Greenfield land is undeveloped land in a city or rural area either used for agriculture or landscape design, or left to evolve naturally. These areas of land are usually agricultural or amenity properties being considered for urban development…
— from Wikipedia
Two days ago, I visited with a number of business owners in our historic downtown business district. I was curious whether the people currently promoting an “Urban Renewal Authority” proposal for subsidizing private development on 27 acres adjacent to the Springs Resort — namely, The Springs Resort’s managing partner David Dronet, and developer and philanthropist Jack Searle — were actively meeting with downtown business owners to help them understand the subsidy program and possibly win their support.
We can assume that the development of a vast tract of vacant land, on the opposite side of the San Juan River, would have a substantial impact on the vitality of our core business district — either directly or indirectly. Probably a mix of positive and negative effects?
Only one, of the downtown business owners I spoke with, had been contacted by the developers.
I’ve also had a chance to speak with several of the Pagosa Springs Town Council members, face-to-face, and I’m left with the impression that we all have a lot to learn about Colorado’s Urban Renewal Law — and about how it might be used to bring about special treatment for special interests, as opposed to general benefits for the entire community.
Typically, when elected officials are approached to provide some policy change or funding stream that will benefit this or that developer or organization, the elected officials are presented with information, and justifications, by the party asking for the special treatment. It’s rare — in my experience — that elected officials hear from the general community, from the taxpaying public… because… well, we’re busy with other things, and maybe afraid to speak out, and besides maybe it’s none of our business if somebody else is getting a sweet deal.
Or maybe the general public never had a chance to hear all sides of the issue?
My aim, in writing about the proposal Urban Renewal Authority here in the Daily Post, has been to better understand the proposal and its possible effects, and to provide our readers with facts and opinions they’re not likely to hear from the attorneys and consultants representing the developers.
Here are some of the questions I’ve been researching.
1. Was the Colorado Urban Renewal Law intended to be used to help fund the development of vacant land, where no urban blight has ever existed?
If you listen to consulting attorney Paul Benedetti, hired to represent the Springs Resort, you might get the impression that numerous Colorado cities and towns have used ‘Urban Renewal Authorities’ to subsidize ‘greenfield’ development — development of land where no infrastructure has ever existed. If you read the actual Colorado law, however (you can download the law here) you will not find any indications that the Colorado legislature intended the law to be used in this manner. In particular, there’s no indication that the law was intended to promote ‘economic development’ where no blight exists.
It’s not unusual for a municipal government to interpret laws in unexpected ways, to accomplish certain goals — even where no “serious and growing menace” exists — but the fact that other cities and towns may have abused the Urban Renewal Law doesn’t mean that the Town of Pagosa Springs ought to do the same thing.
In my experience, our local elected and appointed officials often prefer to take the word of “expert” consulting attorneys rather than take the time to read and understand the laws they are legally required to follow. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen in this case.
2. Should the Town Council treat its citizens fairly? What does fairness mean?
The folks arguing in favor of a new Urban Renewal Authority claim that the tax increment financing on the vacant 27 acres will be used to reimburse the developers for improvements (streets, water and sewer lines, electrical, etc.) The proponents also claim that the development is not financially feasible unless these tax subsidies are created. No net loss of taxes would take place, because without the tax subsidies, there would be no development and thus no taxes collected.
You can, of course, make the same argument for every single business that has ever opened in Pagosa Springs, and for every single subdivision that’s been created, and for every single home that’s been built. We expect homeowners and owners of businesses — everyone, really — to help support our government operations through the payment of sales and property taxes.
When social and economic factors have led to the development of slums and blight — to a situation where people are living and working in unsafe conditions, thus creating a strain on municipal and county services — we might decide that the application of tax subsidies is appropriate. And Colorado’s Urban Renewal Law was written expressly to facilitate those types of subsidies.
But to pick one particular development partnership, and offer to reimburse their development costs with tax subsidies — just because they claim they cannot start or expand their business without government subsidies? That would be utterly unfair to the rest of the community’s businesses.
3. Shouldn’t the Town Council focus on our most serious economic problems?
We have a couple of very serious economic problems in Archuleta County, and to date, our Town government has done nothing significant to address them. The two problems appear to be closely related.
Employers are struggling to find and retain qualified workers.
Employees are struggling to find safe and affordable housing.
Without housing, workers cannot live here. Without workers, our businesses cannot survive.
The Urban Renewal proposal that is currently being promoted to the Town Council would make both of these problems worse. It would create even more low-wage jobs, and a demand for still more affordable housing, without doing anything to address either of these issues. As far as I can tell, the very best use for 27 acres of expensive vacant property — in our current economic situation — is to leave it perfectly vacant until we’ve seriously addressed our serious problems.
3. Can we all work together?
Rather than allowing the San Juan River to become a dividing line through the downtown community — with the businesses south of the river getting potentially massive tax subsidies, and those north of the river getting nothing — I’d like to see the Town Council come up with a win-win method of addressing our serious economic problems.