The theory of economic rationality applies almost perfectly to profit-seeking enterprises like businesses: their actions are motivated by money, either getting more of it or preventing its loss.

Issue 2A transfers the power of urban renewal, and up to $77 million that goes with it, from an unelected board (LRC) to the elected City Council. As Council members Muckle and Yarnell pointed out, it has "nothing to do with growth or the support of downtown businesses." Whether Issue 2A passes or not, there will still be urban renewal; there will still be up to $77 million that can be put into urban renewal; and there will still be an urban renewal authority to decide how the money will be spent. In other words, Issue 2A asks a simple question: who should control the urban-renewal powers and the money? There are only two choices: the unelected LRC, or the elected Council.

The Downtown Business Association (DBA) board and certain downtown business and property owners, including developer Arlin Lehman, oppose Ballot Issue 2A. Mr. Lehman has purchased numerous if not all the "No on 2A" banners (source: DBA board member) and placed them on properties he owns, even though some of the businesses (e.g., Chili Hut) renting those properties take no position on 2A.

The $77 million question: Why all the fuss by some downtown business and property owners over power going to our elected City Council?

Some background. In 1999, the DBA president Ronda Grassi (a current DBA board member) asked the City Council to give the DBA $45,000 in "seed money" to start up a downtown business improvement district (improvement districts are quasi-public corporations and political subdivisions of the state). The Council, which the DBA now says can't be trusted with urban-renewal powers, approved the request.

In April 2000, the same "untrustworthy" Council authorized the Mayor to sign the petition to create the downtown business improvement district petition. In August 2000, the same Council created the Main Street Louisville Business Improvement District, or BID. Its boundaries are completely (interestingly coincidentally, some would say) within the boundaries of the urban renewal district.

The BID held an election to raise its own property taxes so that it could fund an operating budget for the BID. It failed—inexplicably, the BID members (the only ones entitled to vote on the mill levy increase are businesses and property owners within the BID) voted down the effort. Since the creation of the BID, it has had no budget to do anything. In fact, in October 2007, it proposed a 2008 budget of $0.

The nine BID board members are:

Arlin Lehman
Donna Rogers
Ronda Grassi
Garrett McCarthy
Steve Mesple
Debbie Krueger
Mark Zaremba
John Keany
Erik Hartronft

The 13 DBA board members are:

Arlin Lehman
Donna Rogers
Ronda Grassi
Garrett McCarthy
Steve Mesple
Debbie Krueger
Mark Zaremba
John Keany
Norman Kron
Jim Tienken
Jay Turner
Mary Foster
Wendy Fickbohm

Eight of the nine BID board members are also members of the DBA.

Following the money, Part I. Remember, this is an election about who should control urban renewal and the projected $77 million in taxpayer money—should it be an unelected board or the elected Council? Louisville Moving Forward, the group opposing transfer of the power and money to the Council, has raised thousands of dollars to prevent the power and money transfer. The amount of money contributed to defeat this democratic event—accountability in government—is remarkable.

Who are the contributors?

Arlin Lehman (a BID and DBA board member, and member of Louisville Moving Forward)
$1,000

KokoPlaza I LLC (one of Mr. Lehman's companies)
$500

Mark Hirsch (Mr. Lehman's business partner)
$500

DBA
$1,000

Centennial Valley Properties I, LLC (a Koebel development entity)
$1,000

Debbie Krueger (a BID and DBA board member, and member of Louisville Moving Forward)
$150

RCL Consolidated (a business incorporated by LRC member Rob Lathrop, who is a member of Louisville Moving Forward)
$100

Michael Reis (an LRC member who bought land inside the urban renewal district the month after he was appointed to the LRC, and member of Louisville Moving Forward)
$100

Michael Menaker (an LRC member, and member of Louisville Moving Forward)
$50

That's almost $5,000 from developers, DBA, DBA/BID board members, and LRC members—to prevent our elected Council from gaining control of urban renewal and the $77 million.

Following the money, Part II. In 2007, Norman Kron, a DBA board member and the attorney for the BID (which, we should remember, has no money) sent a letter to the LRC's attorney. In it, the BID asked the LRC to (a) share with the BID urban-renewal taxpayer dollars raised by the LRC, and (b) agree not to divert any property tax dollars from the BID if it should ever approve a mill levy increase. That is, the BID (and the DBA, apparently) wants control over some of the the LRC's taxpayer dollars.

If the proposal ultimately is accepted by the City and LRC, we would have a rather unusual set of affairs: the LRC diverts taxpayer dollars from four taxing authorities (City of Louisville, Boulder Valley School District, Boulder County, and Louisville Fire Protection District) to fund urban-renewal; although the boundaries of the BID are wholly within the boundaries of the urban renewal district, the LRC, an appointed board which is charged with using taxpayer dollars to remediate "blight," would "share" those urban-renewal taxpayer dollars with the BID, an appointed board which is not charged with remediating blight.

Is this why some of the downtown business/property owners—primarily those who also happen to be DBA and BID board members—oppose transferring the powers from an unelected board to the elected City Council?

Whatever may be the economic motivations of these developers/business/property owners, Issue 2A is, as the Camera noted, an issue of "good government." And it is about accountability and democracy. Side deals between appointed boards over taxpayer dollars is anathema to all of this.