Comments from two Denver residents against a two-month extension of the City Council’s moratorium on small lot parking exemptions led to some heated responses from a few councilmen and an apology from one if he had gone too far.

City Council held a public hearing on the moratorium extension at its March 20 meeting, which Council President Albus Brooks pointed out deals with less than one percent of all city lots. The moratorium, enacted by Council last fall, was due to expire at the end of March but will now last until May 26, after City Council voted 11-0 for the extension, with Councilman Kevin Flynn and Councilwoman Debbie Ortega absent.

Some who commented supported the extension, including Bob Hickman.

“After more than a year, a small extension like this is not that significant,” he said.

John Joseph Neimann, president of the city’s Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation effort, said that group supported the extension by a 44-9 vote, with five abstentions.

“We take yearly surveys of our members and parking is one of the top five concerns,” he said.

But comments from John Riecke, who said he was a Denver resident off and on since 1990 and had lived in the Capitol Hill area since late 2015, drew criticism from some on Council. Riecke said the extension was happening “at a time of great need and opportunity” for Denver. He stated that cities and leaders worldwide were recognizing the flaws behind setting parking minimums.

“The results include increased housing costs and decreased economic activity when productive land is used to store cars instead of building wealth,” Riecke added, reading from prepared notes. “Many of your constituents, vocal I’m sure, are reluctant to see their on-street parking become more difficult. They’re frustrated because they feel some unspoken bargain has been broken between the city and themselves. … In fact, no such unspoken agreement exists. We have a great number of people forced to seek housing in the suburbs because of the reluctance to allow more development.”

Riecke added the city’s zoning code for small lot parking “works just fine and it’s probably better than whatever compromise is made to appease car owners. Don’t let panicky people with inborn prejudices and a lack of desire to acknowledge the evidence trap you into stymieing much-needed and desired redevelopment.”

Frank Locantore, executive director of the Colfax Avenue Business Improvement District, also spoke against the moratorium extension. He called talking about parking a “lost opportunity” to address issues like gentrification of communities, homelessness, affordable living, “or anything else that really matters to our lives. We’re getting tired of talking about parking, let’s talk about the issues that matter.”

Councilman Rafael Espinoza was the most vocal in response to comments by Riecke and Locantore.

“We have opened up this city to massive amounts of development and that still persists to this day, even if this moratorium goes on another five years,” Espinoza said. “People will still be able to develop hundreds and hundreds of thousands of square feet” of affordable, market rate and high-end housing.

Espinoza said those who “belittle people who want to stand on principle and say ‘no, enough is enough, we need to be more measured, calculated and thoughtful about this’ is NIMBYism,” using the acronym for “Not In My Backyard.”

“It’s not just the Johnny-come-latelys that now have a trump card over everything we do,” Espinoza continued. “I guess just because you have good access and a megaphone doesn’t mean you’re always 100 percent right. A measured 60-day moratorium is nothing.”

At this point, Brooks interrupted.

“Councilman, we said we wouldn’t do attacks,” he said to Espinoza.

Espinoza paused a few seconds, then noted the city had lowered its parking requirements in 2010.

“I would support zero parking requirements and in a whole lot of other zone districts, but we need to be more thoughtful and we’re trying to have that conversation,” he said. “To continue to try to undermine people who are trying to have that conversation … is not fair to wholesale blocks of people in the city.”

Councilman Paul Kashmann was also critical of comments by Riecke and Locantore.

“I don’t think it does anybody any good to demonize people who want to have a discussion,” Kashmann said. “We’re still talking about this because there are two valid sides to this discussion.”

He also noted the city permitted more than $4 billion in development last year “and at historic levels.”

Espinoza later said he wanted to make it clear to Locantore and Riecke that he considered them both “great public servants and community activists.”

“For the last three and a half days, I have been sick and I woke up on the wrong side of the bed, so I apologize,” Espinoza said.

Brooks noted the passion for the issue was clear among Council members and in the public. He also pointed out none of the public speakers were developers.

“So you can see this is an issue we need to talk about and figure out what solution works best today and in the future,” he said. “That’s hard conversation, and as long as we don’t ostracize people on both sides and find a balance, I think we will be okay.”