December 20, 2007 1:43 PM
Greed developers? Greedy Realtors?
Why do letter writers and people opposing development in their neighborhoods frequently refer to "greedy" developers and Realtors?
It might take 80 people seven months to build a new infill townhome development, so why single out only two players in the process?
Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the greedy architects, engineers, plumbers, dry wallers, roofers, painters, carpenters, and others involved in the process?
For that matter, why don't letter writers pillory the "greedy" Safeways, King Soopers, and in my northwest Denver neighborhood, Sunflower Market? After all, grocery stores, as well as local barbershops, restaurants and other retailers, benefit from more people near them, so even if they aren't out there encouraging more development, they are being 'greedy," if greed means they are doing more business.
The other thing that puzzles me is why those opposing infill developments - something that is taking place in almost every Denver neighborhood - seem to think that every developer is a carpet bagger that destroys the very fabric of an area than leaves to count their money.
If you read my first blog (go to November archives and scroll to the bottom), you will know that after 23 years in a 1891 Victorian-style home, in August my wife and I moved to a townhome 1.2 miles northwest of where we lived. We stayed in the West Highland neighborhood, although our Zip Code changed to 80212 from 80211.
Our developer, Nick Mystrom, lives across the street from us.
Indeed, the vast majority of the infill developers I have met live in Denver. In Northwest Denver, the last development I can think of built by an out-of-state builder was in the late 1980s, when Pulte Homes bought up two blocks and built very suburban-style homes in the heart of the neighborhood.
There is no question that the developer stands to make the most money on any given project, if all goes well.
On the other hand, the developer also takes the greatest risk and stands to lose the most money. A home may sit unsold for many months more than expected, but the developer's bank is still charging interest on the loan. And it's no secret that the price of commodities, such as bricks, asphalt, concrete, copper and lumber have gone through the roof in recent years, with everything from demand from China to Katrina playing a role. But if a developer signs a contract to sell a home at "X" price, he can't change it to "Y" a year later, because his prices have gone up.
Realtors also are often frequently singled out, I assume, because they have a more public face than the people who actually are building the homes. And while Realtors profit when a home sells, they typically only get paid if a home sells, so,much like a developer, they also face huge risks.
How would you like to work on something for months, spend money out of your pocket, and then not get paid because a deal falls apart for some reason outside of your control?
That brings me to another seemingly irrational point raised by opponents of growth.
Why do so many of them seem to think that because you move into a new home in a neighborhood, you are somehow more transient than if you bought a two-bedroom, one-bath, ranch-style home built after World War II or a 100-year-old Victorian?
Also, I've noticed some letter writers in my neighborhood paper, the North Denver Tribune, complaining about the "greedy" city.
Since cities in Colorado get the vast majority of their funding from sales taxes, there is no direct incentive for a city to encourage higher property taxes. It is the schools that will benefit the most from higher property taxes. So should we include "greedy" schools in the equation, as beneficiaries of infill developments?
But maybe by the "greedy" city, letter writers mean that infill developments encourage people to live in the city's borders, instead of moving to the suburbs. While that may be self-serving, it does seem something a city should encourage.
While most of the name-calling seems to be coming from those who are anti-growth, the people on the other side of the issue also are guilty of that kind of behavior.
At a recent meeting on down-zoning parts of northwest Denver, people on both sides of the argument at times hissed their opponents.
"Unfortunately, that is fairly common," Bruce O'Donnell, a Planning Board member told me. "And this was not the worst, I had ever seen by far. I would just like to see a little more civility and courtesy, in these issues, as well as in all aspects of life."
And that is really the point.
There are clearly valid reasons to discourage and encourage growth and development.
You might hate the development and with defensible reasons, such as more traffic, blocking views, changing the character of a neighborhood.
But stooping to name calling might make you feel better, but it does little to advance your cause.
Join the discussion