Well, in light of last night's election, I will lamentably post my recent piece of commentary
published in The Villager about life in the Village.
When my family moved to Greenwood Village, we joked that
“the Village zones against tornadoes.”
It seemed like every storm headed south or north of the Tech
Center.
Zoning in GV is no small matter, as anyone who has remodeled
knows, but it used to be about property, not people. Voters should scrutinize
plans which zone against small businesses and middle-class earners, as the
opposition to mixed-use development near the Landmark did.
While some residents seem to prefer high-rise offices or
empty lots over small shops, restaurants and homes, others prefer pragmatic
review of individual projects, rather than rigid rejection of any new buildings
or residents.
To be clear, no City Council candidates or residents are
actually “pro-density,” and it’s disingenuous to argue they are. No one seeks
“high-density urbanization” that brings crime to neighborhoods, traffic to the
streets and undesirables to our community and schools. Such exaggerated fear
mongering should be viewed cautiously by voters.
In reality, we need rational discussion about community
development. Greenwood Village is a city of 15,000 people with a small-town
feel and ample parks amidst a thriving corporate sector in the Denver Tech
Center. Yet, areas around I-25 have outdated property that could be updated to
feature open spaces, restaurants, offices and housing, including single-family
homes, townhouses and condos. In fact, that was the vision behind the Landmark,
a mixed-use area quite popular with residents, despite those unsightly
residential towers.
Last year at a local charity event, a councilmember told me,
“I want single-family homes, not condos.” Perhaps unintentionally, he revealed an inclination to
exclude people like me from his city. As an educator earning a middle-class
income, I probably can’t afford a house in Greenwood Village, but I value
living in the neighborhood where I teach, and I can afford my townhouse near
school.
Middle-class Americans earn between $50-100,000 a year,
making it tough to buy houses. By opposing any multi-family housing, some
residents seem intent on excluding teachers, police officers, firefighters,
healthcare workers and city employees from living in the very neighborhoods
they serve.
The Village has rarely seen such controversy over our sense
of community. There was no outcry over new houses on One Cherry Lane and no
opposition to the subdivision built just west of Peoria. No candidates fought
the new development just south of Belleview.
So, what has happened to our Village and what caused such
harsh reactions to community development? Why have we seen such vitriolic
comments about our public servants and our neighbors? Village residents should
ask themselves, who are we as a community? Is Greenwood Village closed? Or can
we reach a civil compromise that promotes responsible growth while preserving
the Village?
If the free market prices consumers out of a neighborhood,
that’s a natural effect of capitalism. But if government zones to ensure that
exclusivity, well, that’s just sad.
Perhaps some residents would prefer to just build a wall
around Greenwood Village