Reading the Ballot Issue 2A opposition's campaign literature, you might come away thinking that the Council actually has "decided" that it did not want the power of urban renewal and the up to $77 million that comes with it—that the Council, to use Mayor Sisk's words in a different context, wanted to "abrogate their responsibility and give their responsibility to a (non-elected) board."

You might come away thinking that because the opposition has been stating—misstating—that the 2A proponents want to "overturn" a decision of the Council to put the Louisville Revitalization Commission (seven unelected persons) in charge of urban renewal.

The opposition's remarkable misunderstanding of our constitution. Before we show why that is simply wrong, let's first discuss how astonishingly misguided such a statement is in our democracy, regardless of its factual error. The Colorado Constitution reserves to the People of every city the power of initiative and referendum. These powers give the People the absolute right to directly enact legislation and to veto laws enacted by their representatives. The history of initiative and referendum prove a truism: these basic tools of democracy are used when the People's representatives failed to enact laws the People favor or enact laws the People oppose. The Colorado Supreme Court has held that the power of initiative is a constitutional right "of the first order." So, the opposition's objection to Ballot Issue 2A—that it will "overturn" a Council decision is a breathtakingly fundamental misunderstanding of our constitutional democracy. It is so misguided that there is almost nothing that can be said other than that the 2A opponents need to return to democracy basics and read the Colorado Constitution. They need to understand that We the People hold the absolute right to "overturn" our representatives' decisions.

The opposition's basic factual error. Now for the 2A opponents' factual misrepresentation. They state that the Council actually has made a decision to give the LRC urban-renewal powers and control over the $77 million. This is not close to being true. The 1971 Louisville City Council created the Louisville Urban Renewal Authority (LURA) to accomplish one purpose: application for and distribution of Community Block Grants. After a few years, LURA had no other purpose and ceased all operations. In December 2003, it was "reactivated"; in August 2004, its name was changed to the "Louisville Revitalization Commission." When in December 2006, the City Council approved the urban renewal plan for the Hwy 42 corridor, under state law only one entity could implement the plan: the existing LURA. As a result, the Council has never voted to "give" power to the LRC because the LRC was automatically invested with the power as the city's long-time urban renewal authority.

Council member Don Brown in October 2007 engaged in terribly improper behavior: although he was a self-disclosed member of the special-interest anti-2A group, Louisville Moving Forward, he sponsored a resolution condemning Ballot Issue 2A and invited the entire Council, including two other members (Sheri Marsella and Dave Clabots) who also were members of LMF, to pass the resolution. Even Mr. Brown at the hearing on the resolution acknowledged that the Council did not "decide" in December 2006 to give the powers of urban renewal to the LRC..

The fact is that the Council has never decided to entrust power and money to the LRC. The question is, when the 2A opposition knows this fact, why is it continuing to misrepresent in its campaign literature that the opposite is true?