DenverInfill Blog

Ken,

You really need to get your Fontius posts out there. Yourhub.com would be a great place, but I wish that this report could be put in the Post or News to get the elderly population all heated up. Nothing like old folks complaining.
 

What specifically can we as "the public" do to pressure the Cook family to do something with the Fontius building? Do we start a petition? Can the city try to approach them with a buy out since they claim they can't lease the building? Why hasn't the city or other private developers attempted to approach the Cooks with an offer they can't refuse yet?
 

There needs to be a voice of moderation on this blog. I'm an urban enthusiast too, and I agree the building is in a shameful state. It's depressing to see a historical structure suffer like this. However, you all need to remember that IT IS THEIR BUILDING and they have considerable freedom in how they maintain their property. Everyone here seems to have forgotten about property rights!

My criteria for intervention are these:
1. Have they broken any laws about minimum standards of property maintenance? If not, maybe Denver needs more strict laws, but they are acting within their rights. If they are breaking the law, then the city should prosecute them. Either way, imminent domain and/or picketing are not the appropriate responses. We should pursue it through the city government.
2. Is the level of maintenance of that building reducing the property values, vitality, or safety of the surrounding buildings? As bad as the building is in the pictures, the first two pictures actually suggest that the mall is quite vibrant in that area and the surrounding buildings are occuppied and doing just fine. Frankly, the pictures convince me that the state of that building does NOT impact the city beyond its property line. In fact, several people have said as much in their comments (i.e. what a choice spot for retail because the mall is active). So what evidence do we have that justifies taking away their property rights? Again, it's how it impacts the surrounding area that would give us justification. I see nothing there so far.

My conclusion: however shameful the state of that building is, it's most likely within their rights to have it that way. From everything posted on this blog, there's no question it infringes on my personal aesthetic sensibilities and my preferred vision for downtown. But there are no real victims here. Nothing that justifies taking away their rights.

I'd prefer to see a more balanced and thorough consideration of the issue on this website rather than the one-sided witch hunt that is developing. It would probably lead to a more sensible approach and a better outcome in the end. Hence, my comment. Fire away...
 

Mr. Cook is that you?
 

Why are some people so fixated on the eminent domain issue? I've not seen the author of this blog expressly advocate the use of eminent domain. Instead, he's advocated private and public outcry, response, and attention on this shameful property.

Whatever rights the owners may have in this property, they do NOT include the right to be free from criticism about how they maintain it. That is what this blog calls for.

Eminent domain may be an issue down the road if the city decides all the criteria for use of that (constitutional) power have been met. In the meantime, the lesser -- but important -- measures discussed in the blog and in the comments are entirely appropriate.

Finally, an obvious point needs repeating: property rights (like all rights) are NOT absolute. Property values should and do reflect this fact. The owners bought the property while the power and possibility of eminent doman existed; thus, these possibilities were presumably built into the price of the property. Let's not get too infatuated with the notion that this land was handed down to the current propety owners by some divine proclamation.
 

I think letting the building deteriorate will eventually threaten public safety.

I just can't believe that tourist shop, and wig store are still open.

With the condition of the building on the upper floor [splintering window frames], etc., I wonder if those two stores do have issues.
 

Voice of moderation - Consider this... its very close to being abatement quality. I would guess the city is being very careful about this because the Cooks own many other key downtown properties. They are treading lightly. They don't want to ruin or hold up any other land/property exchanges to this money hungry family. Take for example the lovely dave cooks sporting good store. Very key, with underused and disappointing architecture. I'm sure they own some parking lots too. Cooks have money and property, its called power. It's their's to look like crap, perhaps in a different era where it was tolerated. Perhaps now is the time when we need to call these people out, which is what is happening.
 

PS about their property:
It is a known fact that property rights 100 years ago were much like land rights laws are now. "It's my land, and I can do whatever I want with it".
That's where all the great immigrant tenement buildings in Philly and NYC came from. Property barons(like land barons) did whatever they pleased. So just because it is their property, it doesn't mean that laws cannot change or public values cannot force change.
 

If they do own parking lots, a boycott would not be out of order.
 

Does anyone know how much the owners of the Fontius building pay in property taxes? I often hear how farmers, ranchers, and others "have" to sell their property because they just can't pay their property taxes as a result of their property values increasing while the revenues from current uses don't keep pace. Are the Cooks so rich they don't mind paying out so much indefinitely or are their property taxes relatively low for some reason? Or is the long term payoff anticipated to be so huge, they are willing to "sacrifice" for a while longer?
 

Question; does anyone know if this is the same family that used to own the Dave Cook Sporting Goods? The big Dave Cooks was where Office Depot is currently located at 16th and Market.
 

YES, YES, and YES!!
 

They are not the same families.
 

They are from different Cook families
 

"not advocating eminent domain" OK, when you propose going to the city and saying "enough is enough!" what result do you want? Perhaps dedicated infill posters will band together, raise money, purchase the property and resell it for a profit. Of course you won't, it is much cheaper and much less risky to bother the hell out of your local officials to use their police power instead of your checkbook.
 

Don't worry something will be done about it. The process has already started!