4
4 The Independent | The Herald
February 12, 2015
urban renewal in littleton
Getting to know Littleton Strong By Jennifer Smith
jsmith@coloradocommunitymedia.com Ballot Measure 2A is a product of the group Littleton Strong. The measure says: “Shall the Littleton city charter be amended so that the use of eminent domain and condemnation in an urban renewal plan by the Littleton urban renewal authority (LIFT) be prohibited except at the request of a property owner?” History This group has support from people affiliated with Citizens for Littleton’s Future, formed in 2007 to elect “forwardlooking citizens to the Littleton City Council, and to support ballot issues that help Littleton move forward in a positive direction,” according to the website. Some of those folks include former city councilmembers Amy Conklin and Stewart Meagher, former Mayor Susan Thornton and local Realtor Kay Watson, who is also on the Littleton Public Schools Foundation board. The group formed in large part to oppose the efforts of the “Sunshine Boy” council that was seated in 2007. Doug Clark and Peggy Cole defeated Conklin and Tony Gallagher in the at-large race, and Jose Trujillo beat Bruce Stahlman, who is the current council’s liaison to the urban-renewal board. In 2013, C4LF supported Bruce Beckman and Bruce Stahlman in their successful at-large campaigns for city council against Sunshine Boy John Watson. But they’ve been largely quiet in recent years until last year, when Meagher and Watson began turning up at council meetings in support of a new crop of development projects around the city. They were sometimes joined by Norman Stucker, who was president of the Littleton Business Coalition in 2013. Now they’ve all signed on to the efforts of Littleton Strong, which successfully lobbied Littleton City Council in December to put ballot measure 2A in front of the voters. It prohibits the use of eminent domain and condemnation in urbanrenewal plans unless requested by the property owner. They’re joined by an ever-growing list of influential Littleton residents, ranging from past and sitting elected officials, including Councilmember Debbie Brinkman, to bureaucrats, business owners, developers, contractors and real-estate agents. Talking points for their cause • Urban renewal is just one tool in the community’s toolbox, but it is a vital and transformative one that more than 45 cities and towns across Colorado use to invest in their communities. Arapahoe Community College was created more than 40 years ago as an urban-renewal project. • Referendum 2A would change the city charter and prohibit the city from using eminent domain and condemnation for urban-renewal purposes, unless it is requested by the affected property owner. Littleton Strong raised concerns
LIFT Continued from Page 1
But, say urban-renewal opponents, what if someone who owns a building on Main Street, which is not in the plan area, is in the same situation? Urban renewal, they say, picks winners and losers, and unfairly uses taxpayer money to benefit private-property owners and developers. Littleton Invests for Tomorrow is the city’s urban-renewal authority, or URA. It was originally named the Riverfront Authority, and by selling bonds, it created the Riverfront Festival Center mall in 1985. But the timing was bad, and a major recession led to the mall’s demise in 1989. It now houses DISH Network, on the southwest corner of Bowles Avenue and Santa Fe Drive.
about property owner protections, and city council listened and referred 2A to the ballot. Littleton businesses, property owners and residents do have a voice in urban renewal. • Reinvestment through urban renewal can catalyze not just the challenging sites into vibrant destinations, it can create new local jobs, stabilize property values, generate additional tax revenues to support community basic services and deliver a wide range of community improvements. • Colorado’s urban-renewal law is one of the most restrictive in the nation, and it protects property owners, other government entities and stakeholders. Littleton’s urban-renewal plans are studied, reviewed and discussed in public hearings, with decisions made by the elected members of city council. Talking points against their opponents’ cause • Initiative 300 will create more risk, unpredictability and costs onto every urban renewal opportunity, which will discourage investment in Littleton and close the door on economic development opportunities in our commercial corridors and light-rail stations. • Littleton is not going to condemn anyone’s home. Backers of Initiative 300 who suggest that Littleton is going to condemn and take away homes are simply not telling the truth. This is a scare tactic, and it is false •Initiative 300 does not add more transparency to the urban renewal process, it merely proposes that every urban-renewal item be put into a citywide vote, which will discourage reinvestment and improvements in Littleton. What they’re saying • “It enhances the quality of life when a community is vibrant and moving forward,” said Kay Watson, a Realtor who is a longtime board member of the Littleton Public Schools Foundation. “… I don’t feel like Littleton has been that inviting to the millennials. We need to focus on what they want, and how we can provide those amenities that will be a big draw for them. Change is inevitable, and if you don’t plan for it, you’re going to get something you really don’t want. You’re going to get boarded-up buildings, lower property values and declining school enrollment.” • “No individual or group of people is going to get rich off of urban renewal, but the community is going to be enriched,” said Stew Meagher, a Realtor and former city councilmember. “Our failure as a community is to not critically approach the areas around the two light-rail stations. It fails to recognize the vision of the city in lowering the train tracks (under Main Street). The city leaders in those days had the vision to do what needed to be done. We knew light rail was coming, and we got ready for it. It came, and now we’re sort of losing that momentum. … When did we turn from being a bold, forward-thinking community to being a bunch of NIMBYs? Is this who we are now, that everything has to go to an election?”
The original bonds were eventually paid off, and the city wrote off the authority’s millions in debt. It could have simply disbanded, but it changed its name to Littleton Invests for Tomorrow, with the stated goal of redevelopment, revitalization and renewal of areas within the city. LIFT hired Ricker to survey the conditions in four areas: the Santa Fe corridor from Prince Street to just south of Mineral Avenue; the Broadway corridor from north of Powers Avenue to south of Littleton Boulevard; the Columbine Square area at Belleview Avenue and Federal Boulevard; and the Littleton Boulevard corridor from Windermere Street to Bannock Street. The LIFT board, the city’s planning board and city council approved all four plan areas last year. There are no owner-occupied, single-family homes included, nor are there churches or any property owned by the city
Getting to know Your Littleton, Your Vote By Jennifer Smith
jsmith@coloradocommunitymedia.com Initiative 300 is a product of the group Your Littleton, Your Vote. The measure says: “Any council action approving or modifying an urban renewal plan pursuant to Part 1 of the Colorado Urban Renewal Law must be ratified by the registered electors of the city of Littleton if the approval or modification of the urban renewal plan proposes the use of or change to eminent domain, condemnation, tax increment financing, revenue sharing, or cost sharing.” History Many members of Your Littleton, Your Vote are also affiliated with Citizens for Rational Development, which initially formed in 2013 to successfully fight off a plan to build a four-story apartment complex on the site of the old sheriff’s building at Littleton Boulevard and Bemis Street. CRD remains active, fighting virtually every proposed development or redevelopment since, and now urban renewal, too. CRD has its roots in the Sunshine Boys, which began in 2002 as a few folks drawn together by opposition to Littleton’s grocery tax. It evolved into a successful campaign to repeal the tax, and its membership and issues have continued to evolve over the years. The anti-Walmart campaign in 2007 found affinity with the Sunshine Boys, leading to their takeover of city council in that year’s election. Sitting member Tom Mulvey was joined by Debbie Brinkman, Doug Clark, Peggy Cole and Jose Trujillo to form a unified slate against John Ostermiller and Jim Taylor. The group lay mostly quiet until 2012, when they lost their majority and Michael Penny, city manager, came on board. That’s when even Brinkman, who had emerged as a major anti-Walmart spokesperson, began touting the benefits of urban renewal. Not long after that, Carol Brzeczek, a former school-board member very active with all three groups, publicly stated she no longer trusted city council. Today, Cole and Jerry Valdes are the only two Sunshine-supported council members. They supported John Watson’s failed bid in
2013 and initially offered some support for Randy Stein, which has waned. They didn’t produce a candidate to run against Mayor Phil Cernanec in District 3. Talking points for their cause • Littleton is currently undergoing much development without urban renewal, including the King Soopers remodel, several apartment complexes and Littleton Village. • Ballot Resolution 300 is not against urban renewal, it only allows citizens the right to vote on plans. • Littleton taxpayers should have the right to vote on how the city develops and redevelops rather than seven unelected LIFT members. • The 744 acres included in the plan areas do not rise to the level of true slum and blight. Mineral Station has even been blighted, and deemed a menace to Littleton. Talking points against their opponents’ cause • They don’t actually have a problem with 2A; CRD’s yard signs encourage people to vote for both ballot measures. • Their real problem, they say, is that taxincrement financing encourages the development of projects that are not economically feasible and therefore risky. • Littleton Strong is heavily supported by those who stand to profit, including real-estate brokers and out-of-state developers. What they’re saying • “Why are so many real-estate developers who don’t live in the city poking their noses in our business?” asks Carol Brzeczek. “They wouldn’t be spending money if there wasn’t a pot of gold at the end of it for them. Being stuck in the past has nothing to do with it. It has to do with the right to vote. And if an election costs $34,000, that’s a drop in the bucket compared to our right to vote. … There are people who don’t want to use taxpayer dollars to do their projects, because they have a conscience.” • “Urban renewal is about picking favorites. It’s about taking care of Sam over here, but Bob and George over there can go to hell,” said Paul Bingham. “We have a lot of young people moving in every day. We think our downtown attracts young people. And we’ve got a lot of development going on.”
A view from outside the fray By Jennifer Smith
jsmith@coloradocommunitymedia.com Nicholas Recker, assistant professor at Metropolitan State University of Denver, offers a neutral perspective on the issue of urban renewal. He earned his doctorate from Iowa State University in 2009, and has written several research papers on social capital and community development. Below are a couple of frequently asked questions and his responses. Does urban renewal take money away from taxing entities like the school board, county and parks district? Taxes are a source of revenue for local government, so abatements may carry opportunity costs such as less revenue. When offering these abatements, local government is certainly aware of this but is banking on the local economic or social boon to exceed the
or South Suburban Parks and Recreation. The LIFT board considered removing property owned by South Metro Housing Options, but SMHO asked to stay. In order to qualify for urban renewal projects, an area needs to be declared “blighted” as defined by state statute. A blighted area is one that “substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare.” It goes on to list 11 criteria to use as a basis for determining blight, of which the property must meet four. They include things like deterioration, unsafe or unsanitary conditions, environmental contamination and unusual topography. All four of the Littleton study areas met at least 10 criteria, according to Ricker. Now that the plans are in place, develop-
taxes that would have been collected. This is particularly true if these businesses are locally owned and operated. Locally owned businesses tend to have stronger ties to the community and traditionally allow greater amounts of money to remain in the community. Is urban renewal good for a local economy, or just too risky? This is a tricky question. Urban renewal certainly presents opportunities for economic growth and development within communities. However, these gains must be compared to potential shifts in quality of life. Issues such as increased congestion, displacing community residents and cost-of-living increases could affect residents’ quality of life. It is tricky to say if urban renewal is good or bad for a local economy as communities vary in their ultimate goals.
ers and property owners can go to LIFT with their proposals for specific projects. In the Columbine Square area, for example, it’s likely the owners of the now-empty shopping center will propose scraping it to build an apartment complex, a plan they pulled out of the city’s review process several months ago. If LIFT decides the project can’t happen without public money, the owner will be able to use it to fix the conditions that led to the site’s blight designation, like road improvements and environmental clean-up. The city kick-started LIFT with a $200,000 loan from the general fund. Going forward, LIFT will sell bonds to fund the projects, which have to be repaid within 25 years. That’s how long the timeclock runs on an area plan. If all goes well, LIFT will use its share of the increase in taxes, above and beyond what the average was before the improvements, to repay the bonds.