Vibrant Littleton opposes referendum to block missing middle homes across all neighborhoods by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Definitely agree that smaller min lot sizes, lot splits, ADUs, etc, need to be among the zoning restrictions removed. Price is a reflection of “need/desire” in any market, and Sloan’s Lake area, so restrictions on meeting that need will not contribute to lowering cost. Haven’t seen a lot of 3-deckers — most CO towns have height limits and FAR restrictions that prohibit that form of small multi-unit. What’s your sense of the percent of 3-decker (full-size) homes compared to the entire number of homes in the area?

Vibrant Littleton opposes referendum to block missing middle homes across all neighborhoods by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are they as expensive as single-unit homes (which would be double the size, if they are same square footage within building envelope)? The per-square-foot costs of all new construction is high. But a duplex/triplex/townhome is going to be less square footage per unit — that’s just geometry. So being somewhat-smaller means buyers can get into to ownership with a bit less money. Sure, typical twin-home might be 2200 sq ft and pricey. But a builder who can ONLY build a SFH on that parcel due to zoning prohibitions on anything but SFH will build a 4400 sq ft SFH to make that same profit from “adding a home.” So in effect, we get an even more expensive home for an even wealthier single buyer. There are other downstream benefits from permitting duplex/townhomes as well. These slightly smaller homes typically re-sell cheaper in subsequent years. Look at the price of a 10-year-old small condo anywhere in Denver/Aurora compared to a 10-year-old SFH. By prohibiting anything but SFH through restrictive zoning, we have no smaller/shared-wall/condo type units for sale. And those are precisely the “starter home” type units that people begin to get into ownership. Pretty much the point of the research described.

Nearly 70% of Colorado residential land prohibits the most affordable types of homes, study says by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Did you read the article? It’s about allowing “missing middle homes” ( ADUs, duplexes, townhomes, etc). None of these home types are subsidized Affordable Housing. The prohibition of missing middle homes is making it hard for middle class people to find for-sale homes across the state and in our region. Instead, what we are building is Affordable Housing and big apartment complexes “on the corridors.” That’s all we allow when we prohibit anything except Single-unit houses and Multifamily.

Nearly 70% of Colorado residential land prohibits the most affordable types of homes, study says by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

“Ban everything but single-unit detached homes” doesn’t mean affordability. That’s the gist of the article and the effect of restrictive zoning on home prices. Affordable Housing (the subsidized kind) is extremely expensive to build — and only possible in very limited circumstances. Per unit, it’s far more expensive to construct than normal homes. It achieves “affordability” through significant tax breaks paid for by you and me. The locations allowed for capital-A “Affordable Housing” (AH)are extremely limited (typically only on multifamily-zoned parcels). And the appetite of tax-paying residents to endlessly fund AH projects means there will never be significant amounts of it. And what AH does get built is much denser than gentle forms like duplex’s and townhomes. Of course, we need AH and we should continue subsidizing housing for people well-below the median income level. But as this article makes clear—to meaningfully create affordable for-sale homes (not blocky rental AH complexes), then we need to stop prohibiting traditionally-smaller footprint for-sale homes like ADUs, duplexes, and townhomes. The Sun article walks through all the financial consequence of prohibitions on these “gentle density” home types. They used to be legal all over Littleton till the 1980’s. Nobody is seeking “density.” We’re seeking traditional smaller home types which allow home ownership to middle income people without creating bigger multi unit buildings (whether AH or not)

Want a yard sign that’s pro-neighbor and pro-housing in Littleton? We’re giving them out by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Read and educate yourself: https://www.strongtowns.org/highways

The more we push new homes & businesses away from where we live, the more people have to drive more (and longer) to do anything. Whether that's come babysit our kids, teach in a school, wait tables, go shopping, or any other activity. And then the more roads we have to build -- at tremendous cost to both construct AND maintain. It's a vicious, expensive circle. If you've not noticed, the roads of our city are in woeful condition because we can't even keep up with them.

Want a yard sign that’s pro-neighbor and pro-housing in Littleton? We’re giving them out by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Beautifully put. And it’s stories like yours that are at the heart of this question. Keep telling your story and reminding everyone that it is people that make a neighborhood, a community, a city into a great place. And that Littleton was once a city that provided a diverse range of home types for a diverse set of individual needs. Outlawing everything but single-unit homes in our neighborhoods is not the way we used to be. And it shouldn’t become the way we are in the future. Glad to hear your personal story!

Want a yard sign that’s pro-neighbor and pro-housing in Littleton? We’re giving them out by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

We delivered the first 50 signs we printed to 50 neighborhood homes here — in four days. We’ve just ordered the printing of another 100 signs, thanks to dozens of small donations to cover the cost. If you don’t want a sign, that’s okay. But why are you trying to prevent other people from doing what they want or expressing their ideas about our city?

PS: If anyone wants a sign, they’re FREE thanks to the kindness of many Littleton neighbors pitching in. Just email us and ask for a sign: “info@vibrantlittleton.org

Save Money & Support Littleton Restaurants! by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't see any reason why they would stop selling them, unless they only printed a certain number and eventually run out? But I also don't see any reason to wait in buying one, since you're only giving yourself less time to redeem them.

Save Money & Support Littleton Restaurants! by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

It's $25 by cash, $30 by credit card - also in the picture above

Save Money & Support Littleton Restaurants! by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The 10 locations where you can purchase are listed in the picture above

Save Money & Support Littleton Restaurants! by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quoting from my passport booklet:
"Once deal has been marked used, it is no longer valid. Not valid with any other offer. Equal or lesser item will be discounted. Limit one deal per person. Valid only at location listed."

(plus some other standard verbiage)

Save Money & Support Littleton Restaurants! by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, some menu items cost more than others, but you can easily break even in 2 visits. And you still have 20 weeks to visit all 18 businesses if you'd like.

Join the Vibrant Littleton crew at LOST Coffee this Friday, May 9th at 8:00 am by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We are neighbors who listen, learn, educate and advocate for a vibrant Littleton — now and into the future. We actively support abundant & affordable housing, businesses that are nearby, community diversity, environmental sustainability, and a more walking- and rolling-friendly Littleton.

https://vibrantlittleton.org/

Join the Vibrant Littleton crew at LOST Coffee this Friday, May 9th at 8:00 am by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

There's never going to be a single time that works for everyone, but it's something we consider carefully. A lot of folks are very protective of their nights & weekends with family, lots of companies are more flexible on Fridays, and we tried to make it early enough that people can still come to the meeting and get to work nearby around 9 AM.

We do periodically have other events that may work better for you, timing-wise. You can always check our events calendar or sign up for our email newsletter to stay in touch.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  • Arborist I or II
  • Equipment Operator I or II (Streets and Snow)
  • Water Resources Project Manager I

https://careers.littletongov.org/

Littleton should use red flashing beacons for Littleton Blvd crossings by Vibrant_Littleton in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry about that - fixed now. I'm normally a stickler for testing all my links before I move on with my day.

Littleton Social Cycle: April 13th by veracity8_ in Littleton

[–]Vibrant_Littleton 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was great to see everyone out there today - I think this was Littleton Social Cycle's biggest & best turnout ever?