The Profile encourages readers to express opinions about any of the articles that appear on our pages, or to simply let us know about any topic of relevance to the residents of central, south-central or near southeast Denver.

Letters To The Editor may be submitted in several ways: Click on the Contact Us button above and send your letter as an e-mail message or attachment; fax your letter to 303-778-7918; or mail your letter to Washington Park Profile, 617 E. Jewell Ave., Denver, CO 80210

 

Opposes Brown’s Stand On R2 To R1 Downzoning

I was surprised and disheartened by your recent column in our fine local paper. The current R2 zoning in this area is completely out of step with the wants and needs of actual homeowners in this area. Our neighborhood is being destroyed by private developers and their need for profits, while homeowners are left wondering why their representative is so biased.

Of course the recent Highlands and Sloan’s Lake (City Council) meeting was “emotional” and long! That is what is necessary for good government to proceed, issues that people actually care about and are willing to fight for! Enough of the back room deals and wink-and-nod governance. What is most important is that the re-zoning issues passed! They did not want or need development.

Our streets are overburdened, our services are strained and developers continue to take advantage of a completely outdated, one-sided zoning scheme. The idea that the only way to upgrade a residential neighborhood is to scrape off the old is out of date, wasteful, and shamefully designed to line the pockets of developers.

A best example is the monstrosity on Wesley and High. A developer built what he called a “hostel” on the site. Three stories high, 5 units with 4 individual students per unit sharing a common kitchen. As zoning required, he only built 8 parking places!

When local homeowners tried to intercede, we were spurned. You, Charlie, did nothing and now we live with it. I am sure that in YOUR neighborhood, there is nothing like that!

Other abuses are attached triplex and quadplex apartment buildings, setback abuses and, of course, the “cookie cutter” syndrome whereby it seems all the fly-by- night developers are building the exact same knock-off house.

Local homeowners in this neighborhood have had enough of your neglect, Charlie Brown. While it is true that many homes in the area are rentals, not actually lived in by their owners, many are not. And WE vote.

Ernie Stires
President
South Gilpin Homeowners Association

 

More Questions RE: West Wash Park Downzoning

I want to say thanks for listening to our viewpoints last evening.

I realize that my place is so different from most of my neighbors. And I realize that most of the leaders (of West washington Park Neighborhood Assocition) really do want to have a uniform neighborhood, even though it is not that way today. I listened to Charlie Busch’s  description of the homes that would be encouraged under the guidelines and thought about our flat roof/ brick all the way up/ no front porch/ 50s’ Moderne house! We love that architecture because it gives great living space and is very unobtrusive on the outside, seeming to disappear behind the garden, partially because we have extended the horizontal lines into the garden wall. Maybe others see it as ugly.

And I still disagree with your belief that they won’t build McMansions. Of the 11 houses on my block, five have been enlarged as much as they can be within the “envelope” restrictions, and two have gotten variances to go outside, one of those not yet begun. None are duplexes. The two now-large houses next to me are lived in by middle-aged couples. They have money and want lots of house. I know of no children who live within two blocks of me in either direction on Downing – not counting the university students who rent. There are three properties that have been developed as duplexes on Downing facing the park, all with sensible “urban” style patio fronts that look like the 21st century. Vicki’s cost her $750,000 so the builder did make lots of money, assuming he bought the property for under $500K.                    

I still do believe he would have made it anyway by building a $1.5 McMansion if a duplex had not been allowed. That is what I believe will happen to our house when we are gone, following your plan. It seems to assume all families should have two parents and two children with an income in excess of $250,000 a year or an inheritance of wealth only white people usually get.

What I would want, is that we should allow the widest diversity of style and function within some kind of architectural guide. Within some visual impact, with even detailed architectural approvals, our property could become a two- or even four- (small) flat building to provide sensible living space next to a bus stop. That would provide living space that makes sense as we wind down our use of energy through the next decades. And it could be built to account for the heavy traffic on Downing (meaning higher costs of construction?) and still provide lower cost housing for small families, single mom or elder. That makes sense to me much more than a three- or four-story neo-Victorian traditional McMansion built to “look like” the other houses.

Across Kentucky from us, the house has an alley house; across that alley is a four-flat apartment building; and across the alley from our house, the house has a basement apartment. Why does it make sense to say my house must always be a single family residence with a front porch, facing a highway connector street with heavy traffic?

John Ferguson

 

RTD’s Access-A-Ride Not As Accessible As Riders Need

I read with interest the September letter to the editor from Lee Kemp, RTD Board Chairman, soliciting input on what to do about cost overruns associated with the FasTracks program. It inspired me to ask the general public to weigh in with RTD on an entirely different matter – Access-A-Ride.

During the public comment portion of the August 19, 2008 RTD Board meeting, I listened with growing horror as client after client of the ADA-mandated program spoke about missed dialysis appointments, missed doctor visits, missed business appointments and the associated frustration involved in trying to get help from RTD phone schedulers and dispatchers. While I listened, I thumbed through the meeting packet that contained backup information for an agenda item – adoption of 2009 Performance Measures for Goals 1-6.

Goal 5 deals solely with Access-A-Ride performance and consists of 2 objectives – 5.1 is to improve ADA on-time performance; 5.2 is to improve ADA trip availability, defined as “adherence to ADA mandate to have zero denials to service request.” Imagine my surprise as I listened to the public speakers and read that – as to objective 5.1, the 2007 goal was 96% on-time service and the actual record was 97%! Near perfection! But, wait, there’s more – did you know that as to objective 5.2 – zero denials – the 2007 goal was 99.5% and the actual record was 100%? Imagine that – a perfect performance!

Now, I’m lucky enough to be physically and (most of the time) mentally and emotionally capable of using RTD’s regular service, and, I like it. I do not rely on RTD to get to and from work (I’m a contractor who cannot haul materials to job sites on the bus), but I use RTD to go downtown and back and find the service acceptable, especially when I have time to kill. But what about those folks in our community for whom RTD is a lifeline? The people who spoke, sometimes through tears at the August Board meeting, didn’t seem like wackos, but they did seem like they were on the receiving end of something less than perfection.

The Board members, to their credit, were very nice and receptive to these speakers, directing Cal Marsella, who was also very nice, to “get with these folks and look into it.” Doesn’t change the fact that Goals 1-4 and 6 are, at least in the preliminary stages of the 2009 budget process, receiving increased funding for improvement – and Goal 5 is not. Because, I guess, how do you improve on perfection?

Dollars to donuts, if you print this letter, you’ll get a response from RTD that will say, in effect, that I just don’t understand how these objectives are defined and how these performance standards are measured. And that will be absolutely true. Here’s what I do understand – any entity that claims to have achieved a performance rating of 100% is either: a) God or B) measuring a meaningless standard of performance.

It does seem to me that being an RTD Director is one of the most difficult and thankless elected positions in our state, and I often wonder what in the world these good people are thinking when they take it on. However, the difficulties they face in their elected positions just don’t compare to a missed life-saving dialysis appointment faced by some of their constituents.

Please respectfully contact your RTD Director and ask him/her to change and fund the performance measures associated with Access-A-Ride. Tell RTD that you’ll accept increased “Dirty-Bus Complaints (Goal 2.2),” as a trade-off for Access-A-Ride clients getting the service and performance standards they need to, say, stay alive.

Sincerely,

Barb Steinmeyer

 

Yet More Concern About Downzoning

My wife and I have lived in our Platt Park home for over 40 years. It is a single family home on an R2 zoned lot. Much of our net worth, and indeed, our life savings, is associated with our home.

As senior citizens and longtime residents of Platt Park, we are very concerned that some people want to take our property rights away by downzoning our lot. This is not fair. It would depress the value of our home and take money out of our pockets. This directly affects both our retirement plans and possible plans we might have for moving to lower maintenance housing.

Any Platt Park resident who desires to downzone their property should do so – but please don’t tell us what to do with our residence of over 40 years.

Sincerely yours,

Wayne and Rosalie Shelden