We Won – Big Time! Thank you Everyone for Your Vote

Thank you so much for voting Yes on 300.

Ballot Question 300 passed giving you a say to approve urban renewal plans to guide development in Littleton.

Here are the election results from the City.

Ballot Question 300 – (require registered elector approval for urban renewal)
Yes 5,755
No 3,811

Ballot Question 2A – (prohibit eminent domain except at request of property owner)
Yes 6,583
No 2,890

Please note the City’s description above for Ballot Question 300 says approval for urban renewal when the ballot measure says approval of urban renewal PLANS.

The people have spoken once more. It is time for the council to understand that the majority Littleton citizens would like a say in what this town looks like. Thanks to all the wonderful people of Littleton who don’t want this town to be anything BUT little!!!

As you probably already know we operating on a shoe string and we could use a few more bucks to help defray the cost of this campaign.  Please consider making a contribution to Your Littleton Your Vote and mailing it to 2000 W Arapahoe Road, 80120.  A contribution of 19.99 can be reported as a misc contribution; anything over 19.99 I will need to have your employer and occupation.

The Denver Post

Littleton voters pass measure restricting city’s urban renewal powers

By John Aguilar
The Denver Post

Posted:   03/03/2015 12:00:00 AM MSTAdd a Comment | Updated:   about 7 hours ago

Littleton will need to go to the voters before employing commonly used urban renewal tactics, like tax increment financing or eminent domain, according to special election results released late Tuesday.

The city in Denver’s southern suburbs became the first Colorado community to place such constraints on a local government’s ability to use the state-sanctioned economic development tools.

Opponents of the measure warned that Littleton would stunt its economic growth potential by making projects in hard-to-revamp areas impossible to complete.

The final tally in favor of Question 300 was 5,755 yes votes to 3,811 no votes, or 60 percent to 40 percent.

Voters passed by an even wider margin a competing ballot measure, Question 2A, which only limits Littleton’s eminent domain powers.

In a statement issued late Tuesday, Paul Bingham with Your Littleton Your Vote, said “like most elections, this one was a large difference of opinion, This one about what is best for Littleton.”

“Thank you to the citizens of Littleton for understanding our message and voting for our charter amendment,” he said.

Tuesday’s victory for Your Littleton Your Vote came despite being heavily outgunned by those challenging the measure, who operated under the name Littleton Strong. Opponents raised nearly $91,000 in campaign donations while backers raised nearly $3,000.

The vast majority of Littleton Strong’s donations came from heavy-hitting builders and real estate industry groups while Your Littleton Your Vote’s contributions came from local residents.Mayor Phil Cernanec, who along with city council, had opposed Question 300, released a statement late Tuesday.

“Regardless of the voters’ decision, the city council and I will continue engaging with citizens and encouraging healthy dialogue on the very important issues we face,” he said. “It is, and always has been, our goal to look for ways to keep Littleton moving forward.”

The movement to restrict the powers of the urban renewal authority in Littleton, known as Littleton Invests For Tomorrow, began last year when Your Littleton Your Vote collected signatures to get the measure on the ballot.

A special election was scheduled for Tuesday and more than 30,000 mail-in ballot were sent out last month.

Question 300 amends Littleton’s charter to require voter approval before the city lures developers with deals that share the cost of infrastructure improvements, often through the issuance of bonds, in a public-private arrangement.

Urban renewal has been widely used in Colorado, including in the developments of the Denver Pavilions on the 16th Street Mall, the Streets at SouthGlenn in Centennial and Lakewood’s Belmar.

Ballot backers argued that the city doesn’t need to make deals using taxpayer money to bring projects to town and shouldn’t do so without voter consent. They also objected to the city’s decision last year to map out four zones — deemed blighted — where urban renewal dollars could be used.

Urban renewal proponents, led by the group Littleton Strong, lashed back by placing their own measure on the ballot that only prevents the seizure of property for urban renewal projects, unless the property owner agrees to eminent domain, but keeps intact other development tools.

By having every urban renewal decision go before voters, they argued, developers will eventually just skip over Littleton and go elsewhere with their projects so as not to get entangled in expensive elections.

Don’t Miss the Page with Doug Clark, former mayor, talking about Urban Renewal in Littleton

(see the link in the third line in the black menu bar above)

1 Election – $34,000 or 25 years of urban renewal diverting over tens of millions of tax dollars from the city, schools, parks and county?  $34,000 – a small price to pay for our right to vote.  Not such a radical idea after all.

 Your choice!  Your Vote!  Yes on 300 and preserve our tax dollars thus our city

Government and developers oppose 300.  Developers have been pouring thousands into the defeat of 300 – If 300 is bad for them it is good for us – the tax payers!

—————————————

There will be two questions on the ballot for the March 3rd special election.  One put forth by 3,926 citizens and another brought forth by 5 city council members.

Ballot Question 300

The Citizen Initiative seeks to amend the City Charter to include the following:

“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.”

In simple terms, the approval of this language would require voter approval, not for projects but for urban renewal plans that include the use of eminent domain – the taking of private property.  It would also require voter approval if any of our public tax dollars are going to be diverted from their intended use to urban renewal to give to developers to offset some of the costs of their private development.  (Taxes would be diverted from Littleton Public Schools, Arapahoe County, South Suburban Parks & Rec, Urban Drainage and the City of Littleton.)

To use today’s situation, we have 4 urban renewal plans that have been approved.  All plans provide all the powers of eminent domain to the unelected urban renewal (LIFT) board.  If the property owner is threatened by eminent domain he will have to go to court, at his own expense, to try to keep his property.  What usually happens is the property owner cannot afford the legal battle so he ends up settling with the authority.  If voter approval was required the property owner would have the registered electors of the city behind him – he would not be alone in fighting LIFT and urban renewal.  We believe the property owner has a greater chance of keeping his property if the voters of Littleton were allowed to weigh in on the decision.  There may be rare instances when the voters of Littleton would agree that the taking of the private property is essential for the good of the entire community; but it would be a rare occasion indeed.

The funding mechanism for urban renewal is called tax increment financing.  For a more detailed explanation please see the page with the explanation.  For purposes here let it suffice to say that urban renewal cannot raise taxes on their own.  They have to take taxes from other taxing entities in order to create a revenue source.  We believe voters should have a right to weigh in on whether or not we believe diverting our tax dollars is the right thing to do; or not.  The other taxing entities that stand to lose tax dollars to urban renewal have a voice but the citizens of Littleton do not.  A yes vote on 300 would give us that right to vote.

Question 2A

This question was approved by 5 council members.

Shall the Littleton City Charter be amended so that the city council cannot authorize the use of eminent domain and condemnation in an urban renewal plans except at the request of a property owner?

There are some interesting points to be made about the question.

1. The question is meaningless!  What the question says they cannot do they have already done.  The approval or disapproval of the question will not change one urban renewal plan.  The council has already approved 4 urban renewal plans that have unlimited use of eminent domain by the authority in spite of their Resolution (passed long before the ballot question was approved) saying they wouldn’t approve an urban renewal plan that did not limit the use of eminent domain.

2. This language does not contradict the language in 300 – they both can be approved and function side by side in the Charter.  So if you are in doubt – vote yes on both!

3.   300 has a similar problem with 2A – the council has already approved the full use of eminent domain and they are rushing through the use of property and sales tax for tax increment financing (Feb. 17th).  But, if there are any modifications to an urban renewal plan, the plan will have to be approved by the voters.  Furthermore, 300 offers oversight on the redirection of our tax dollars from the schools, parks, county, urban drainage and the city itself.  2A does not address the diversion of tax dollars for 25 plus years; in fact, the backers of 2A do not have a problem with our tax dollars being given to private developers.

4.   The Charter is an enabling document – it speaks to what the council may and shall do. This will be the first statement in the Charter that says they cannot do something.  (Just peculiar.)

5.   We doubt that 2A will hold up in court if challenged.  The urban renewal authority is not bound by the charter.  If a property owner does not request to be condemned and urban renewal wants to take part of their private property for a path, right of way, or other use the Charter will not offer the property owner any protection.  The state law will supersede the Charter.

Submitted by Carol Brzeczek

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

27 Responses to We Won – Big Time! Thank you Everyone for Your Vote

  1. Phil Schleager says:

    The language in 2A says ( a property owner ) it does not say ( The property owner ) I own property in Littleton. Could council ask me to condemn someone else’s Property and get away with it?

    Like

    • Carol B says:

      I see your point – a good question? The wording of 2A is very awkward.

      In this instance the Council is not the governing body that would condemn any property owner’s property in an urban renewal area. The 7 unelected board members of the urban renewal authority would be the governing body that would condemn.

      Like

      • Carol B says:

        Phil – the more I think about your comment 2A has a real challenge. Words have meaning and in the law wording is critical. It certainly appears that the language they have chosen means exactly what you think it means. Any property owner will be able to request that LIFT condemn any property within the urban renewal areas. Now the question is, was that intentional on the part of Councilmember Brinkman or was it just a poor choice of words?

        Like

  2. Phil Schleager says:

    I wouldn’t trust a politician to tell me what was and honest mistake and what his intent was, if his lips are moving he is lying. It needs to be looked at carefully and the voters need to be on guard. I mean, why would the council submit such a thing in the first place, at first blush, it looks redundant.

    Like

  3. Phil S says:

    Where can I get a lawn sign for YES on 300, or better yet one that says YES on 300 and NO on 2A?

    Like

    • Carol B says:

      Thanks for asking – just email yourlittletonyourvote@gmail.com and we will happily deliver one to your door! We do not have a No on 2A sign – we have chosen not to play that game. We are working hard to promote our ballot measure – 300. We believe that our right to vote on how Littleton develops and how our tax dollars are spent is a message that most citizens will support. But I hear you!

      Like

  4. Tom says:

    I’m voting NO to 300!

    Like

    • Carol B says:

      Tom – That’s what is great about living in America! We each get a vote. You can vote to send taxpayer dollars intended for the schools, parks, city and county to developers without voter approval and I can cast a vote that will let voters decided whether or not to take taxes from the city, county, schools and parks for 25 or more years and give to developers to develop their private projects.

      Like

  5. On the web site it says the meeting on south broadway is on the 17th. On the flier it say the 19th. Which is it?

    Like

    • Carol B says:

      Lonnie – Thank you! There’s too much going on. The information meeting is on the 19th – flier is correct. The 17th is also an important date – the city council will be considering a modification to two urban renewal plans – Santa Fe and Columbine. They are trying to rush through an approval of the tax increment financing for both urban renewal areas for both property taxes and sales taxes which will cost the taxpayers of Littleton, Arapahoe County, LPS and So Sub millions. They are rushing this “modification” through in order to beat us at the ballot box on March 3rd.

      Thanks for bringing the error to my attention.

      Carol

      Like

  6. Mark says:

    Where on Santa Fe & Columbine??

    Like

    • Carol B says:

      Mark – my description of the boundaries will be general but for Santa Fe just consider the entire stretch on the west side of Santa Fe Drive from the empty lot north of Bowles all the way down to Littleton Large Animal Hospital to the river. They have excluded some of the So Suburban Park’s land, Denver Seminary, and residential property. That is all blighted – including the new Breckenridge Brewery, the new 7-Eleven on Mineral, the RTD station at Mineral, and the open field just south of Mineral. On the east side of Santa Fe Drive they have included a small portion of land belonging to ACC, some of the old historic homes on the edge of downtown Littleton, and the newly remodeled McDonald’s.

      For Columbine Square the area between Irving and Federal Blvd south of Belleview to include O’Toole’s Garden Center, Arapahoe County’s Voting Warehouse, Globus, the car wash and the small strip center that includes the Horney Toad. The owner of the Columbine Square shopping center evicted all his tenants (self inflicted blight!) and he has been scheduled before the planning board on two different occasions to ask for a zoning change to allow 350 apartments. Each time he has pulled his request at the last minute. We expect he will be back with the same plan but this time will be asking for our tax dollars to help him pay for his development.

      The Columbine Square area also includes a group of properties that are just south of Belleview and east, across the street, from Harlow Park. SW Automotive is on the north end and Gas Express is on the south end.

      Like

  7. James D. McFall says:

    Government by ratification and referendum just leads to chaos, rancor and division in the community. A review of what was learned in civic lectures should be of concern. I hope the people that initiated this effort have the best interest of the community in mind and are not trying to open the door to eliminating representative government. I’m voting NO on both Q300 and 2A

    Like

    • Carol B says:

      James – I understand your point. The problem we are facing is the urban renewal board is an unelected group of 7 people that have the authority to develop and redevelop without oversight once the plans are approved. The plans they have presented do not meet the definition of the law which requires a plan to be “sufficiently complete to indicate such land acquisition, demolition and removal of structures, redevelopment, improvements, and rehabilitation as may be proposed to be carried out in the urban renewal area, zoning and planning changes, if any, land uses, maximum densities, building requirements, and the plan’s relationship to definite local objectives respecting appropriate land uses, improved traffic, public transportation, public utilities, recreational and community facilities, and other public improvements.” (CRS 31-25-103(9)

      The plans approved by council are missing key elements such as land acquisition, demolition, redevelopment, improvements, any rehab that might be proposed, zoning and planning changes desired, land uses, densities, etc…..all of which is to be paid for in part by the taxpayers using tax dollars intended for the schools, parks, city and county. Once the plans are approved the urban renewal board is on its own to implement the plan as approved. But there’s nothing in the plan so they have a free hand to do what they want to do without further approval……..all with our tax dollars.

      Because this is a state-wide issue and because urban renewal is being used for economic development and not to clear honest slum and blight citizens are raising their voice against this abuse statewide. Something should be done at the state level but until then we need to protect our community’s tax dollars by providing the citizens a choice as to whether or not they want to have their tax dollars spent on private development.

      Like

  8. James D. McFall says:

    I understand all of your points, and are well argued. My concern still rest with the danger of opening the door to the danger of anarchy by referendum. What next? A citizen referendum to locate a stop light? Of course that’s silly. But, where is line drawn on this continuum? If we don’t trust our elected people that are to give approval, throw them out.

    Like

    • Carol B says:

      James – I draw the line when we have an urban renewal board that refuses to follow the law and we have a council that perpetuates their blunders. I draw the line when so much money can be diverted away from our schools, parks, city (means city services) and our county (already losing over $5,000,000 a year on urban renewal projects) without our approval. Most people, I have found, have no idea that urban renewal is paid for by tax dollars – I have no idea where they thought the money was coming from but they are shocked to find out that taxes can be diverted for 25 years or more without any sort of approval. I am truly hoping that the state legislature will tackle this problem soon. We shouldn’t have to be in a position to take matters in our own hands but the state has failed us.
      I do appreciate you taking your time to at least try to get information on the election issues. They are important and voting is just as important and I am glad that you have voted.

      Like

  9. James D. McFall says:

    Courts are always available to punish lawbreakers. Maybe we need bypass that system, too? Just another line to draw.

    Like

  10. Carol B says:

    James – not ready to bypass courts – but sure would like to be able to afford to use one. As far as throwing the current members out – I have heard that a recall on Council member Stein will happen after this election. He is the council member that called the owner of a blighted property and offered to buy it.

    Like

  11. James D. McFall says:

    Carol: I appreciate your candid comments and exchange. Further, I understand your frustration. Fortunately I have been able to move on from my youthful catechism, but I’m still burdened with idealism of my youthful civics lecture. We each gave it our shot, that’s a good thing. Be well, Jim.

    Like

  12. Robert Minnis says:

    I am confused by what I have read about the four projects. If they have been approved by the City Council, and they allow eminent domain and condemnation without owner approval, why has the City Council proposed 2A after the fact? Supposedly, two of the projects are already been passed to LIFT, but do not include TIF. What projects are they, and how will they be funded? Has the City Council answered the County’s objections to the Santa Fe and Columbine projects? If so, where can those document be found? There appears to be very little specificity in the plans. Is everything to be left to the discretion of the URA with no oversight?
    Thanks

    Robert Minnis, Littleton citizen

    Like

    • Carol B says:

      Robert – you have been paying attention! I will respond to each of your very good questions.
      Q – I am confused by what I have read about the four projects. If they have been approved by the City Council, and they allow eminent domain and condemnation without owner approval, why has the City Council proposed 2A after the fact?
      A – The council has approved four urban renewal plans; the Santa Fe Corridor, Columbine Square, North Broadway and Littleton Blvd. All four plans were approved with the full use of eminent domain powers – in spite of the council’s resolution that they would not approve an urban renewal plan without the restricted use of eminent domain. Here’s the exact language of their resolution passed Aug. 19, 2014

      The city council does not support, and will not approve, any urban renewal plan, which includes the use of eminent domain for the acquisition of property as part of an urban renewal project within the City of Littleton. [The foregoing restriction shall not apply where the property owner has requested the use of eminent domain with respect to such owner’s property.

      Since they passed their resolution the majority of council approved 4 urban renewal plans that do not restrict the use of eminent domain. So the plain and simple of it is they have ignored their own resolution which they passed in hopes of diffusing the petition we were circulating at the time.

      You asked why the council approved 2A after the fact – one council member suggested that the voters needed a choice as if yes or no is not a choice. I, and others, believe it was more about confusing the voters than anything else.

      Q – Supposedly, two of the projects are already been passed to LIFT, but do not include TIF. What projects are they, and how will they be funded?
      A – All four plans (not projects – a plan is supposed to, by law, include projects but none of the plans have a project contained in them) have been approved by LIFT then approved by the council. Once the council approves the plan it is up to LIFT to implement the plan. The Chair of LIFT has made it clear that they will not have to return to council unless there is a major modification of the plan. As far as TIF, the Santa Fe plan included TIF for the southern part of the urban renewal area for property tax only. This Tuesday night the council will consider approving TIF for property and retail sales tax for the entire Santa Fe area; this is considered a modification of the original plan.

      For Columbine Square, when it was first approved there was no TIF included at all. But, this Tuesday night TIF for both property and retail sales tax are being considered for the entire Columbine Square urban renewal area. This is being done to beat the voters to the ballot box on March 3. Again, the Chair of LIFT at the time LIFT passed the modifications told the rest of the board that they were running out of time when he was asked why they were considering such a change to both the Santa Fe and Columbine Square plans.

      The Littleton Blvd and No Broadway plans were both approved fairly recently and it was known that the voters would have a say in TIF on March 3rd so those two plan included TIF for both property and sales tax. Incidentally, these two plans were both approved by the LIFT board even though they had not been written. If they had to wait for the plans to be written before they approved them they might have “run out of time”! There was also a discussion at the LIFT meeting that they did not want to use sales tax TIF in any of the urban renewal areas and they were promised it would not be included in the plans. And the sales tax increment was not in the two plans the planning board approved but by the time the plans got in front of council the TIF language had been changed by the city manager to include retails sales tax increment. We do not believe a document should be allowed to be amended without the prior board’s that approved the plan to also approve the amendment. The City Manager told me it didn’t matter; all that mattered is what the council approved. I disagree – strongly disagree!

      Q – Has the City Council answered the County’s objections to the Santa Fe and Columbine projects?

      A – The County’s objections have not been settled. They have actually objected to all four plans for similar reasons.
      1. The impact reports (how UR impacts the county) do not state “an estimate of the cost and extent of additional county infrastructure and services required to serve development in the plan area;”
      2. the plans do not “mention any specific work to be preformed, only general statements” and the county takes issue that TIF is needed to develop the areas that are already developing on their own;
      3. the plans “anticipate(s) the use of TIF for twenty-five (25) years” and the law “provides that a TIF “may not exceed a period of twenty-five (25) years, meaning it can be a time period less than 25 years” and because the “area has already seen growth without the needs of developer incentives,” the county requested either the elimination of the TIF or a shorter time period substantially less than 25 years; and
      4. the areas that have been blighted by the city council, in their “present condition” do not “substantially impair or arrest the sound growth of the city.” They asked the city “to review requests for blight designation more carefully.”

      There’s one other objection, the Santa Fe plan includes agricultural land which the law was amended to make it virtually impossible to include. Our County Assessor has filed objection to the inclusion and that will be decided by district court which could mean it will remain undecided for a long time. What this also means is that the TIF for that area will not be used in the calculation until the matter is resolved. However, LIFT has said they are moving forward with a possible project for that land.

      As an aside, what prompted the change in the law was the inclusion of agricultural land up north around Loveland/Ft Collins. Ag land is taxed at an artificially low rate but once it is rezoned the property taxes jump up; big time. Up north the base for the ag land is $1 million and the increment for urban renewal is $99 million. The school district is so short of revenue that they could not afford to build a new school out where the new housing was located so the urban renewal authority had to build the school – they had all the money!

      Q – If so, where can those document be found?
      A – No, the county is in arbitration and the meetings are not open to the public. Our Mayor has indicated that he believes he has swayed 3 of our county commissioners to see things his way. I don’t know how the board of county commissioners could turn their backs on the claims made in opposition to the urban renewal areas since none of their objections have been satisfied.

      I do have the letter from the county assessor – if it is not on the Blog I will get it posted soon.

      Q – There appears to be very little specificity in the plans. Is everything to be left to the discretion of the URA with no oversight?
      A – Bingo! That is our problem. Seven unelected board members get to decide how the areas will be developed and how the money they divert from the schools, parks, city and county get spent to develop projects for the private developers. The last urban renewal plan for Littleton was Riverfront – at that time the urban renewal board had a real plan – we knew what they wanted to build before they ever got council approval. Not so this time – it is all unknown for all 44 plus acres in the urban renewal areas.

      I hope this helps – if you have more questions I will try to respond as best as I can.

      Like

  13. Robert Minnis says:

    Carol,
    Thank you for answering my questions. Has the Council been openly confronted by the hypocrisy and cynicism of adding 2A to the ballot after publicly voting opposite to it’s intent? I plan to attend the Your Littleton Your Vote meeting tomorrow night, but feel like going to the Council meeting to get their side of the story. If they are culpable of such arrogance, they obviously don’t deserve the trust to which Mr. McFall (see above) referred.

    Like

  14. James D. McFall says:

    Mr. Minnis:

    It was not my intent to indicate if I trust or don’t trust the Council. My position is, if any one does violate our trust, throw them out. I am concern about using the ratification approach to administer a community. It’s a dangerous door to open. I’m voting ‘NO’ as a protest against this use of method of government administration. I appreciate that we all want to preserve our community.

    Like

  15. Robert Minnis says:

    Mr. McFall,
    My point was that, if indeed, the Council was cynical to the point of adding 2A after having just given the green light to LIFT to use unrestricted eminent domain then they have already demonstrated that they are untrustworthy. Thus, until the next election, we should oppose their deceit by what means are available. I’m voting “YES” on 300, against crony capitalism and TIF.

    Like

  16. Carol B says:

    Robert – First of all the Info meeting is on Thursday the 19th. Tomorrow night is the council meeting where the modifications of the plans will be on the agenda. Yes, the council has heard several of us mention the fact that they violated their Resolution but we have not had a response. The council does not engage in responding to citizens when citizens address them. The mayor reads a statement that they will not respond but will get back to you later – that rarely happens.

    No only did the council ignore the resolution I mentioned above but they also ignored their resolution that stated they would not approve any urban renewal project without the full support and approval of all the taxing entities. (Remember plans are supposed to have projects included so this resolution really applies to the plans since that is where the projects are supposed to be.) But we know that Arapahoe County did not offer their full support and approval but they addressed the plans in their objections and not projects so the council believes they have adhered to their resolution. In fact, in their objection the county mentioned the “unidentified projects” as bing a problem.

    If the law had been followed, the plans would include projects so we would all know what the plans are for the areas, what zoning changes would be required, what might need to be condemned or demolished, how much of our tax dollars would be required to complete the project and how long do they estimate that the TIF would be collected. But their plans did/do not contain the required elements as stated in the urban renewal law. (Law requires an urban renewal project sufficiently complete to indicate such land acquisition, demolition and removal of structures, redevelopment, improvements, zoning and planning changes, land uses, maximum densities, building requirements are a few of the required elements – you have read a plan – do you see these elements in a plan?)

    Some council members believe the urban renewal authority will come back to them with decisions on future projects – the law does not require that to happen. In fact the law states, “no provision of any other law with respect to the planning or undertakings of projects or the acquisition, clearance, or disposition of property by public bodies shall restrict an authority exercising powers under this part 1 in the exercise of such functions with respect to a project of such authority unless the general assembly specifically so states.” This means that the Charter does not apply and the Council cannot interfere – it is only the state legislature that can interfere with the implementation of the urban renewal plans. This makes sense since the Urban Renewal Law is a matter of state wide concern and has to be applied fairly across jurisdictions.

    Once the plans are approved the LIFT board, as stated by the Chair, there is no need to go back to council unless there’s a major modification. Of course, our 4 plans lack any detail so what is going to be implemented?

    The plans state that the urban renewal authority does not intend to acquire property by eminent domain but the law permits them to do so and that they will “confer” decisions of eminent domain to the city council. What does “confer” mean? Certainly does not state that they need the approval of council to acquire property through eminent domain or that they will only condemn properties with the approval of the property owner.

    I will look forward to meeting you on Thursday.

    Like

  17. Carol B says:

    Robert – forgot to mention. The last urban renewal plan also stated that they did not intend to use eminent domain but they condemned every parcel in the area.

    Like

  18. Robert Minnis says:

    That would be Riverfront.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: