| What
citizens are saying about "urban renewal" and TIF financing in
Louisville |
| Letter to the Editor,
Daily Camera (Nov 8, 2006): City leaders are not serving us As owners of one of Louisville's oldest retail establishments, we never would have believed that the government of the community we live in and once chose to do business in would turn out to be working against us. For years, we have been trying to expand our business, but the council has repeatedly turned down our landlord's plans for a new building. He has tried to incorporate all of the council's mandates into his plans and continues to be stalled because of changing concerns about the "comprehensive plan," for the area involved. This is all well and good; we need to consider the growth of Louisville, but, in the meantime, we have not been able to accomplish our goal of growing our business. We feel that by authorizing the Louisville Revitalization Commission to spend tax revenues to offer incentives to developers to build in our area while simultaneously denying current business and landowners the opportunity to expand is an obvious conflict, a bad idea and just plain wrong. We would like to ask council members what on earth they think gives them the right and the power to divert funds generated from existing businesses, businesses owned by people who voted for them and pay their salaries, and to turn those funds over to an organization that may or may not invest these funds in a manner that is beneficial to them and the Louisville community as a whole. Lastly, concerning Tax Incremental Financing, how could diverting tax revenues from a grossly distorted renewal area, an area that includes most of Historic Downtown Louisville and many thriving businesses, and placing it under the control of a freelance organization such as the LRC to use, without oversight of accountability to the City Council or the citizens of Louisville, be considered a responsible act? There seems to be no sensible justification for turning over the control of our funds, the design our community or our future to the LRC. And TIF has no place in Louisville. LOIS and SCOTT ADLFINGER Letter to the Editor, Daily Camera (Oct 15, 2006): If it's 'progress,' just count me out Now retired after owning and operating a family business on Louisville's Main Street for 33 years, and looking back, I think the elephant-ear sidewalk extensions and fancy lamps installed 15 years ago probably did as much as anything to signal an end to Louisville's last tie to its vibrant coal-mining past: its unique downtown. The upgrades were nice, yet so out of character. Some of us grumbled as we adapted to the newness, but with urban renewal now pending, we sentimentalists haven't seen anything yet. It's amazing that Louisville's downtown Main Street, along with the outlying Safeway, King Soopers and Christopher Village shopping centers, plus the old Pow-Wow grounds, have all been found to be blighted and need fixing. Since I no longer live in Louisville, some will say it's none of my business. But I will make it my business when something called Tax Increment Financing allows property tax revenues that should flow into the county and the schools to be used instead to pay off bonds to fund urban renewal. To benefit whom? First the consultants, planners, architects, developers, speculators, lawyers and bond dealers, then lastly the city treasury and the public — if the long-term economy holds. Using TIF to finance its tax-robbing urban-renewal spectacle, first called Crossroads Mall and now Twenty Ninth Street, the city of Boulder has diverted millions of tax dollars into that project since 1983 — millions that should have gone to the county and the schools. The Boulder county assessor calculates the loss in property taxes to the county from Louisville's TIF will be $16.5 million. The rest of us around the county will have to make this up. School officials don't complain, since the state makes up whatever amount is lost to the schools through TIF. Meaning that taxpayers across the state are forced to contribute indirectly to local urban-renewal projects. Unfair, but legal. Worst of all, the urban-renewal juggernaut will finish destroying Louisville's old-town downtown ambiance. Such is progress? PERCY CONARROE Longmont Guest Opinion, Daily Camera (Aug 13, 2006): Leary: Don't rush urban-renewal plan By John Leary August 13, 2006 In early 2004, the Louisville City Council reconstituted the Louisville Urban Renewal Authority to encourage redevelopment of the area between the railroad tracks and Highway 42. That area extends from South Boulder Road to Pine Street. The desire to develop the area was enhanced by the passing of the FasTracks legislation that would place a commuter railway along that same railroad right of way and site a new commuter rail station within the area. Recently the Authority, now called the Revitalization Commission, put forward an urban renewal plan that vastly expands the scope of the urban renewal area. The plan establishes a broader urban renewal district that includes: the area west of the above, all the way to Main Street and both sides of Main Street in downtown Louisville the shopping center which includes the Safeway grocery store the shopping center that includes the Wells Fargo Bank and nearby buildings the shopping center that includes the King Soopers grocery store the Pow Wow and Rodeo grounds on the north side of South Boulder Road and bordering Lafayette an area South of Pine Street the recycling center Somehow the commission managed to define each of those areas as blighted and in need of urban renewal. The plan contains no explanation of why the area was expanded. If approved by the City Council, which, at the time of this writing, will be asked to vote on this matter on Aug. 15, this plan will have a major impact on Louisville — not only on the city's tax structure, but also the taxes of the Boulder Valley School District, Boulder County and the Louisville fire district — for the next 25 years. We have the following concerns about this plan: There is nothing in the plan requiring a net positive return on project investments, i.e., developer subsidies. Nor is the commission required to assess the need for developer subsidies. Because of the impending commuter rail stop, it is widely believed land in the Highway 42 area will be ripe for development. If so, why should developers' pockets be lined with taxpayers' money? The commission is, by law, an autonomous body with minimum oversight by Louisville's elected officials. This means major development and financial decisions would be made by people other than those we have elected. It seems unfair to subsidize a commercial area that would be in direct competition with existing downtown businesses. The intent of such an urban renewal plan is to create one or several Tax Incremental Financing districts from which all increases in tax revenue (city, county, Boulder Valley School District and fire district) taxes could be used to fund bonds to "encourage development." At the same time they are giving up our tax funds, these entities will be required to provide services to the area as it develops. (It should be noted the state may replace all, or some of, the funds lost by the school district). The plan does not include any details or examples as to what TIF projects might be created, what development will be sought, or what incentives will be offered. It seems clear that few of the members of the City Council have been adequately informed as to the full import of this proposed plan, or of its consequences on Louisville over the next 25 years. We only have to look to Superior to see the potential consequences of using urban renewal as an economic development tool where it was used to develop the Superior Market Place. Despite the huge increase in sales tax that resulted, urban renewal bonds and money given to developers consumes more than 75 percent of the town's sales tax revenues. Superior now says it does not have a tax base to build a library or adequately support their residents' use of Louisville's. Rightly or wrongly there are serious public perceptions of unrevealed agendas connected to this plan. We note that the plan now includes the "Pow Wow" grounds (undeveloped land east of King Soopers) for which the city already has been presented a private-sector development plan. Clearly, no incentive for development of that property is required. We are left with the perception that either such inclusion is there to move lots of TIF funds to the developer, or to capture any tax increments on that property per result of development into the TIF funding plan. Our view is that both of those reasons are disingenuous. One reason put forward by proponents of the plan is that it will allow coordinated development of the defined area(s) including development of infrastructure. We believe that the present Louisville government is already adequately structured to provide such coordination. Of course, what is missing without the urban renewal plan are the millions of taxpayer dollars TIF funding would take away from existing tax entities to fund developers. We strongly urge that the above issues be addressed and that the City Council be given the time and information critical to making an informed decision on this urban renewal plan before even considering its approval. There is no need to be hasty. John Leary is a former member of the Louisville City Council. This also was signed by former council member Susan Morris, resident Don Atwood and former state Sen. Terry Phillips. Email to Councilmembers Dave Clabots and Bob Muckle (Oct 20, 2006): Dave and Bob: The urban renewal plan/authority. The more I hear about urban renewal the less convinced I am that it either is necessary or prudent, particularly when combined with TIF financing. I think both of you heard that from the gathered last night. Note that *there was no one* who appeared to have any heartburn over a delay of [24] months before Hwy 42 properties could be included in another URP. I think the urgency we are led to believe exists over Hwy 42 redevelopment is a manufactured one. Incidentally, Bob said (based on [City Attorney Sam Light's] initial legal research from Oct 3) that there couldn't be an election for two years (Nov 1998) to transfer the URA powers to the Council. I don't think Sam had the benefit of the attached Supreme Court case, which makes it fairly clear that Nov 2007 is a regular general election for purposes of urban renewal--i.e., everyone who is potentially affected by the transfer would be entitled to vote at a regularly scheduled "general" election in Nov 2007. But I'm not sure this community should wait a year before it takes action. As an initial matter, unless there is a fiscal analysis done by the City to protect itself and to give the Council and the community some guidance about the financial impact of the URP and TIF, I will oppose the URP. Here's the critical question on urban renewal: Will Hwy 42 redevelop as the City wants it to redevelop *without* a URP/URA and, specifically, without the use of TIF/public dollars? What Bob said last night was true: the only "tool" that the City does not currently have to shape redevelopment along Hwy 42 is TIF financing. But, as the URP is proposed, it's a double-edged tool because I believe a neutral and competent fiscal analysis would show TIF financing would harm the city as much as it might advance the goals of the LRC, whatever they are (the URP is hopelessly vague). [Two-year] wait for UR or no, *nothing* prevents Hwy 42 from being redeveloped conventionally, with the Planning Comm'n and City ensuring that it is done according to the community's wishes. Ty Gee |
| | Home | |