airbnb, VRB
O, HomeAway and others. These new and suddenly proliferating hospitality services are helping propel local property owners into the home rental business by providing hotel-type services from simple key exchanges to full rental management. A startup — known as the Key Exchange — gives homeowners the opportunity to store their property keys at a neighborhood restaurant and be notified when they are picked up or dropped off by renters.
Pillow — a full-service online short-term rental service — handles listings and price optimization, bookings, guest screening and communications, key exchange plus laundry. Currently, it works with Airbnb, VRBO and HomeAway. Pillow recently raised $2.65 million and is planning to expand its full service into 10 U.S. cities.
A key reason short-term rentals are becoming common is because these renters are paying top dollar. Furthermore, more money can often be made by renting homes to tourists for a few days at a time compared to renting to local families on a monthly or yearly basis. Additionally, a new type of property buyer is entering the local housing market exploiting the sudden popularity of short-term rentals with an eye on quick profits. A Florida firm, for example, recently purchased a Capitol Hill building and is renting all of the units on a short-term basis, upsetting local residents. Finally, a growing number of tourists are seeking vacation destinations that offer something more than simply a hotel room.
Grappling Wit
h Issues
Issues regarding short-term rentals are coming to a head in Valley neighborhoods plus the Denver City Council is looking at length at the issues. What they are finding out is that there are a lot of problems. Recognizing that vacation rentals are not a passing trend, nearly every Valley neighborhood is grappling with regulations to help mitigate their impact.
Neighborhood organization INC — the Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation — has passed a resolution urging both the Denver City Council and Mayor Michael Hancock to enforce the provisions of the Denver Zoning Code prohibiting short-term rentals. The organization is also calling for a range of regulations that would include taxation, licensing and limitations based on density and location.
When the City Council’s Shared Economy Task Force began studying short-term rentals, resident George Mayl asked, “Why on such an important citywide topic have the meetings by Councilwoman Susman not been televised?” This April her Task Force became part of the Council’s Neighborhood & Planning Committee and is now televised on the fourth Wednesday of each month. Mayl told the Chronicle, “It is time for the City to protect its residential neighborhoods from commercial encroachment.” He observes that more and more cease and desist orders are being brought to Board of Adjustment hearings as residents learn they do not have to put up with motel type activities in their neighborhoods.
Close To Home
Short-term rentals drew special interest from attendees at the West Wash Park Neighborhood Assn. (WWPNA) meeting on April 22. The attention was due to the fact a neighborhood home owned by a Florida investor was listing the home for rent as cannabis-friendly. The owner withdrew her appeal of a cease and desist order after her properties in Congress Park were closed down.
“The members at this meeting were quite concerned that these short-term rentals can be disruptive, the lodging taxes aren’t paid, they remove housing — particularly affordable housing — from an already squeezed market and violate the zoning code and commercialize residential zoning,” resident Charlotte Winzenburg tells the Chronicle.
She adds that when the Denver Zoning Code was being re-written, “WWPNA was an active participant in all the public meetings and had an ad hoc committee that spent many hours over many months studying the proposed code, commenting on proposals and lobbying for the zoning that our neighbors told us they wanted.”
Neighborhood Risks
The INC Zoning & Planning Committee known as ZAP has analyzed the potential impact to Denver’s neighborhoods and identified significant risks. “Our assessment includes the effect it will have on affordable housing, key enforcement agencies and Denver governmental departments. The Committee has grave concerns about the real possibilities of unforeseen and unintended consequences of permitting short-term rentals in residential neighborhoods. This is not a problem for another day. The decisions we make today will determine the future of Denver’s neighborhoods,” says the ZAP Committee co-chaired by Margie Valdez and Greg Kerwin.
Among the issues Denver City Council must address is the argument by proponents that private property rights must be protected. Advocates also contend regulations could harm the economy. Furthermore, if regulations are adopted, how many short-term rentals should be allowed in a neighborhood and how would the number be determined? Should registration and/or licensing be required in order to provide notice to neighborhoods (needs and desires hearings)?
The City must also consider what new City Ordinances should be required for short-term rentals. Possibilities include public nuisance, noise limits, property maintenance standards and nighttime curfews. Other considerations include parking restrictions, inspections, and emergency access. Finally, will new trespassing and disturbing the peace regulations be necessary?
What’s At Stake?
INC estimates that any change to regulations that would allow short-term rentals could result in 10,000 or even 20,000 or more added neighborhood rentals to Denver. “How many of these will be in violation of what change might be made to the zoning code?” the organization asks. Another question: “How will Denver’s Neighborhood Inspection Services possibly be able to monitor a greater number than they currently cannot monitor, particularly when other cities have been unable to do so?”
Lenders and insurers of properties must be included as stakeholders to ensure loan and insurance documents are in compliance, INC believes. Homeowners insurance, they note, does not include short-term rental damages. They also worry that a lack of premise health and safety inspection would endanger visitors and tourists.
Turning neighborhoods into areas for motels and hotels destroys the integrity of the neighborhood and, more importantly, the expectations of the property owners who purchased the property with the intention of a neighborhood remaining a residential neighborhood, INC says. Wrapping up, the citywide advocate representing Denver neighborhood association members concludes: “This is a city we call home. Is City Council propounding legislation that benefits a few residents and shared economy entrepreneurs-opportunists at the expense to the quality of life of most Denver residents? We hope not.”
by Mark Smiley | Aug 3, 2015 | Main Articles
McCrimmon And Six Other Citizens Sue Every City Council And
Planning Board Member But Kudla Scores Free Land From City Council
by Charles C. Bonniwell
Seven citizens who own homes and business property in Denver adjacent to the Mount Gilead Parcel that has been rezoned for high density have brought suit in Denver District Court against the Denver City Council and each of its members in their official capacity as well as the Denver Planning Board and each of its members in their official capacity. The seven citizens are: Arthur Keith Whitelaw III, John Derungs, Katherine K. McCrimmon, Laura Pitmon, Denise Sigon and Alan and Rita Singer. Attorney for the plaintiffs is Gregory Kerwin of the national law firm Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.
The suit alleges that the City Council and the Planning Board failed to follow the city Zoning Code and violated their obligation to observe their quasi-judicial obligations and instead their decision appeared to be based on campaign contributions. The suit also alleges that Planning Board member Jim Bershof had a direct conflict of interest acting as Property Owner Representative and as “Point of Contact for Application” along with developer Peter Kudla.
Peter Kudla and Metropolitan Homes were not finished obtaining the Denver City Council giveaways. On July 27, the Council vacated 34 feet along South Monaco Parkway resulting in Kudla and Metropolitan Homes gaining approximately a half acre of land for no consideration. Resident Caroline Schomp declared regarding the latest transaction, “The developers win again!”
The lawsuit alleges that District 5 Councilperson Mary Beth Susman and her staff had extensive ex parte contacts with developer Peter Kudla as well as well as with other Denver councilpersons concerning the Mt. Gilead property.
Experts indicate that if the plaintiffs’ attorneys are able to depose Denver councilpersons about their meetings with Kudla and his agents about the project it could expose how zoning decisions are actually made in the City and County of Denver and it could expose the fact that City Council hearings are not, in fact, quasi judicial, but simply a matter of political muscle applied by developers.
Neighborhood activist Richard Witholder noted, “This lawsuit could rip away the veneer of fair hearings in zoning matters in Denver and expose the incredible corruption of it all. This could be a real game changer for not just the Mt. Gilead property, but all of the controversial decisions over the last several years. You know that Peter Kudla does not want how he really operates in this town out in the open.”
However, citizen suits against the City and the City Council for their zoning decisions have, to date, met up with little success. Lawsuits by citizens regarding Hentzell Park, West Highland, Sloans Lake and Buckley Annex/Boulevard One have all been dismissed by Denver District Court judges who repeatedly refuse to even allow a single claim to ever go to a jury in a single case. The stonewalling by Denver District Court judges has left some residents outraged.
One local attorney who did not wish to be identified stated, “To be appointed a Denver judge one has to be politically connected, and so many of the judges are fully part of the sleaze that permeates the entire City and County complex. The incredible corruption and brutality of the Denver Sheriff’s Office was only exposed because a suit was brought in federal court in front of Judge John Kane. The local Denver courts allowed the misconduct and corruption to continue on unfettered year after year, case after case and they never did anything about it. Denver’s citizens need to get a change of venue out of the City and County of Denver or to federal District Court to have any chance of a fair hearing.”
Others are however much more sanguine. “They have an extraordinarily strong case,” stated Witholder. “I don’t see how the Denver Courts can just throw this suit out the window as it has so many others. It’s finally time that ‘judicial review’ actually means something in this city. If this suit proceeds it will change how business is done in this city for a long time to come and there are going to be a great number of red-faced and potentially disgraced city council members. The powerful in Denver are terrified about the potential of this case and that is a very good thing for the average citizen.”
by Mark Smiley | Aug 3, 2015 | Main Articles
Reiterates No Condemnation
Kholghys Still Not Pleased – Reject Offer
by Mark Smiley
The City of Glendale sent out a press release confirming that it had offered M.A.K. Investment Group, LLC, the owners of Authentic Persian and Oriental Rugs and the surrounding land, $11 million for the land which M.A.K. Investment Group, LLC acquired for $6.5 million in 2006. The price was determined by an independent appraisal ordered by the city from the well respected Colorado firm Chase & Company. The press release declared that the “Glendale Urban Renewal Authority has taken no action to condemn the property and has no intention to do so in conjunction with this project.” M.A.K. Investment Group, LLC is an entity owned by the Kholghy family from Iran.
Notwithstanding the city’s repeated assertions that it has no interest in condemning M.A.K.’s property the Kholghy family has undertaken a massive anti condemnation public relations campaign with the help of Virginia based Institute for Justice and the far right wing paramilitary group the Oath Keepers.
Merchants Of Hate
Former Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo, accused of using virulent anti Hispanic rhetoric, is another supporter of the Kholghys. Tancredo had the Kholghys on his co-hosted radio show on 560 KLZ until the owner of station had Tancredo removed from the air. Glendale has a large number of Hispanics both legal and undocumented. Tancredo, who is famous for wearing a hat emblazoned with the “Border Patrol” on it, headlined one or more rallies held by the Kholghys. Some African Americans and Hispanics in Glendale are outraged by the conduct of the Kholghys. They accuse the Kholghys of using the allegedly racist paramilitary group the Oath Keepers and former Congressman Tancredo to intimidate and harass minorities in the city who might oppose the Kholghys’ plans.
Few individuals in Glendale in the minority community can afford the very high end costly rugs sold at Authentic Persian and Oriental Rugs and some have claimed minorities are treated with disrespect when they go to the store. The Kholghys have denied the same as well as allegations that they are b
igots.
Glendale businessman Barret O’Brien, who is on the Board of Directors of the Greater Glendale Chamber of Commerce, stated, “Just look who the Kholghys employ and have as supporters. Glendale is a wonderfully diverse place with a large number of minorities. When Tancredo, the Oath Keepers and the Institute for Justice are your supporters it tells you everything you need to know about what the Kholghys and their backers are all about. The Kholghys are definitely not nice people and I don’t know any community in Colorado that would want them moving into town after what they have pulled in Glendale.”
Nasrin Kholghy was not pleased with the City’s offer. She told the Denver Business Journal: “We have repeatedly said that we do not want to sell our land. We have a more family-oriented vision for it than the City of Glendale has.”
The last statement has some observers wondering what exactly she meant by a “more family-oriented vision” considering the Kholghys’ neighbors are Shotgun Willie’s adult nightclub and Fascinations, an adult superstore that sells sex toys and the Kholghys themselves rent to a marijuana shop on their property. Observers indicated that the Kholghys, in fact, hope to ignore or av
oid the city’s zoning and master plan by building large scale apartment buildings next to the creek.
The Kholghys have also indicated a desire to build within the Cherry Creek flood plain which would appear to violate federal and state law as well as enraging environmental groups. A large number of apartment houses would in effect destroy the proposed entertainment district to the benefit of the Kholghys but the detriment of all other property owners along East Virginia Avenue and make congestion along Colorado Boulevard significantly worse than it already is according to traffic control experts.
Glendale 180 Proceeding
The City of Glendale also announced that it was moving ahead with its proposed Glendale 180 entertainment district sans the Kholghys. A downtown development authority has been established which is to be approved by the landowners in an election this fall.
Key Glendale businessman David Peterson, who is a co-owner of the Bull & Bush Brewery as well as a director on the Greater Glendale Chamber of Commerce, stated, “We applaud the City’s actions to provide a fair and transparent process around the creation of Glendale 180.” He went on to note, “Today, we are one step closer to Glendale becoming a world-class destination for the entire Denver region.”
by Mark Smiley | Jun 25, 2015 | Main Articles
Courtesy Voting Abandoned To Aid Developer
Citizens Consider Suing The City, Metropolitan Homes And Its CEO Peter Kudla
by Charles C. Bonniwell
The residents of Hilltop, Crestmoor and Lowry were encouraged when Councilwoman Mary Beth Susman voted at the June 8 City Council meeting against a proposed high density apartment house development on the 2.3 acre site at Cedar and Monaco that once housed a church. But their hopes were dashed when the City Council, in a lame duck session nonetheless, approved the rezoning and the project of Englewood based developer Peter Kudla of Metropolitan Homes by an 8 to 4 vote by abandoning courtesy voting, a City Council tradition for over 25 years.
Five of the 8 votes for the project (Jeanne Faatz, Charlie Brown, Susan Shepherd, Chris Nevitt and Peggy Lehman) were lame duck council members, while among the council members voting no only Jeanne Robb will be out of office come July.
For over 25 years the concept of “courtesy zoning” has been used against neighborhood groups whereby Denver City Council members by large margins voted similarly to the councilmember whose district a proposed development is housed. Courtesy voting was originally instituted in the 1980s as council members found projects being approved they adamantly opposed in their district by council members who came under the control of real estate developers. Over time real estate developers adjusted and were benefited by courtesy voting as they needed to control only the council member in the respective district a proposed development was in. Controlling a single council member was a great deal less expensive for real estate developers than gaining a majority on the council.
Neighborhood groups have become increasingly active after council members ignored their concerns and rubber stamped high density projects in their neighborhoods for the benefit of politically connected real estate developers. In the most recent Denver election three pro neighborhood candidates, (Wayne New, Paul Kashmann and Rafael Espinoza) prevailed over heavily financed candidates backed by real estate developers, lobbyists and Denver Mayor Michael Hancock. The winning candidates represent over 27% of Denver’s landmass and most of the areas that real estate developers want to develop including Sloan’s Lake, Cherry Creek North, the Golden Triangle, Washington Park and the Highlands.
It was rumored that the real estate developers i
ntended to change the informal rules they had exploited for so long in order to continue to have high density projects approved in the most desirable neighborhoods in Denver. Retiring Councilman Charlie Brown indicated after the Crestmoor Park vote that, “Councilman-elect Paul Kashmann declared in a debate with Liz Adams [who Brown endorsed] that he wanted to put an end to ‘courtesy zoning.’ Well he is going to get his wish.”
Similarly retiring Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz before casting her vote against the neighborhood groups stated she was going to cast a “non-courtesy” vote.
Councilwoman Mary Beth Susman expressed extreme disappointment that her fellow council members did not agree with her arguments against the project. She noted, “The site was in an ‘Area of Stability’ under Blueprint Denver as well as not being in a transit service area. It did not fit any of the guidelines where redevelopment is supposed to occur, but that didn’t appear to matter for a majority of the Council.”
Nevitt Response Angers Even The Post
Lame duck Councilman Chris Nevitt who lost the auditor’s race to Tim O’Brien even though he outspent him 10 to 1, appeared to express the thinking of council members backed by real estate developers. He indicated that no zoning or other restrictions should now ultimately apply in Denver as Denver residents had a moral obligation to support high density throughout the city in order to prevent urban “sprawl” in the suburbs. That viewpoint was apparently too much even for The Denver Post which in an editorial on the vote argued that “stable neighborhoods shouldn’t be expected to offer themselves as sacrifice zones for the alleged greater good of limiting growth in the far reaches of suburban counties.” It was also pointed out that the destruction of Denver single family neighborhoods by the City Council had done little to slow down growth in suburban counties.
It is expected that Nevitt is going to be hired by Mayor Hancock for a position in the administration regarding real estate development where he can put his development concepts into city policy. Individuals close to Nevitt have indicated that he has not given up the idea that he should be the successor to Hancock as mayor of Denver and he believes that real estate developers will continue to support him in his future political endeavors even though voters rejected him this spring for citywide office.
Fear And Loathing Of Peter Kudla
Residents who fought the project generally had a very low opinion of Metropolitan Homes CEO Peter Kudla who spoke at the City Council meeting, “I do believe in myself as a responsible developer and builder.” That statement drew gasps of disbelief from some members of the audience.
One of the leaders of the neighborhood opposition, Katie McCrimmon, a former reporter for the Rocky Mountain News, said of Kudla, “He is a bully who brought New Jersey ethics and New Jersey brashness to Denver. With the help of well paid lobbyists and lawyers he got everything he wanted from the City Council and the residents got nothing. You cannot in my opinion believe anything he says.” She pointed out that his other projects including one at Lowry and the massive Vallagio at Inverness development have had their share of problems including at least one lawsuit.
Another activist who did not want to be identified for fear of Kudla stated, “He is a vertically challenged thug who likes at times to dress like a gangster. When he walks into a room you feel physically repulsed by him. That is the type of human being the Denver City Council thinks it should entrust to destroy our neighborhoods.”
McCrimmon had a warning for the rest of Denver, “If you have a church in your neighborhood that is in any way distressed beware. There is a developer out there that will buy and change it into a massive apartment project and the city will do nothing but help the developer. The precedent has been set with the Mount Gilead property. Blueprint Denver and zoning laws are now irrelevant in this city.”
Was The Vote Crooked?
Many of the residents believed directly or indirectly the vote was crooked. McCrimmon points that hours after the 2 a.m. vote fences went up around the property. “Those fences had to be pre-ordered and it looks like so was the vote,” asserted McCrimmon.
Some of the residents believe that Susman’s opposition was in name only and that she made it known to other council members that she was in fact in favor of the project. They point to the scheduled March vote which was suddenly delayed under, they believe, the ruse to supposedly “better understand the process and timing” and work out modifications according to an email by Councilwoman Susman.
Neighborhood activist Christine O’Conner emailed Councilwoman Susman, “I trust that you do not believe what you wrote . . . This is another fairy tale you are telling. The developer and ‘team’ know the ‘process’ inside out.” Residents opposing the project also point out that Susman voted in committee to bring the project to the full Council which is unusual if she was, in fact, opposed to the project.
Lisa Pardo, who was on the steering committee for the “Friends of Crestmoor Park,” asserted “the date was quickly moved for a vote in front of a lame duck City Council with no accountability, and although this is undemocratic, she [Susman] did nothing to prevent or protest it. I don’t believe they [Kudla and Metropolitan Homes] would have prevailed otherwise.”
Both council members Brown and Susman vigorously denied to the Chronicle that the vote was rigged to prevent Susman from having to make a highly unpopular vote with her constituents.
Neighborhood groups are apparently seriously considering a lawsuit concerning the vote and the actions of the City and County of Denver regarding Crestmoor Park. As of press time no formal announcement or filing of a complaint had occurred.
