People stroll through the shops and stores, July 15, along Washington Avenue in Downtown Golden. Golden’s downtown has bloomed into a destination with shopping and dining options which was helped from the revitalization caused by the Golden Urban Renewal Authority. (Brent Lewis, The Denver Post)
Re: “Urban renewal backlash gains strength across Colorado,” July 19 news story.
We appreciated John Aguilar’s article in last Sunday’s Post about urban renewal. As mentioned in the article, “reformers” of urban renewal are focused on different aspects of the tool. From our standpoint, a commonality among all reformers is a desire for greater say, public participation and accountability for all levels of government whose tax dollars support the project.
Urban renewal is an extraordinarily powerful tool. It is a tool counties and special districts believe should be used in truly blighted circumstances that cannot thrive without taxpayer support.
We believe that last year’s legislative efforts went a long way in enhancing public participation and governmental accountability in this important tool. By granting locally elected county, special district and school officials a participatory role on urban renewal boards and the ability to determine the level of financial support they can invest while still meeting the service expectations of residents, urban renewal projects are positioned to garner greater public support and community buy-in going forward.
John (Chip) Taylor, Denver
Ann Terry, Denver
John (Chip) Taylor is executive director of Colorado Counties, Inc. Ann Terry is executive director of the Special District Association of Colorado.
This letter was published in the July 26 edition.There are dozens of cities and towns throughout the state which have established urban renewal authorities, and have done so over a long period of time with a great deal of public involvement and participation. Just this month, the Pueblo City Council established an urban renewal area for a part of the city whose citizens actively asked for help. At the council meeting, citizens gave the council a round of applause. Imagine that, solving a problem for a group of citizens using the tool of urban renewal. It seems to me that in spite of the headline, it is indeed a law that has not only stood the test of time, but remains a very good fit for communities throughout this state.
Sam Mamet, Denver
The writer is executive director of the Colorado Municipal League.
This letter was published in the July 26 edition.Your article on urban renewal described tax increment financing (TIF) as “additional revenues from future development at a site used to pay for the installation of roads and utilities at the outset.”
This description perpetuates misconceptions about how TIF works. All property taxes in the TIF district in excess of their levels prior to development are diverted from their intended use — schools, libraries, roads, fire protection, etc. — to the development authority, often for 25 years or more.
The resulting shortfall in services can result in future tax increases, paid not just by those in the renewal district, but by all county taxpayers.
If these urban renewal districts were limited to areas of true “blight,” they would be far less controversial. But they are often used as pure subsidies to attract more desirable development.
Enough! The legislature should act to prevent misuse of this deceptive tax scheme.
Tom Atkins, Golden
This letter was published in the July 26 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
