LovelandPolitics.com BLOG
All data and information provided on this site is for informational purposes only.
East Loveland A Slum?
photo

Do you think of areas near the I-25 in Loveland as slums?  According to a study conducted "for the city" but really for McWhinney the areas colored in red on this image are slums needing the immediate intervention of local government to cure.



Not really, but that is just what people are pretending so McWhinney can later developed these properties by using debt raised through the urban renewal authority and repaid by future taxes once developed.  Taxes that will not be available for police, fire or other local services these developments will likely require increasingly in time.



The reality is that only one lot, the former dog track, even comes close to meeting the State of Colorado definition of blight but even than it is mostly parking lot not buildings coming apart.  See a larger version of the map on LovelandPolitics homepage along with a chronology of the stories on this topic beginning with the secret meetings in mid-April.  You can also access a copy of the blight report from the homepage.


 All this is in anticipation of the August 19, council meeting where 7 of 9 councilors will likely vote to abdicate their elected responsibilities to McWhinney by way of an amendment to the MFA (Master Financing Agreement) with the city.  The euphemism being used for the abdication of governmental authority to McWhinney is “Flexibility” in the future.


 The City Council is not abdicating its authority over any processes or regulations that impact residents.  They need some reason to show-up every two weeks and vote.

2008-07-27 18:46:20 GMT
Comments (3 total)
Author:Anonymous
Wow, I didn't know Colorado Urban Renewal Law was so broad. There are so many options that can make a property "blight". This appears to be very creative by the City of Loveland but appears to meet the legal requirement. Thanks for the info.
--Skip
2008-07-27 19:14:56 GMT
Author:Anonymous
Thanks for posting the complete report. How can anyone agree the following conclusion in the report is honest?

"These factors were determined to exist under the requirement outlined in the state
urban renewal statutes that the Study Area be evaluated “in its present condition
and use” and that the blight “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.”
2008-07-27 19:15:35 GMT
Author:Anonymous
No reasonable person would ever conclude those properties constitute, "a menace to public health." Loveland has lots properties needing immediate attention - none however are on that list.

It is not really a list of Loveland's blight but instead a list of properties McWhinney wants to develop with taxpayer funds.

At least some city councils pretend to have integrity. In this case lying is part of their support for McWhinney. How very sad.

If they declare these open farm fields as blight it will be a clear abuse of the urban redevelopment laws. They were meant for urban renewal not rural sprawl.
--Carol
2008-07-27 19:23:38 GMT
Add to My Yahoo! RSS