On the corner of Monaco Parkway and Evans Avenue in Denver sits an absurdly expansive parking lot serving a former big-box department store building that has been vacant for years and can only now be described as an eyesore.
But itap not the state of the commercial property that is disquieting.
Itap the potential and not-so-veiled threat that the city of Denver could condemn such a property under eminent domain laws, force a sale at market prices and give the land to someone else to redevelop. Colorado has tightened its eminent domain laws somewhat to make taking land in the name of public good — but to really do so to enable for private redevelopment — quite difficult to do.
And yet, the threat still crops up from time to time.
The city of Glendale threatened to push out owners of a rug store that stood between a private developer and prime real-estate frontage to Colorado Boulevard for a city-sponsored, 42-acre, $175 million retail and entertainment complex.
Always the champion of the curmudgeon raining on the parade — think of the protagonist in Disney’s “Up” — itap been enjoyable to watch the rug dealer thwart the plans of a city and private developer.
Thatap why I found about the potential use of eminent domain on the Monaco and Evans property worthy of a column.
In Kenney’s report, City Councilwoman Kendra Black expressed her frustration at being unable to find a workable solution so far, given the owner’s refusal to sell — in part due to a long-term lease held by Sears and Kmart. And then she mentioned the possibility of getting the property declared blighted and using eminent domain.
When challenged about that prospect this week, Black backed away.
“I am also opposed to that,” Black assured me as we discussed the very real negative impact the property is having in her district. “That said. It is blighted, and if itap blighted then we could possibly, when we do future development, use tax-increment financing.”
Tax-increment financing allows a city to funnel tax revenue generated by the redevelopment back to the property owner, a significant financial incentive intended to offset the heavy costs of urban infill or brownfield redevelopment that had historically pushed developers to cheaper land in the suburbs. Today the incentive is used by almost every city for any kind of development, and getting land declared blighted to qualify can be a joke.
Imagine my surprise that the vacant Kmart didn’t meet the definition of blight the first time the city considered it.
Black is right to be putting pressure on the landowners for something to happen in the area, but everyone should be concerned about the looming threat of eminent domain in the name of private economic development. The very possibility of such an endeavor has the blessing of the U.S. Supreme Court from the infamous ruling in Kelo vs. City of New London in 2005. Some states have subsequently shut down the possibility of such a dubious venture. In Colorado, the door clearly remains cracked, although the political fallout of exercising such an option would likely be intense.
As long as a property owner is paying taxes and not accruing unpaid code violation fines, it’s hard to imagine a scenario, no matter how blighted the land, where eminent domain could be justified in the name of redevelopment.
Colorado needs to take a long, hard look at its blight laws and consider whether such a subjective designation should be tied to the ability to use eminent domain.
Everyone would love to see improvements at the property in question, and Black is doing good work pursuing options, but one of those options should not be a taking in the name of “public good.”
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by email or mail.
