| LovelandPolitics.com |
| Country's First "Flex URA" 'Received Its First Approval' Really? Loveland Reporter-Herald Story Angers Planning Commissioners by misrepresenting their vote |
Loveland - August 11, 2008
The Loveland Planning Commission voted unanimously Monday night that McWhinney Enterprise's "Flexible" Urban Renewal Authority (URA) proposed
zoning is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. What the Planning Commission did not vote on was whether the plan made sense or was
consistent with Colorado's Urban Renewal Authority law. The Planning Commission simply reviewed the plan for consistency with Loveland's
comprehensive plan (as required by state law) so the vote wasn't an approval of the plan but instead an administrative validation that zoning in the plan
complies with the city's comprehensive plan.
The Loveland Reporter-Herald opened the August 12, 2008 front page story title "URA plan moves ahead" stating, "McWhinney's proposed flex-Urban
Renewal Authority received its first vote of approval Monday night."
Planning Commissioners who contacted Loveland Politics were angered by what they saw as slanted and false reporting to unfairly boost McWhinney
Enterprise's efforts to show support for their proposal. "It was clear to anyone watching the meeting we had reservations about what is going on but that
isn't what we were voting on. We thought it was well understood it was not a vote to 'approve' the proposal." Stated one angry Commissioner who
asked not to be identified. The Loveland Planning Commission saw their role as largely administrative and the referral regarding compliance with the city's
comprehensive plan as largely perfunctory -- contrary to the opening paragraph in the story published in the Reporter-Herald.
Loveland City Attorney, John Duval, provided a memo to the City Council on July 15, that was also provided to the Planning Commission which stated,
"This is an administrative action pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(2) to submit to the City's Planning Commission.....for the Commission's review and
recommendation concerning the Modified Plan's compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan."
Planning Commissioners were anxious to weigh-in on the proposed URA modification but were not given the opportunity due to city staff and city council
direction. "We were asked only the minimum question required by law, we would have been happy to discuss and really vote whether or not to approve
the plan," stated one Commissioner angered by the reporting. Some have speculated McWhinney advocates on Loveland's City Council asked staff to
narrowly define the Commission's role to avoid any bad publicity for McWhinney's unpopular proposal. Commissioners were reminded both before and
during their meeting that they were not being asked to vote on the efficacy of the blight designations or overall proposal.
Same Bad Reporting on School Board Vote on The Proposed Flex URA
LovelandPolitics received similar complaints regarding the Loveland Reporter-Herald's June 6, 2008 article by Lisa Coalwell covering the Thompson
School Board consideration of the proposed "flexibility" modification to the URA. McWhinney Enterprises requested support from the Thompson School
Board but failed to gain support from the school board for their proposed amendments to the city's MFA (Master Financing Agreement). In fact, Board
member Karen Stockly lobbied her colleagues to oppose the plan outright and fight against it. Instead, the board decided to take what they described as a
"neutral" position during their meeting by sending a letter saying as much.
The McWhinney's public relations machine tried to spin the defeat as a win which found its way into the June 6, article in the Reporter-Herald. The Herald
article reported, "Representatives of the east Loveland developer had asked the Thompson School District Board of Education to send a letter stating that
the district is not in opposition to an amendment to its urban renewal authority in the Centerra area." Curiously, the same article in the Herald quoted the
board president, Bill McCreary as stating, “I can understand McWhinney’s efforts to enhance development, but I am reluctant to take a position.” It was
clear to those who either participated in the meeting or watched it from the audience what had occurred. However, people reading the article were left to
ponder the conspicuous contradictions in the reported outcome and the comments of the board members.
The reporting gave the a false impression the McWhinney's received what they requested from the School Board instead of what really happened.
McWhinney's "flex" URA was not endorsed by the School Board as they had hoped. The coverage's interesting spin avoided reporting that very simple
fact but it could be gleaned by the reader from the quotes in the story.
Editing the Reporters
Kate Martin, former reporter for the Loveland Reporter-Herald, complained on occasion about the changes made to her articles after they were submitted
for editing. Other reporters have made similar complaints, off-the-record, about the thrust or purpose of their article being confused by last minute edits
that create a different spin to their story. Contrary to what many believe, reporters seldom if ever write headlines or decide what is dropped and kept from
their story for publication. These decisions are left to the news editor and the overall editor.
Given the Reporter-Herald's long history as an advocate for both senior city staff and the McWhinneys, we are reluctant to complain about any specific
reporter. Cara O'Brien, the reporter credited with today's front page story on the planning commission vote, is normally a thorough and factual reporter
who has a talent for explaining complicated topics. While the opening paragraph was misleading, the balance of the article fairly reported the objections
raised by Commissioner Kevin Stearns over the overall URA proposal that pretends blight in areas not yet even developed.
McWhinney "Flexibility" May Be First In Nation
Contrary to comments made during the planning commission that the "flexibility" proposal is "business as usual," LovelandPolitics has learned it may instead
be the first in the nation. A number of local citizens have been organizing opposition to the plan and were unable to find any comparable action by another
city in either Colorado or the nation.
The "Flexibility" plan will amend the City of Loveland's agreement with McWhinney Enterprises to allow the developer the right to determine which
properties already determined to be blight will be included in the Urban Renewal Authority district and which will not. According to State Law, the City
Council is to make this determination so creating a "flexibility" to the plan is really an abdication by the City Council of their elected constitutional authority
to a private land developer.
In the words of another indicator, King Edward VIII, "you must believe me when I tell you that I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of
responsibility and to discharge my duties as King." The problem here is the city council is elected and not born into their governmental responsibilities.
Abdicating their own authority is one item that can be accomplished through resignation or abstaining from a vote but attempting to encumber future elected
officials with their decision could be unconstitutional. Therefore, subsequent legal challenges may put Loveland on the map as the city where the council
tried to give its authority to an unelected and private group of people.
The Loveland Reporter-Herald may be sitting on a national story but unable to report the significance of the event due to internal or external allegiances to
the city staff and/or McWhinney.
The Loveland Planning Commission voted unanimously Monday night that McWhinney Enterprise's "Flexible" Urban Renewal Authority (URA) proposed
zoning is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. What the Planning Commission did not vote on was whether the plan made sense or was
consistent with Colorado's Urban Renewal Authority law. The Planning Commission simply reviewed the plan for consistency with Loveland's
comprehensive plan (as required by state law) so the vote wasn't an approval of the plan but instead an administrative validation that zoning in the plan
complies with the city's comprehensive plan.
The Loveland Reporter-Herald opened the August 12, 2008 front page story title "URA plan moves ahead" stating, "McWhinney's proposed flex-Urban
Renewal Authority received its first vote of approval Monday night."
Planning Commissioners who contacted Loveland Politics were angered by what they saw as slanted and false reporting to unfairly boost McWhinney
Enterprise's efforts to show support for their proposal. "It was clear to anyone watching the meeting we had reservations about what is going on but that
isn't what we were voting on. We thought it was well understood it was not a vote to 'approve' the proposal." Stated one angry Commissioner who
asked not to be identified. The Loveland Planning Commission saw their role as largely administrative and the referral regarding compliance with the city's
comprehensive plan as largely perfunctory -- contrary to the opening paragraph in the story published in the Reporter-Herald.
Loveland City Attorney, John Duval, provided a memo to the City Council on July 15, that was also provided to the Planning Commission which stated,
"This is an administrative action pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31-25-107(2) to submit to the City's Planning Commission.....for the Commission's review and
recommendation concerning the Modified Plan's compliance with the City's Comprehensive Plan."
Planning Commissioners were anxious to weigh-in on the proposed URA modification but were not given the opportunity due to city staff and city council
direction. "We were asked only the minimum question required by law, we would have been happy to discuss and really vote whether or not to approve
the plan," stated one Commissioner angered by the reporting. Some have speculated McWhinney advocates on Loveland's City Council asked staff to
narrowly define the Commission's role to avoid any bad publicity for McWhinney's unpopular proposal. Commissioners were reminded both before and
during their meeting that they were not being asked to vote on the efficacy of the blight designations or overall proposal.
Same Bad Reporting on School Board Vote on The Proposed Flex URA
LovelandPolitics received similar complaints regarding the Loveland Reporter-Herald's June 6, 2008 article by Lisa Coalwell covering the Thompson
School Board consideration of the proposed "flexibility" modification to the URA. McWhinney Enterprises requested support from the Thompson School
Board but failed to gain support from the school board for their proposed amendments to the city's MFA (Master Financing Agreement). In fact, Board
member Karen Stockly lobbied her colleagues to oppose the plan outright and fight against it. Instead, the board decided to take what they described as a
"neutral" position during their meeting by sending a letter saying as much.
The McWhinney's public relations machine tried to spin the defeat as a win which found its way into the June 6, article in the Reporter-Herald. The Herald
article reported, "Representatives of the east Loveland developer had asked the Thompson School District Board of Education to send a letter stating that
the district is not in opposition to an amendment to its urban renewal authority in the Centerra area." Curiously, the same article in the Herald quoted the
board president, Bill McCreary as stating, “I can understand McWhinney’s efforts to enhance development, but I am reluctant to take a position.” It was
clear to those who either participated in the meeting or watched it from the audience what had occurred. However, people reading the article were left to
ponder the conspicuous contradictions in the reported outcome and the comments of the board members.
The reporting gave the a false impression the McWhinney's received what they requested from the School Board instead of what really happened.
McWhinney's "flex" URA was not endorsed by the School Board as they had hoped. The coverage's interesting spin avoided reporting that very simple
fact but it could be gleaned by the reader from the quotes in the story.
Editing the Reporters
Kate Martin, former reporter for the Loveland Reporter-Herald, complained on occasion about the changes made to her articles after they were submitted
for editing. Other reporters have made similar complaints, off-the-record, about the thrust or purpose of their article being confused by last minute edits
that create a different spin to their story. Contrary to what many believe, reporters seldom if ever write headlines or decide what is dropped and kept from
their story for publication. These decisions are left to the news editor and the overall editor.
Given the Reporter-Herald's long history as an advocate for both senior city staff and the McWhinneys, we are reluctant to complain about any specific
reporter. Cara O'Brien, the reporter credited with today's front page story on the planning commission vote, is normally a thorough and factual reporter
who has a talent for explaining complicated topics. While the opening paragraph was misleading, the balance of the article fairly reported the objections
raised by Commissioner Kevin Stearns over the overall URA proposal that pretends blight in areas not yet even developed.
McWhinney "Flexibility" May Be First In Nation
Contrary to comments made during the planning commission that the "flexibility" proposal is "business as usual," LovelandPolitics has learned it may instead
be the first in the nation. A number of local citizens have been organizing opposition to the plan and were unable to find any comparable action by another
city in either Colorado or the nation.
The "Flexibility" plan will amend the City of Loveland's agreement with McWhinney Enterprises to allow the developer the right to determine which
properties already determined to be blight will be included in the Urban Renewal Authority district and which will not. According to State Law, the City
Council is to make this determination so creating a "flexibility" to the plan is really an abdication by the City Council of their elected constitutional authority
to a private land developer.
In the words of another indicator, King Edward VIII, "you must believe me when I tell you that I have found it impossible to carry the heavy burden of
responsibility and to discharge my duties as King." The problem here is the city council is elected and not born into their governmental responsibilities.
Abdicating their own authority is one item that can be accomplished through resignation or abstaining from a vote but attempting to encumber future elected
officials with their decision could be unconstitutional. Therefore, subsequent legal challenges may put Loveland on the map as the city where the council
tried to give its authority to an unelected and private group of people.
The Loveland Reporter-Herald may be sitting on a national story but unable to report the significance of the event due to internal or external allegiances to
the city staff and/or McWhinney.
