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?
It really is hard to imagine but I saw it with my own eyes. A bunch of city councilors being instructed by the applicant’s attorney regarding the city’s risk.
The McWhinneys cannot issue bonds for public debt – only the city can do this. If the Metro District fails financially it is the city’s credit rating that is hit by the failure. McWhinney is like a kid asking you to co-sign his car loan by telling you there is no risk of you paying the loan because the car can just be recovered by the lender if he doesn’t pay.
Well, your credit – the reason you are getting the loan in the first place – is what is at risk.
The city council needs to have their own expert attorneys to review complicated proposals before them. I have never seen a private developer giving legal advice to a city. Why can’t they find an attorney who is a specialist in URA’s? I don’t blame the city attorney since maybe he doesn’t have the budget to do it.
The real McWhinney motto is:
Socialize your costs while privatizing your profits
or
Ciover your expenses with OPM (Other people’s money)
An audience member read the following definition for blight to the council:
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.
The man from the audience asked if any member of the council could explain how an agricultural field can be a “menace to the public health, safety, morals or welfare.” None answered.
Later, Lucia A. Liley, Fort Collins attorney working for McWhinney, came up and disputed this definition as a mistake. She testified to the City Council that citizens who spoke were using the common definition of blight and not the legal definition. She attempted to discredit the testimony with false accusations.
Her testimony of restating other’s arguments was wrong and misleading. The above definition is repeated twice in Colorado’s Urban Renewal Law since it applies to any finding of blight, even when the property owner approves of the blight designation. The “factor” of blight must be tied to this definition according to the law. The presentations made to the council only discussed the “factors” required to find blight and not what those factors need to be tied to before an official finding of blight may be declared.
Later, council members repeated the error by stating the state law is “too vague” and provides a definition so open that any property can meet the definition. They failed to make the finding required under the statute as evidenced by their comments.
I submit that Lucia A. Liley mislead the council and provided a rebuttal that was false and misleading. She made a factual representation about the law that was misleading and lowered the standard below what the law requires in making the finding of blight.
I wonder how they might respond to the campaign slogan – “Agricultural fields are not a menace” Before second reading, I would advise each council member to really read the law and know what they are agreeing to by voting yes!
I watched “the show” on TV. At times farcical; at times so maddening I found myself yelling at the TV. Good comments during public comment by most of the citizens except for some bozos planted by the developer. A young woman from the organization (FRESH or FRESCA?) did a good job of raising questions; also Mr. Hoffmann, and the owner of the “Lux of Loveland” store, and several others. Mr. Weston did a great job by showing pictures of former businesses that McWhinney had lured out of the City (where they used to pay all property taxes) into the LURA where the developers get the tax increment for their projects.
They kept talking about how they all care about Downtown. But they’re cutting the throats of downtown businesses by subsidizing all that interstate development. Imagine what the downtown area could do if the Council lavished what the McWhinneys got (what, 500 million?), on downtown instead.
My hat’s off to all my fellow public-interested citizens who gave up their evening (and probably sleep) to stand up for the rest of the community.
Unfortunately, there were several other mis-statements or denials of fact by the applicant, his agents, and his patrons on Council.
For example, it was claimed variously by the developer, their attorney and the City Manager that there’d be NO fiscal impact upon the City from these changes. This is absurd on its face.
Clearly, if undevelopable land (or that which can not be as quickly developed) within the URA is replaced by land which is more quickly marketable and developable, but currently OUTSIDE THE URA, then the 25-year TIF loss to the various entities (County, School District AND City) will almost certainly be MUCH greater than if the City did not authorize these changes.
Given the inherent bias of the hearing process, however, there was no opportunity to challenge or rebut such misstatements. Regrettably, that process and that bias seems to be intentional in its design so as to minimize the chance of any real debate or honest discussion of such facts. Fellow Lovelanders deserve better.
And for the record: the amount of the giveaway was initially reported as $591 Million. A recent Reporter-Herald article gave it as $700 Million. Yes, think about what kind of REAL local and regional improvements could be had for that … improvements which I suspect would lead to more and better jobs than the retail-driven development subsidy will ever produce.
Public/private partnerships CAN occasionally be a real public benefit…but I agree with the skeptic who notes that increasingly, these “public-private partnerships” have come to mean that the public pays for the private party’s profits. It’s reverse Robin-Hoodism.
I feel like I was set up. I moved here thinking Loveland was a modern day Mayberry. You know – a place where people knew their neighbors, but took care of their own, where a small businessman could run an honest business without subsidizing his competition or excessive red tape from the city. I thought Loveland was a place where a bunch of “regular Joe’s” became city councilmen just out of a sense of community pride.
Boy, was I wrong!! Now that I’m committed to this place, with a mortgage on a home that’s losing value & kids in Loveland schools, I find I live in a giant funnel for my money to go to some uber-wealthy, elitist family that wants to develop real estate to attract competition for my business.
I’m new here. What’s YOUR excuse, fellow citizens?!?!?!?????
Did you elect these clowns knowing they were gonna do this?? Maybe this site is only visited by cronies of the rich & powerful, but I can’t believe this is happening anywhere in America, let alone my town. I sure won’t be voting for these people when the next election comes around. I just hope a future (better) council can undo the damage on these clowns.
Mike – Welcome.
There is a reason for why things are the way they are in Loveland: Censorship.
The Reporter-Herald has a documented history of censorship. This blog has a history of censorship.
If you want the truth, if you want change for the better, stop wasting your time with both of them and do something instead of being a whiny pissant like the clowns that run this illiterate blog and the pantload who is the editor of The Repeater-Hairball.
Thank you for the reporting and pictures! Why do the “professional” media like Reporter-Herald and Loveland Connection print publicity photos of these people instead of real images from the meeting?
I was very hurt and disappointed by my friend Daryle Klassen going back on his word. He stood with me in 2004 and told the council agricultural land is not urban blight. Did you know that? He was against it as a citizen but now after his secret McWhinney meetings he is voting for it.
I haven’t called him because I don’t even want to hear his pained apologies or excuses. Daryle, you know what you did was wrong and those of us who supported your run for council regret our mistake as well.
We need independent people on council who can’t be so easily intimidated.
I’m so disgusted with my city council for doing this!!!! And for the first time in a long time, I feel powerless to do anything about it. Between working my tail off and shuttling kids around town, my wife and I just don’t have a lot of time to dig into all these complicated city issues. We count on city employees to administer the city on behalf of us citizens. We count on our elected representatives to look out for the interests of the people that do most of the living, working, and tax paying around here. I feel ripped off. Worse yet, I feel like they knew they were betraying me, but did it anyway.
Re: The Reporter-Herald.
Now that the editor of The Reporter-Herald has attempted and failed to justify censorship at the newspaper I’m done doing business with them. As to the city council – vote ‘em all out.
We should organize a recall of the entire council except Gutierrez and Solt.
RE: BigE Says:
September 10th, 2008 at 12:08 am
We should organize a recall of the entire council except Gutierrez and Solt.
—————————————————————————————
I’m ready when you are. We need to ORGANIZE, right away!
PETITION ANYONE ???
I guess we could use a website to start the ball rolling.
Petitions need to be circulated downtown 1st then all over town.
Not to dampen your passion, but once you have recalled the council – then what? Who would you have run instead of the current crop of Boss Tweed types?
Jim, Jim, JIM!
Finding candidates should not be the problem.
Finding candidates not propped up by Special Interest will be the problem.
I will be watching as currant council take positions working for McWhinney after they leave office.
This is serious business. We are talking about Millions and Millions of dollars here. Candidates for City Council in Loveland have a history of corruption. This will not be a easy task weeding out decent people. Part of the problem is many go into office well meaning then to be lured to the dark side by Special Interests.
One fact is known. A huge money draw has been diected to the East side of unincorporated Loveland. While Downtown Loveland has been left to languish in neglect. This must stop. Someone needs to put the love back in Loveland…….. our job, citizens, is to start today.
Whomever you choose, know this: If you want to succeed steer clear of the newspaper. If they don’t support your candidate expect a smear campaign against them by the Reporter-Herald.
That’s how Don Marostica got elected over Jim Welker.