They’re at it AGAIN
Comments(6)
City Council & Planning Commission Focus Exclusively on “New Urbanism”
By Jack Randall
The city council and planning commission have decided, in their collective majority opinions, that Littleton needs a change. It needs to grow and generate more tax money for the council to spend.
To allow for that growth, Littleton’s current Comprehensive Plan must be changed.
As a result of this decision, they have created CAC, Citizens Advisory Committee, to “advise” the planning commission what changes are necessary. The current plan, written in 1981 and updated regularly, is not good enough for the deep thinkers of today.
The city staff says, “The intent of the update is to focus on citywide land use and economic development issues.”
To that end, a 23 member committee, CAC, has been created and set in motion to develop COMPLAN 2030 – their vision of what Littleton should become by 2030.
One of the first things they did was hire a professional to present a concept called “New Urbanism” to the CAC and at the public meetings (four of them so far).
They did not hire any other professional to present any alternate plan for Littleton by 2030, and the Planning Commission, planning staff and most of City Council seem satisfied with this one sided presentation.
Key elements of the proposal now coming down the tracks are “mixed use” and high density.
Littleton covers 14 square miles and is home to about 42,000 people. It is virtually landlocked and cannot easily expand the borders. The Denver Regional Council of Governments, DRCOG, has projected that Littleton will grow to be home to 60,000 people in the near future.
…the city won’t cover more land, but there will be about 150% of today’s population!
Think about that – the city won’t cover more land, but there will be about 150% of today’s population!
Is that what we really want?
It seems that the real intent of the “update” of the Comprehensive Plan is to increase the amount of taxes available for the city council and city manager.
The present Comprehensive Plan includes the language, “In Littleton’s approach, planning is a process of preparing for those things which are likely to happen, and it seeks to bring about those things which the citizenry wish to happen.”
The present plan includes eight community-wide goals. None of these goals are to increase the money available to the city government for new programs – none of them. None of these goals are to increase the population of our town to urban densities – none of them.
There are some really good people on the CAC, Planning Commission and City Council. Let them know how much you want taxes increased and how many more people you want living in Littleton.
Maybe we like Littleton basically as it is without a lot more people in apartments and a lot more traffic.
After reading your recent “They’re At It Again” article I was deeply disappointed by the political slant to your “news magazine for the people of Littleton”. From your article on New Urbanism, it was clear to me that you do not understand the concept. New Urbanism is not “more people in apartments and a lot more traffic”.
The present pattern of growth is unsustainable. Regardless of whether or not you want to accept it, the population is growing, and it shows no sign of slowing. Littleton WILL grow. You can imagine yourself holding your ground in front of your homestead with your musket if you choose, but this is 2006 and growth is a real issue. The narrow minded, Not-In-My-Backyard attitude that is woven into your article is typical of the “haves” trying to push the “have-nots” somewhere else.
New Urbanism (Smart Growth) strives to make communities more walkable. It emphasizes the pedestrian rather then the vehicle. It suggests bringing back the City Center, more pedestrian amenities, and integrating housing and commercial with transportation nodes (such as the light rail) so that people can walk for their daily needs (hence REDUCING traffic). It holds developers accountable to designing buildings with high quality architecture so the developments that they create are a benefit to the community for years to come rather than an eyesore and benefit merely the developer’s pocketbook. New Urbanism is a remedy to the growing problem of overcrowding, traffic, air, noise, and crime. However, New Urbanism is not really “new”. It is reverting back to urban development that occurred before the advent of the automobile, before one had to get in their monstrous SUV and drive out of their covenant community to pick up a carton of milk.
The suburban model of urban development is dwindling. With the increasing prices of gas (which is only going to go up), most useable land being developed, and exacerbated traffic, New Urbanist developments have become highly attractive to home buyers. It has also never been proven to reduce property values. In fact, New Urbanist developments are a hot market (look at Stapleton). I am interested in what your “alternate plans” that could have been presented by a professional would be. Continued suburbanization? No growth? These alternate plans are merely the hopes of the “have’s” hiding their heads in the sand and hoping everything goes away.
New Urbanism is not something that is being forced on us. It is an alternate to the directionless, “anywhere USA” growth that is occurring all over America. (take a look at Wadsworth). I welcome more of the exciting and innovative redevelopment that the City has been guiding recently.
I am a “person of Littleton” and your highly biased, conservative, and libertarian newspaper does not speak for me. I challenge you to take responsibility for your statements and publish this response.
Sincerely,
Alan Tiefenbach
Littleton Homeowner
I believe New Urbanization is better than the continued sprawl to the suburbs and exurbs. The concepts of New Urbanization that I am familiar with are not based jamming in more overpriced condos and shotty apartments in a small, urban area to increase tax dollars. It is redeveloping the community to be more accessible, liveable and consumer friendly.
Given the climate of the Front Range, a more walkable town is not only good for the enviorment but the health of the citizens and the visual appeal of the community.
Thanks for your voice of reason, Jack. If you look at the big picture, New Urbanism is not really about population growth and traffic flow. Under the guise of doing what’s good for “us”, our property rights are taken away, (via eminent domain run amuck ) and given to corporations.
Follow the money…who is going to benefit from this New Urbanism? Corporations and the big-spenders at the city of Littleton and other government entities. It’s about municipalities efforts to improve their tax base in the form of increased property values. I must hand it to them, it’s quite an ingenious scam.
Governments cooperating with corporations to …hey! Sounds like Corporatism to me, an economic policy of fascism. Don’t believe it? Follow the money trail.
Sincerely want my Bill of Rights back,
Leah Kelley
Littleton Resident , Realtor, and
Libertarian (defender of Liberty)
I find “follow the money…who is going to benefit from this New Urbanism – corporations and the big-spenders at the city of Littleton and other government entities” amusing.” The people who benefit from new urbanism are the citizens who get to live in a pleasant community with a sense of place. If you look at new urbanism projects – Belmar, Stapleton, Lowry, and Downtown Littleton – these are fun, livable places with growing demand for housing and retail. Also, in reference to the previous blogger’s comments, I invite the readers to visit one of these places and find the scam. Then visit somewhere where sprawl has been allowed to continue – is Wadsworth a walkable, interesting place? How about Highlands Ranch?
New Urbanism is about utilizing existing infrastructure, redeveloping properties, and creating downtowns where people want to visit. It emphasizes the pedestrian, and holds developers responsible to the community where they construct.
In fact, many corporations and developers balk at incorporating new urbanist principles into their developments because it costs them more and hurts their bottom line. It’s much easier and cheaper to construct the typical strip or big box development.
I often hear anti-zoning advocates state the market should dictate design. If you want an example of what happens when you let the “market determine design” take a look at the Home Depot on Belleview and Federal. The building is set way back in a sea of parking, and the rear of the building dominates the entire streetscape block of Federal. Home Depot benefits, the surrounding residents get to live with the streetscape. I suspect we have this result because the local planning department had limited authority to regulate design.
Zoning and land use regulation evolved over many decades of trail and error, and from way too many instances of developers and real estate agents profiting at the expense of the community. The task of the public agency is to consider land use proposal against the general welfare of the entire community, not the individual.
If you really want to follow the money trail, consider why real estate agents resent zoning and land use regulation so much. It prohibits them from developing or selling their property any way they want at the expense of others.
Alan Tiefenbach
Littleton Resident
Sorry, Editor; I’m with Alan. Though he and I might (I suspect) have some energized political discussions, he is spot on when describing New Urbanism and its benefits, including less environmental impact and a higher quality of life. Regarding property values declining, I would be extremely interested if you could provide local case studies on that proposition. I suspect it would be challenging.
However New Urbanism needs to be uniquely implemented in the context of a particular community. I moved to Littleton precisely because it was not yet Washington Park, was economically diverse, and was small enough to ‘get my arms around’. During construction on our addition, I got to know my neighbors better than where we were renting – despite my not yet living there! Rushed development could very well destroy this, but careful planning can accommodate growth while allowing the community to adapt and adjust. Vanilla zoning could allow modern monstrosities to be built, while careful architectural review could build and make it fit in, make sense in the community.
That is where your energies should be directed. Don’t be reactionary; there is more heat than light in that direction.
I, for one, am waiting breathlessly to hear if Alan Tiefenbach, Bill Morgan and D. Rottenbucher can reconcile their understanding of New Urbanism with City Council’s head-long rush to stick a “car-magnet” big-box superstore into a parkland and residential area. Jamming Wal-Mart onto a site ComPlan favored for multi-use community-scale development should be proof that our current leadership — Council, Planning Commission, DRC and Staff — deceitfully tout New Urbanism and multi-use merely to disquise their single-minded passion for revenue growth at any cost. “The good news is that the criteria (for rezoning) are purposefully general and vague,” says Amy Conklin. When the stage-managed CAC unveils its ComPlan substitute, an even more elastic “vanilla zoning” and consequent revenue-producing “modern monstrosities” will make South Wadsworth seem a paradise by comparison. All that this Council wants (3 of the remaining 6, anyway) is the latitude to do whatever it wants; all that stands in its way are those of us who embrace ComPlan’s vision of balanced growth, including (I trust) Tiefenbach and other advocates for true New Urbanism. What say you, gentlemen?