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?
