Aug
4
Downzoning northwest Denver is contrary to sustainable development goals
Filed Under Colorado, Denver, Denver zoning code | Leave a Comment
City planners are seeking to slam the brakes on duplex development in the Berkeley neighborhood of northwest Denver by simply downzoning the whole area. But the fact is that duplexes play an important role in both the ongoing demographic shift from the suburbs back into the city, and in the organic development of Berkeley into an ever more dynamic, walkable and desirable neighborhood.
In June, the first draft of Denver’s new zoning code was introduced to the tax-paying public. Under the draft code, Berkeley–along with a significant portion of the rest of northwest Denver–is to be re-zoned from R-2 (which depending on lot size, allows for multi-family construction) to an “Urban” district neighborhood with a “Single Unit” designation.
“In the future, only single-unit structures will be allowed in any Single-Unit zone district after the new code is adopted” wrote Denver City Councilman Rick Garcia, commenting on the draft code in the North Denver News.
But it’s not as though the entire Berkeley neighborhood is in danger of being bulldozed for duplex development. The ability to build and sell duplexes profitably is constrained already by lot size requirements and land prices.
Many of the houses that have been torn down to make way for duplex construction have either been uninhabitable, or simply outlived their useful life. The new, large and often quite nice duplexes built in their place simply satisfy the lifestyle choices of fairly affluent contemporary home buyers who want to live in a Denver urban core neighborhood, but demand the square footage and amenities (master suite, home office, etc.) that before were mostly available only in suburban neighborhoods.
Some complaints about duplexes are valid; that they’re too big, and block out the potential solar access of adjacent houses. Fair enough, but those same complaints are also often made about new single family construction. Such issues can be mitigated with some basic design standards. City planners claim to already be working on such standards for single family building, so why not simply include some design standards for duplexes?
More importantly, duplex development has helped pave the way for developers to test the waters of new single family construction in Berkeley. For instance, developer Bruce Prior has recently been building (and selling) highly attractive Craftsman style single family homes on large lots in Berkeley. If this movement proves to make economic sense, we should see a market-driven–rather than a government mandated–move away from duplexes and towards new single family construction.
The proposed blanket downzoning of Berkeley is an arbitrary ban on housing choice that is at odds with the vision for the Tennyson Street Corridor (Tennyson Street between 38th and 46th avenues) as Berkeley’s “pedestrian friendly” business district.
Among other things, “pedestrian friendly” development assumes that people who live within walking distance of Tennyson will help support that development. But downzoning puts up artificial barriers to sustainable growth, meaning that as Tennyson Street seeks to continue its development, the number of neighbors within walking distance will remain roughly the same.
“The proposed zoning moves in the direction of freeze-drying our neighborhoods, as if they are already the best that they can be.” says Denver architect Michael Knorr. “This only stifles new ideas and discourages monetary investment. It will limit the number and diversity of people attracted to our redeveloping neighborhoods,” continues Knorr.
Put another way, simply downzoning Berkeley and most of the rest of northwest Denver flies in the face of the sustainable and contextual development that the designers of the new zoning code claim to want to encourage. The new code should empower property owners at least as much as it empowers planners, regulators and politicians. We aren’t there yet.
The website for the new zoning code is www.newcodedenver.org. It is interactive, and public comment is being taken for the next draft of the code.
Aug
3
Why Denver’s new zoning code should allow accessory dwelling units (granny flats)
Filed Under Denver, Denver zoning code | Leave a Comment
Under the current Denver zoning code, I could scrape off my little house in the Berkeley neighborhood of northwest Denver and build a duplex on my double lot (6,250 square feet). But I can’t build a detached accessory dwelling unit (granny flat or carriage house) on the back of my property. Under the proposed new Denver zoning code, I can’t do either. In other words, the proposed zoning code is even more hostile to property rights than the existing one.
From the July 15 Denver Daily News, my piece on why I should be able to build an accessory dwelling unit on my property.
Under Denver’s current clunky, antiquated and bureaucrat-friendly zoning code, the construction of accessory dwelling units (ADUs, also know as granny flats or carriage houses) is not allowed in Denver neighborhoods.
But in June, and with remarkably little media attention, city planners introduced the first draft of Denver’s new zoning code that quite smartly allows ADUs again, but only in certain parts of Denver.
One big problem though: As currently written, the new code doesn’t allow ADUs in my part of town, the Berkeley neighborhood in northwest Denver.
This is a big mistake that needs to be remedied.
Under the draft code, Berkeley — along with a significant portion of the rest of northwest Denver — is being re-zoned from R-2 (which, depending on lot size, allows for multi-family construction) to an “Urban Single Unit” neighborhood designation that allows single family detached housing only. In other words, no more duplexes, and more significantly, no granny flats allowed.
But that the new zoning coded denies the option of ADUs to Berkeley residents, as well as other areas of Denver, defies logic and flies in the face of the sustainable and contextual development that the new zoning code is supposed to be encouraging.
For example, my wife and I could only afford to live in Berkeley by buying an 800 square foot “fixer-upper” with no garage and no closet space (in other words, a house that has outlived its useful life) that happens to sit on a large (double) lot. We love it here. According to WalkScore.com, my little Berkeley shack has a “walk score” of 92 (probably a bit inflated, but still great), making it a “walkers’ paradise.” There are numerous other properties like ours scattered throughout Berkeley. Since we can’t (yet) afford to tear down our house and build something that better suits our tastes and lifestyle, being able to build an accessory dwelling unit that could be used as a home office or extra living space, or a garage with a studio on top, would be an excellent and economical way to add both square footage and value to our property.
John Norquist, president of the Congress for the New Urbanism (www.cnu.org), which promotes “walkable, neighborhood-based development as an alternative to sprawl,” was surprised to learn that the draft Denver code denies ADUs in Berkeley and in other Denver neighborhoods. By allowing ADUs, “Denver can grow gracefully, as an American you should be able to put a small house on your lot so a relative or caretaker can live there,” said Norquist.
Moreover, denying ADUs in Berkeley is at odds with the ongoing development of the Tennyson Street Corridor (Tennyson Street between 38th and 46th avenues) as Berkeley’s “pedestrian friendly” business district. Among other things, “pedestrian friendly” development requires that people who live within walking distance of Tennyson Street (for the sake of argument, lets say five or six blocks on either side) will actually be among the pedestrians who support the Tennyson Street businesses. Yet the re-zoning of Berkeley puts up artificial barriers that ensure the density of the neighborhood never really increases, despite market demands for housing choices. Meaning that as Tennyson Street seeks to continue its development, the number of neighbors within walking distance available to support that development will remain roughly the same.
Walkable communities require market-driven density to flourish, and accessory dwelling units can help achieve just that. Or as Norquist put it, ADUs allow the neighborhood to “have more people without actually feeling like a denser neighborhood.”
Through a combination of changing demographics, entrepreneurial efforts and free-market dynamics, the Berkeley neighborhood has been developing into an ever-more vibrant, walkable and desirable area. But by first down-zoning Berkeley to single family only, then denying ADUs to the area, Denver’s new zoning code seeks to slam the door on housing choice in Berkeley, thus diminishing the future prospects for sustainable development in the neighborhood.
The Web site for the new zoning code is www.newcodedenver.org. It is interactive, and public comment is being taken for the next draft of the code.
Don’t let city planners and politicians deny you the ability and freedom to develop your property in a way that suits your own tastes and lifestyle choices, while adding value to both your own property and the neighborhood at large. The new code should empower property owners at least as much as it empowers city bureaucrats.
Feb
16
More Communist Paranoia From Beijing
Filed Under China | Leave a Comment
A common theme among communist regimes, and authoritarian regimes in general, is intense paranoia…often about the most absurd things. And “state-run” media makes exercising that paranoia all the more efficient. From the editorial board at the Rocky Mountain News comes this too funny tale of paranoid censorship in Beijing:
Employees of China’s national TV network, celebrating the lunar new year with illegal fireworks, managed to lob a skyrocket onto the roof of a nearly complete ultramodern hotel adjoining their own headquarters building.
The resulting fire gutted the 44-story structure, leaving a charred, smoking shell looming over the Beijing skyline. Despite their complicity in the blaze, you would think this would be a real break for China TV’s reporters: How great is it to be able to cover one of the biggest stories of the year simply by looking out your office window?
But China’s ever alert propaganda office immediately issued a directive: “No photos, no videos, no in-depth reports.” Fortunately, technology, the bane of the censors’ existence, prevailed, and amateur photos and videos were posted on the Internet faster than the authorities could block them.
Still, pity the poor official tour guide who is required to respond to a tourist’s question about a 44-story fire-blackened hulk in central Beijing with, “Building? What building?”
Feb
9
I have a piece in today’s Colorado Daily newspaper on how President Obama can change U.S. policy toward Taiwan for the better…without having to commit thousands of U.S troops or billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to either regime change or nation building.
Here is the piece, re-printed in its entirety:
For 30 years, the U.S. has maintained an “unofficial” relationship with Taiwan.
And while this outdated policy acquiesces nicely to communist China’s absurd (and equally outdated) claim of sovereignty over democratic Taiwan, it also badly undermines the American tradition of supporting democracy around the globe.
President Barack Obama could begin undoing this backward policy and send a significant foreign policy message by simply instructing his State Department to issue new guidelines lifting travel restrictions on Taiwanese officials to the U.S. and allowing direct contact between Washington and Taipei.
In fact, Mr. Obama suggested this during the campaign.
In March 2008, Taiwan held a presidential election. Ma Ying-Jeou of the Nationalist Party defeated the Democratic Progressive Party candidate. It was Taiwan’s second peaceful transfer of party power through democratic elections.
Commenting on the election, then-candidate Obama stated that the U.S. should respond by “rebuilding a relationship of trust and support” with democratic Taiwan. “The U.S. should reopen blocked channels of communication with Taiwan officials,” Obama said.
What is President Obama waiting for?
The State Department issued its first backwards set of Taiwan guidelines in 1979, when the U.S. ended diplomatic relations with Taipei in order to recognize the communist dictatorship in Beijing.
Since then, Taiwan has transformed itself from an authoritarian regime (much like China remains today) and into a vibrant representative democracy with a market economy — precisely the kind of country whose representatives should be able to not only communicate directly with their counterparts in Washington, D.C., but who also should be welcomed into the United States for official visits.
The Bush administration continued undermining American support for democracy abroad by expanding and re-issuing the backward guidelines in 2008.
For instance, high-level Taiwanese officials, including the democratically elected president of Taiwan, are barred from visiting Washington. On the other hand, the unelected leader of China’s thuggish communist party has been welcomed into the White House.
Another rule precludes U.S. embassy personnel from accepting invitations to “official” Taiwan-hosted functions, or functions held at “Taiwan’s official premises” and vice versa.
In a particularly bizarre ban on communication, U.S. officials are not allowed to communicate directly with their counterparts in Taiwan, but rather must send letters to each other through a third party.
As the Taipei Times newspaper describes, “Even personal thank you notes must be written on plain paper and put in a plain envelope to disguise the sender’s official identity.”
All of this, and more, just to appease the Chinese communists in Beijing.
President Obama could change this — without having to commit thousands of American troops, or billions of U.S. tax dollars, to either regime change or nation building.
In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Obama noted that “we cannot meet 21st century challenges with a 20th century bureaucracy.”
If this is so, how can we meet 21st century foreign policy challenges while tied to a 20th century Taiwan policy that contradicts everything the U.S. is supposed to stand for?
Feb
2
U.S. Congressman John Linder, a Republican from Georgia, has introduced House Concurrent Resolution 18 (HCR 18) calling for diplomatic recognition of Taiwan by the U.S., and an end to America’s backwards “one China” policy.
Concurrent resolution are not submitted to the president, and lack the force of law. Rather they are intended to express the sentiments of the Congress in an official way towards a particular issue.
One of Taiwan’s biggest supporters in the U.S. Congress, Tom Tancredo from Colorado, retired last year. He had introduced several similar resolutions in the past, all of which of course failed…China appeasment runs deeep in the U.S. Congress. It is good to see Representative Linder keeping the issue alive.
The Formosan Association for Public Affairs (FAPA) offers a link to ask your member of Congress to support HCR 18 here.
Read all about it in the Tapei Times.
Dec
27
Communist Chinese Authoritarianism at its Paranoid Worst.
Filed Under China, Personal Freedom | Leave a Comment
I recently watched the film “The Lives of Others.” The German language film (with sub-titles) shows life in the mid-1980s in the German Democractic Republic (GDR, or as it was commonly known, East Germany), an authoritarian communist regime that fell almost twenty years ago, along with the Berlin Wall. The film features the Stasi, the GDR’s secret police force. It was a time and a place where the slightest criticism of the regime, the merest hint of disloyalty, might earn you a visit from Stasi thugs, a round of interrogation and torture and maybe some time in prison or a psychiatric hospital. It was a time and a place where a lunatic fringe of paranoid bullies ruled a nation.
The GDR may be gone, but we still have the People’s Republic of China (PRC).
From the Associated Press on Christmas day:
Authorities in Tibet have detained 59 people accused of disseminating rumors aimed at inciting ethnic tension and have cracked down on illegal downloads of “reactionary music” online, Chinese state media reported Thursday.Law enforcement officers have found 48 cases of “rumor spreading” since March, when anti-government riots rocked the Tibetan capital Lhasa, a report by the China Tibet News said, citing a local public security official.
Xin Yuanming, deputy chief of the Lhasa public security bureau, said those being investigated were instigated by the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s exiled spiritual leader, according to the report. It did not name those detained nor give other details.
The rumors posed a threat to public security by fanning ethnic hatred and damaging the image of China’s ruling Communist Party, the report said.
Arrested for spreading rumors that might damge the image of the communist regime…the old GDR and its Stasi would be proud.
Dec
19
Is The U.S. Postal Service Practicing Beijing Appeasment?
Filed Under China, Taiwan, Uncategorized | 1 Comment
So has the United States Postal Service decided that Taiwan is just another captive province in Communist China’s empire? And if so, does this mean the post office is now setting U.S. foreign policy?
On his Taiwan focused blog, The View From Taiwan, Michael Turton has a great post (pics included) on the United States Postal Service’s apparent practice of stamping packages addressed to Taiwan with “Taiwan, Province of China.”
Turton’s post includes lots of details, possible conclusions and good questions regarding this practice, so check it out. Turton concludes:
Let me add this simple fact: the policy of the US government is, and has been for the last five decades, that the status of Taiwan is undetermined. As a government entity, USPS should not be flouting official policy.
Dec
11
Che and Mao, Icons for the Clueless
Filed Under China, Personal Freedom | Leave a Comment
A really good piece of video work from reason.tv, “Killer Chic: Hollywood’s Sick Love Affair with Che Guevara.”
So what does the thuggish, and sadly iconic, Guevara have to do with Mao, Communist China’s ex-dictator? From the description accompanying the video:
“We’re rightly horrified by fascist murderers like Adolph Hitler,” says reason.tv’s Nick Gillespie. “Why aren’t we also horrified by communist killers?” Certainly, Che’s body count isn’t anywhere near Hitler’s. But what about someone Che idolized, someone whom he might have liked to wear on his chest?
“Che, Castro, all the communist regimes idolized only one thing that Mao personifies—violence.” Kai Chen grew up in China under the reign of Mao Zedong. Although he won gold medals for China’s national basketball team, Chen’s was far from the celebrity life of an NBA star. Says Chen, “You have no right to talk, and you have no right to think.”
The punishment for questioning Mao’s authority was often death. The Black Book of Communism estimates that Mao is responsible for the deaths of 65 million people—a figure that dwarfs even Hitler’s body count. “Mao is a murderer,” says Chen. “The biggest mass murderer in human history.”
And yet, like Che, Mao’s image is becoming an increasingly popular way to move merchandise. You can buy Mao t-shirts, mugs, caps-you name it.
Really, why don’t the lear jet liberals reason.tv shows celebrating Che have similar contempt for communist mass-murderers as for fascist mass-murderers?
Dec
8
As it turns out, the regime in Beijing is not only one of the world’s great human rights violators, but also a bunch of cry-babies. As it also turns out, France’s junior human rights minister is not just a terrifically good looking woman, but also one tough cookie, having recently given Beijing a well deserved slap-down.
It’s like this. French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently met with the Dalai Lama in Poland and Beijing threw a predictable temper tantrum. But rather than trying to then appease the really easily annoyed regime in Beijing, French human rights minister Rama Yade told the regime to chill out.
From the December 8 EU Business news:
France appealed for calm Sunday after China strongly protested President Nicolas Sarkozy’s meeting with the Dalai Lama, with the human rights minister saying there was no need for “psycho-drama.”
China reacted angrily to Sarkozy’s meeting with the Tibetan spiritual leader on Saturday, saying it had seriously undermined Bejing’s relations with France and Europe.
“There is no need for psycho-drama,” human rights minister Rama Yade said in an interview to French LCI television.
“The Dalai Lama is not a dangerous man. He is a man of peace, of non-violence, who has been awarded the Nobel prize for peace.”
Yade stressed that China and France must pool their efforts to tackle the global financial crisis instead of feuding over Tibet.
“We need to cooperate, calmly,” she said.
Nicely done, though this still does not entirely excuse President Sarkozy’s blatant pandering to Beijing by refusing to meet with the Dalai Lama during a visit to France earlier this year.
Dec
6
More Chinese Influence in Africa
Filed Under Africa, China, Darfur, Genocide, Mugabe, Zimbabwe | 2 Comments
Much of the African Continent is mired in conflict and ruled by thuggish regimes…exactly the kind of conditions Beijing prefers for expanding its influence. And Indeed, whether it is arming the murderous regime of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, or enabling the genocidal regime in Khartoum, the regime in Beijing seems drawn to African misery like moths to a flame.
From Richard Gustafson at the University of Denver, here is an academic analysis of “China’s Growing Influence on the African Continent.” From the abstract:
Because of their colonial histories, African nations tend to be splintered, and conflicts on the continent are frequently internal. Following the Tienanmen Square incident in 1989 and the end of Cold War, the West’s financial support to Cold War allies diminished at the same time China shifted the focus of its foreign policy toward Africa. It offered aid and low interest loans with few or no conditions regarding governance or human rights. The continuous power struggles and efforts to maintain power make China’s overtures tempting to many African leaders. Many of China’s interactions come at the expense of the citizens of African nations and create a long-term detriment to economies on the African continent.
keep looking »
Powered by FireStats