LovelandPolitics.com Blog

The Loveland City Council approved the McWhinney proposal to take over the City Council’s authority in determining which projects can qualify for taxpayer subsidies within an expanded Centerra URA district. In addition, the council ignored the State of Colorado Urban Renewal law definitions of blight and declared nearly 500 acres “blight” in east Loveland even though 90% of the unrelated 5 parcels is agricultural land.

The City Attorney relinquished his role in the process and often differed to McWhinney attorneys to answer councilor questions regarding the legality or feasibility of the Flex URA. This created a stream of legal advice from an entity with pecuniary interests in the outcome of the vote and lead to false or misleading information being given to council which they restated among the reasons for supporting the Flex URA.

Chad McWhinney attempted to cross examine a member of the city council while one of his attorneys distorted the public’s comments.

Below is an abbreviated list of false or misleading assertions made to Loveland’s City Council by Chad McWhinney and his staff:

1. Chad McWhinney confirmed (when asked) that he owned ALL the parcels in question. Later, Councilman Cecil Gutierrez asked why his attorney referred to Poudre Hospital as the owners of the old dog track and his staff conceded the land had already been sold earlier in the week and was no longer owned by McWhinney.

2. Chad McWhinney told the council he (the Metro District) was committed to contributing funds not only to the interim improvement on Highway 34 and I-25 interchange but also the long-term and permanent improvements to that interchange. Later, city staff acknowledged to the council they attended a meeting with McWhinney and CDOT (Colorado Department of Transportation) where the long-term improvements were removed from any future plans and therefore would not be funded by the Metro District. According to staff, Chad McWhinney participated in that meeting.

3. A McWhinney attorney mischaracterized arguments made by the public regarding blight as being a common definition but not the legal one as defined in the statute. In fact, the actual statute is what a member of the public read to council when providing the definition of blight. The McWhinney attorneys (acting in their interests and not the city’s) failed to read for the council the proper definition of blight from State law since that would have contradicted their false or misleading assertions.

4. The required study declaring the parcels in question blight that was provided to the Loveland City Council was mischaracterized as being an independent study ordered by the city. In fact, the council was not involved in ordering, authorizing or paying for the blight study. The study was coordinated over a year before between McWhinney and city staff and the cost of the study was paid directly to the consultant by McWhinney and not the City of Loveland.

Finally, absent any ability for the public to defend their comments as McWhinney was given an open microphone to continue advising and directing both council and their staff, the outcome was inevitable.

The council falsely condemned productive farmland contrary to state law and relinquished much of their governmental authority over the Urban Renewal Authority process to McWhinney in an unprecedented departure from the normal implementation of Urban Renewal Law.

Any comments?

The “Flex-URA” delayed from the Loveland City Council meeting August 19 to September 2, is now upon us.

LovelandPolitics has learned some outside public interest groups and private attorneys have been looking over the proposal and whether it conforms with state law. The conclusion, it flies in the face of state statute and would not hold-up in state court. Read the specifics at LovelandPolitics.com

Left and Right Agree It is A Bad Idea

Conservative talk show host and member of Colorado’s Independence Institute, Amy Oliver, interviewed Councilman Kent Solt on her popular radio show on KFKA (1310 AM) which covers Northern Colorado and Denver. A number of people coming to this issue from outside Loveland are shocked the City of Loveland is even willing discuss abdicating its own role over TIF (Tax Increment Financing) and also declare green farmland as blight. Amy Oliver has indicated she intends on broadcasting a follow-up show on the issue once the city council makes its decision.

Another member of the media investigating the matter referred to it as a “clear power grab” while another, a Denver attorney, stated the council was putting themselves at risk for being accused of “abuse of discretion.” This is because the state law gives local officials the discretion to determine what is and isn’t urban blight in the community. If they use this discretion in a pernicious or arbitrary manner and pretend blight exists on land that is indistinguishable from most other properties in the surrounding area (but are not owned by their campaign contributor McWhinney Enterprises) — “this is clearly abuse of their discrection.”

The condition of the property and not who owns it should be the determining factor when declaring land blighted. Nonetheless, Loveland’s truly blighted and abandoned commercial and residential properties remain unfixed while the City Council prepares to declare even more open and desirable farm land as blighted. This will provide McWhinney’s Metro District the opportunity to create more public debt through bonds to pay for their “demolition” and infrastructure costs of building on the open farm land. Adjacent property owners of farmland and even those who own blighted properties must use their own money to develop the land.

Local Democratic Attorney, Mark Shaffer, has also voiced concern over the proposal and the longer-term impact in may have on the community. Shaffer, like others who work in downtown Loveland, are concerned over the neglect of businesses in downtown Loveland while the council seems willing to do almost anything to continue sprawl near I-25.

Will you be attending the meeting and what would you do if you were on Loveland’s City Council?

The Loveland City Council has received a note attached to their agenda package explaining the Flex URA (Urban Renewal Authority) and now property blight designations for McWhinney Enterprises have been postponed until the September 2, 2008 council meeting. These items are still isted on the public agenda.

People interested in this topic of giving the McWhinneys more discretion, power and authority over which of their own properties can receive special tax subsidies from city taxpayers (without the need for council approval) need to attend the September 2, council meeting now instead of the August 19, meeting.

The “Golden Nest Egg” (employee retirement benefits for the city manager and a few others if they retire early) issue will be brought back for a desicion at the Aug. 19 meeting. It failed in previous meeting when the Mayor was not in attendance but the Mayor has already agreed to follow the city manager’s direction on this so it is likely to pass on a 5-4 vote.

Feel free to post any comments regarding the URA or nest egg issues.