NIMBY in Littleton
Growth is good. And it need not change the character of a city; in fact it often improves it.
When the Littleton City Council voted recently to table a measure to allow denser housing in its south suburban single family neighborhoods only one member, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Barr cast a no vote.
Some lauded the six members for “listening to the people” no doubt referring to the several hundred Littleton denizens, some in matching “vote no” t-shirts, who showed up to council to voice their concern. Indeed, all of the council members—I know most of them—try their best to listen to the people. The question is who are “the people” in a city of 45,000?
The fear that any zoning change would allow unscrupulous developers to replace gorgeous craftsman bungalows with boxy condos and garish high rises designed by architecture school dropouts is understandable. It happens. There’s a Facebook page, Denver Fugly, devoted to such monstrosities. That’s not what this zoning change would do, however.
For over a year, staff and council worked on the draft, taking public input along the way, to increase housing, in particular “missing middle” options. An earlier study showed the city needs at least 6,500 new homes to accommodate growth especially middle options in between apartments and detached single family homes such as duplexes, triplexes, multiplexes, and cottage homes.
While leaving existing set back and height requirements in place, the modest proposal they created would have allowed attached-type starter homes in single family neighborhoods where they are currently barred. It also incorporated the state’s accessory dwelling unit (ADU) requirements to allow more ADUs to be built.
Residents would have to apply to the city’s planning department to convert a single family home into a duplex, triplex or to add an accessory dwelling unit. The proposal also ensured that concerns over service delivery—water, waste water, and safety—were met.
Who would have benefited from the changes? How about a struggling family who wanted to split their lot into two homes or add an ADU; a single, middle aged woman looking to sell knowing the zoning change would increase the lot’s value; a renting couple ready to buy who cannot affordable a single family home; and potential buyers of a dilapidated house, vacant for years, that needs to be scraped. Building a duplex would make the investment worthwhile. If these examples sound more real than hypothetical it’s because they are.
Growth is good. And it need not change the character of a city; in fact it often improves it. I grew up in the Columbine High School area when Downtown Littleton was seedy and threadbare. The influx of new residents and new diverse housing from condos to million dollars homes and new and updated commercial districts make it the vibrant city it is today.
Barr told me that he felt it was his responsibility as an elected official “to leave Littleton better than we found it for the generations to come, and to pave a road that allows others to travel a path of prosperity like the generations that came before us.” He’s right. This zoning change was the kind incremental change that addressed present and future challenges in housing, transportation, and the environment.
When we price out new home buyers through regulation, we push them to the exurbs. More people moving beyond city limits means longer commutes, more carbon emissions, and the need to build more infrastructure at taxpayer expense. Before long we end up with an urban-suburban corridor of big box stores and Starbucks that stretches from Fort Collins to Colorado Springs with little of the open vistas that we natives and transplants love about the Front Range.
In tabling the zoning proposal, the council dumped a year’s worth of work and public input to placate the loudest voices. They should have listened to Spencer Hanks, a young man who the council meeting, who said, “It is not the place of the city — it is not the place of our code — to shut the door on our future. To pretend this is as good as it gets is just a lack of imagination.”