The potential for abusing blight designation
As noted before, the sole function of an urban renewal authority, such as the Louisville Revitalization Commission, is to prevent and remedy blight.

Blight is defined by state law as an area that "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." Colo. Rev. Stats. § 31-25-103(2). Blight cannot be found unless at least four of these factors exist:
(a) Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;

(b) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout;

(c) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;

(d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions;

(e) Deterioration of site or other improvements;

(f) Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities;

(g) Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title nonmarketable;

(h) The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes;

(i) Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code violations, dilapidation, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities;

(j) Environmental contamination of buildings or property;

(k) The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements; or

(l) [If any one of the above factors exists and the property owner does not object to a blight designation of her land.]

It takes no imagination to see that finding four factors can be challenging or exceedingly easy depending on each person's" strict" or "generous" view of, for example, what area has "slum," "deteriorating" or "unsafe" conditions, or whether an area has "inadequate street layout" or "unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities." As Boulder County noted in objecting to the City's blight designation, "[w]e have maintained for years that the Urban Renewal statute is overly-broad in reference to 'blight designation.'"

A municipality has virtual carte blanche in determining what constitutes "blight," and what areas to include as part of a "blighted area" that is (a) subject to the municipality's urban renewal plan, and (b) under the extraordinary jurisdiction and powers of an urban renewal authority charged with carrying out the plan. For example, under a theory of "preventing" blight, a municipality may include as part of a blighted area land and buildings that are not blight. See the court case of Tracy v. City of Boulder, 635 P.2d 907, 909-10 (Colo. Ct. App. 1981) ("Council's determination as to whether an area is blighted, when such determination relates to the need for an ordinance, is a legislative question and the scope of review by the judiciary is restricted.... The definition of blighted area contained in s 31-25-103(2)...is broad and encompasses not only those areas containing properties so dilapidated as to justify condemnation as nuisances, but also envisions the prevention of deterioration. The absence of widespread violations of building and health ordinances does not of itself establish arbitrariness on the part of the City Council.")

There are financial and other improper incentives and motives for a municipality to take a generous--perhaps even an abusively generous--view of what is "blighted" for the purpose of enlarging a blighted area and encompassing land and property that (a) are not blighted, and (b) are or will be producing significant income for the owners and tax revenue for the municipality and other governmental subdivisions.
| Home | | About Us || Contact Us || Disclaimer |