ArvadaforAllthePeople

The Arvada Report Propaganda on Urban Renewal

Purposefully one-sided information that leaves out important facts, details and news: propaganda.

It should be of great concern to Arvadans that propaganda, especially put out by the government, is making a travesty of the American notion of "government of the people, by the people and for the people."

As has been well documented here on the Arvada for All the People website, there has been quite a good deal of controversy surrounding the activities of the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority (AURA). From the $6 million tax handout to Walmart/IRG; to the $3.4 million tax give-away and $10 land deal for Park Place Olde Town (PPOT); to the $7.2 million subsidy for the 350 unit, 18 building Solana apartment complex; to the 85 percent land discount and the tax rebate for the Hilton developer -- the Urban Renewal agency has raised the justified attention of Arvada citizens.

Yet, The Arvada Report for June/July 2015, in an article titled "The Many Positives of Urban Renewal", -- paid for by your tax dollars -- finds the government presenting only a very biased, very one-sided recitation of Urban Renewal's so-called "positives".

Not one word about the millions and millions of tax dollar give-away deals; not one word about the millions and millions of dollars in sweetheart land deals for private, for-profit developers; not a word about the subversion of the real estate free market by AURA. Indeed, one can reasonably surmise that it is exactly because of the recent controversies about Urban Renewal that this 'report' in an official publication of the government appears at all. In a word: propaganda ... and you are its intended target.

In a genuinely responsible, truly citizen-oriented publication from city government, there would at least be some recognition that there are Arvada residents and taxpayers who have a differing point of view. Public knowledge and discourse is not furthered by only giving one side, the government's side, of an especially contentious issue. In a republic, the people are sovereign -- it should never be acceptable that we, the people, should be the object of government propaganda. Yet, that is precisely what we get in the latest edition of The Arvada Report.

Arvada for All the People has drafted an 'Action Agenda for Arvada' that proposes concrete and positive changes that will enhance representative government in our city, make City Hall more accountable to us and reenforces the concept of sovereignty of the people. Under the heading City Hall for All Citizens is this proposal:

✭ Open up the Arvada Report, KATV and Arvada.org to diverse citizens’ viewpoints; end one-sided city government propaganda.

Arvada does not belong just to the city council or to the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority -- this is our community, these are our neighborhoods, these are local small businesses that we depend upon for goods, services and jobs -- it is time for changes at city hall that put we, the people, back in charge.

A Solid Step Towards Urban Renewal Reform

The abuses of urban renewal authorities are getting noticed and action is being taken.

A successful citizen-initiated petition and election in Littleton has reined-in their Urban Renewal Authority. Now, Wheat Ridge citizens are beginning a citizens' initiative to limit the use of tax increment financing (TIF), a favorite tax-give away tool of urban renewal schemes.

The Arvada Urban Renewal Authority (AURA) has been engaged in brazen land and tax give-aways to private, for-profit developers in our city -- documented in detail here on this website. Reform is desperately needed in Arvada and Arvada for ALL the People is dedicated to bringing constructive change to urban renewal here in our community.

Hickenlooper signs urban-renewal reform despite threats of stalled projects | Ed Sealover/Denver Business Journal-May 29, 2015

Gov. John Hickenlooper on Friday signed into law Colorado's most significant piece of urban-renewal reform in recent memory, choosing to back a bipartisan measure over objections from city leaders and one urban-renewal financier who warned that the new law will bring some high-profile projects to a screeching halt.

A throng of county, special-district and school-district leaders gathered around the Democratic governor in his office as his signature on House Bill 1348 — sponsored by House Speaker Dickey Lee Hullinghorst, D-Gunbarrel, and Rep. Polly Lawrence, R-Roxborough Park — ended a frenzied three-week push to block the measure, a result that city and business leaders achieved when Hickenlooper vetoed a separate urban-renewal effort last year. ...

This year’s version, which came together through intense negotiations in the final week of the Legislature's session, contains no such formula. Instead, it gives non-city entities such as counties and special districts three voting seats on 13-member urban renewal authorities that are put together largely by municipal officials.

And it requires that if cities and counties can’t agree on how much of the county’s future property-tax revenue and city’s future sales-tax revenue should be allocated to the renewal project, a third-party mediator will make a determination, forcing cities to accept the outcome or re-start negotiations.

The measure is intended to address complaints from counties that believe they lose too much of their property-tax revenues in such urban-renewal deals without having a say in the matter. ...

 

Failing Historic Olde Town Arvada

Arvada Urban Renewal and City Council are Arrogant and/or Incompetent

There is little more undemocratic than government that doesn’t even follow the rules and guidelines it sets out for itself.

How are citizens to hold government accountable if regulations and standards are applied arbitrarily, if a small group of ‘insiders’ can decide they may ignore ‘Design Guidelines’ (in this case) in order to make a real estate deal. What we are witnessing is a failure of responsible government and a failure to preserve what has been so special and unique about Arvada's Olde Town.

It’s official name is Park Place Olde Town, but it is colloquially know among residents as PPOT … or PeePOT. The five story, 153 unit, high-density apartment building on the southwest corner of Wadsworth Bypass and Ralston Road is an Arvada Urban Renewal project — like the planned Walmart in the Arvada Plaza, the proposed Hilton Hotel, and the impending Solana 350 unit, 18 building apartment complex between Grandview and 56th Avenue east of Wadsworth (each to receive millions and millions of taxpayer dollars as subsidies).

The deal Arvada Urban Renewal made with PPOT private developer, Goldberg Properties, is costing the taxpayers $3.4 million in land and tax give-aways (part of the land, valued at about $550,000 was sold to the developer for a whopping $10.00) — more Arvada Urban Renewal subversion of the free market.

For those who moved to Arvada for its small town values, for its family-friendly suburban character, for its more relaxed, safer and cleaner atmosphere — Arvada Urban Renewal Authority (AURA) and the current Arvada city council are on a crusade to change all of that — the goal is now high density residential. Ostensibly, the reason for this is the opening of RTD’s Gold Line commuter railroad next year, apparently these two governmental bodies are convinced that once the train arrives, everyone will be working and recreating in downtown Denver, so the need for cars will mostly disappear.

Yes, Arvada Urban Renewal and the city council are basically trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.

Here are two photographs of PPOT taken just a few days ago (late May 2015).

The crux of this failure by AURA and the city planning administration is evident in their own guidelines and how they have ignored them for the PPOT project. [PDF: Design Guidelines Olde Town -  Subdistrict E] Here they are accompanied by Save Arvada Now analysis:

Vision Statement
The East Area is one that is transformed with a moderately higher density that is primarily residential. Some commercial and institutional facilities occur as accents in the neighborhood. Buildings are designed to face onto Mcllvoy Park or to overlook Wadsworth Bypass. This serves as a signature edge to Olde Town, presenting an attractive appearance at its entry. Sidewalks are comfortably wide, and buildings at street level provide visual interest to pedestrians. Most have small yards, stoops and porches that provide visual interest. Buildings are taller; however, two-story facades are located along McIlvoy Park. Facades have variations in materials, offsets and other designs which express the scale of traditional buildings. There is a sense of visual continuity in architectural materials and forms, with respect to Olde Town in general, yet these features are combined in new, innovative designs that reflect the present.

Goals

1. Establish a predominantly residential neighborhood. Also, allow limited service-oriented businesses and office use in a large scale residential complex.

FAILED!  No commercial/retail at PPOT, just rental apartments.

2. Provide pedestrian-friendly sidewalks along the street and park.

FAILED!  Only by giving away part of Arvada's first park to the developer. The park was given to the “public" - not the city council

3. Provide a mix of smaller courtyards and plazas linked to the sidewalk and park. 

FAILED! PPOT is one complex; there are no courtyards being built at ground level. The open areas available are interior and not accessible to the public.

4. Provide areas of on-street parking to buffer pedestrians from traffic. 

FAILED! No on-street parking for PPOT. The complex allows only 1.2 auto spaces per unit, not enough, considering that the renters will need to drive somewhere for groceries, healthcare, day-care, dry-cleaning, etc.

5. Minimize the visual impacts of parking from the street. 

FAILED! The outdoor parking lot is at the entrance to Olde Town between the building and Wadsworth; certainly not minimized.

6. Provide residential entries near street level. 

FAILED! Only for a very small percentage of the units is this being met and only by giving away park land for private use; land donated to the public by Mrs. Clemency McIlvoy

7. Provide varied building heights in large projects. 

FAILED! This is a single 5-story building, one huge rectangle.

8. Provide a two-story building edge adjacent to historic buildings and Mcllvoy Park. 

FAILED! The building is 5-stories from end-to-end along historic McIlvoy Park. There is no "2-story" edge.

9. Limit the length and widths of buildings to reflect the mass and scale of traditional buildings within the Olde Town area. 

FAILED! As is evident from the now existing structure itself, this building overwhelms Olde Town.

10. Preserve historic structures. 

FAILED! The unique historic Arvada Masonic Lodge (eligible for the National Register) was destroyed for this project.

11. Provide landscaped open space in large developments.

FAILED! There is no open space anywhere near PPOT, except McIlvoy Park, donated to the citizens of Arvada in 1919, not to government.

There is more on the drawing board — the urbanization of central Arvada is just beginning if Arvada Urban Renewal and the present city council get their way. The PPOT project is an indication that they will defy their own rules and guidelines if that is necessary to achieve their high-density residential goals.

Or, of course, we could change-out this current crop of politicians and bureaucrats … in this November’s election.

Urban Renewal's Bad Deal for Arvada

UPDATE!

Sign the Change.org petition to Hilton developer Renascent asking them to reject Arvada taxpayer subsidies for this project.

Petitioning Renascent Hospitality
Refuse Taxpayer Subsidies for Arvada Hilton

* * *

Published in the print edition of YourHub/Denver Post for Arvada, Wheat Ridge, Westminster, Thursday, May 21, 2015

Hilton Hotel Scheme is a Bad Deal for Arvada Taxpayers

by Dave Chandler

There are four big reasons why the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority's (AURA) scheme to build a Hilton Hotel in Olde Town is a bad deal for this city's citizens.

First, there is the sweetheart land deal. Government-owned property that AURA has valued at $3.2 million is to be sold to the hotel developer for only $500,000 – an 85 percent discount! That means this deal is about politics, because this is surely not free enterprise.

Second, AURA gives the developer a tax kick-back (TIF) that shifts to the hotel the 2% lodging tax which should go to streets, parks, and other city services. AURA takes for itself property taxes that should go to schools. This is a subversion of the will of Arvada's citizens – no one likes to pay taxes, but we certainly want the taxes that are paid to go exactly for the things they are supposed to go to, not to subsidize a for-profit corporation.

Third, the hotel is going to charge a private tax. AURA estimates that the Hilton developer is short $5.5 million for the project. In the real world of free enterprise that would mean that the market is not ready for a venture like this. But here in Arvada, the government is distorting the market. To make the deal work, the developer gets a sweet land deal; a tax kick-back; and the hotel is going to levy a “property improvement fee” or “PIF” of 6% on all rooms, or as AURA, itself, puts it “effectively bringing the lodging tax to 8%.”

Finally, this government-Hilton partnership is anti-competitive. If in the near future a marketplace demand for lodging does arise and another hotel company wants to locate in Arvada within three miles of this project and wants some incentives, too (ie., equal treatment), then AURA has to pay up to $200,000 as a penalty – to Hilton! A great deal for Hilton, not so much for the Arvada taxpayer or a hotel competitor.

It might be nice if there were a family-friendly hotel in Arvada, but it ought to locate here because the marketplace demands it, because of free enterprise, and because a business is willing to take the risk – that is the American way. 'Insider' government deals like this are not an example of Arvada values; maybe it is time for a change at City Hall.

Out of Order: Arvada City Council and the Design Review Committee

Legal vs. Ethical

by Cindi Kreutzer

In the previous chapter of the Design Review Committee (DRC) saga, we were left with city council voting to indefinitely table the re-appointment of Roger Drienka until an investigation could take place.

Since then, I have advised the entire council that I would be available to answer questions and that I had recorded the portion of the DRC meeting in question. After not hearing from anyone, I made the recording available to the public on-line. I then heard from two council members who had listened to the audio. One expressed concern for the general tone of the conversation and the other commented that he couldn't tell who was saying what. To which I responded that it really didn't matter who said what.

Well, NEWS FLASH! Once again, at least four members of Arvada City Council have completely failed their constituents. Mayor Pro-Tem McGoff and two others were absent from the previous council meeting, when it was decided to table the issue. Yet at this week's council meeting, Mr. McGoff moved to re-appoint the same committee member without ever speaking to the only outside party that witnessed the questionable conversation. He was NOT one of the two who actually contacted me.

My concerns have always been about both the individual committee member and the overall attitude of entitlement demonstrated by the entire committee. The City Manager and City Attorney did their part by promising to "re-train" members and have an Assistant City Attorney present at all meetings. But appointing and re-appointing members to the committee is the responsibility of city council. In order to fully investigate, they needed to see the entire picture, including contacting me and reviewing the recording of the conversation. Instead, they just approved the motion by 4-2 with Council member Marriott abstaining. Just a side note; this issue was NOT on the city council meeting agenda for last night.

Was the procedure followed by city council legal? I don't know, but technically, probably so. As I see it, the real question is; was it ethical? Here are the facts, you decide:

1. City council tabled the issue until an investigation could take place. But no written or verbal report of a city council investigation has ever been made public.
2. A member of council, Mayor Pro-Tem McGoff, was absent from the first council meeting yet made a motion to go forward at the most recent meeting.
3. Only two of seven council members contacted me about this issue.
4. Last night Mr. McGoff's motion to re-appoint Roger Drienka was approved 4-2.
5. This issue was not on the meeting agenda and the motion was made AFTER public comments had been closed, giving no option for public input.

Make no mistake, had they each done their job by investigating properly, the outcome may have been the same. But at least the citizens of Arvada could be confident that they had all the necessary facts available to make a well informed decision. It seems to me that the attitude of entitlement demonstrated by the DRC is the one element they received very thorough training on, directly from Arvada City Council.

* * *

Travesty

by Nancy Young

The elected Arvada City Council committed a travesty on its citizens at the meeting of Monday, May 18, 2015! They reappointed a member of the Olde Town Design Review Committee (DRC)  who is supposedly under investigation by City officials for a conflict of interest.

After the major business items were addressed, and AFTER the 5-minute public comment session, Council member Mark McGoff introduced a topic that was NOT on the agenda: the controversial reappointment. The original consideration of this reappointment was postponed for three reasons:

1. A number of citizens were concerned about this person and his conflict of interest in a matter considered by the DRC;
2. The investigation of the matter by City Manager Deven, City Attorney Daly, and Director of Community Development McConnell, was apparently still underway; and
3. Only four Council members were present. Given the serious nature of this conflict of interest, the Council felt it would be more appropriate to reconsider the reappointment when all Council members were present.

No mention was made during the discussion this evening about the final result of the investigation. No report, to the best of my knowledge, has been issued.

Council member John Marriott asked to be recused from the meeting. He rents property to the daughter of the controversial DRC member and his wife has worked at that person’s business. The motion to recuse was approved, and Mr. Marriott left the room.

Council members Bob Dyer and Bob Fifer voted against Mr. McGoff’s motion. Council member Allard noted that the entire Design Review Committee, not just one individual, supported the conflict of interest. All members of the DRC need to be reviewed. Council member Dyer made no comment.

Is the Arvada City Council trying to “sweep it under the rug”? Are OUR ELECTED officials ignoring public concern about one impropriety because it will open the door to revelation of many, many more such issues?

Now City Council Secrecy in the Drafting of New Laws?

UPDATE!

Legal mumbo-jumbo -- let's call it what it is.

Arvada for ALL the People member, Cindi Kreutzer, sent Arvada city attorney Chris Daly an inquiry about the 'executive session' the council wants to hold this evening to discuss options for drafting a construction defects ordinance. And the reply ...

* * *

Dear Mr. Daly,

I see from the current meeting Agenda that the Construction Defects Law is
the topic of an Executive Session this week. I appreciate that the specific
subject was detailed in the agenda.

Could you please give me a general idea how this issue is subject to
Executive Session?

As always, thank you for your help.

Cindi Kreutzer

* * *

Hi Cindi:

The communications between an attorney and a client has long been held to
be protected by the attorney-client privilege. This privilege is just as
applicable in a municipal law context as it is in any other area of the
law.

As you know, the Open Meetings Law provides specific authority for the
provision of legal advice during an executive session. The City Attorney's
Office provides Council with legal advice in an executive session when it
is likely that members of City Council will have questions about a legal
interpretation of the law.

To provide public responses to City Council's questions may put the City at
risk, depending upon what City Council ultimately decides to do. Such is
the case with the topic of construction defect legislation.

Thank you for your inquiry.

Chris

* * *

We, the people, have a right to know how any proposed legislation might "put the City at risk."

WE are the City.

It is antithetical to the very concept of a small-'r' republican form of government for a legislative body like the city council to discuss a potential new law in secret. No legalese explanation can overcome that basic principle of representative government -- the citizens of this city have a right to be a part of the deliberative process -- we should not be excluded!

* * *

Take a look at the image below and see what is on the Arvada city council agenda for Monday, May 18, 2015. They start as usual with a secret meeting.

The closed meeting this time concerns the formulation of an ordinance, a local law.

The just concluded session of the Colorado legislature didn't pass a new law to allegedly 'remedy' the construction defects situation (the contention that the ease of homeowners suing builders for structural defects is slowing construction of some types of housing units). There are Arvada city council members who have been talking about passing their own solution -- as Lakewood has, for instance. [Lakewood passes measure, takes on Colorado's construction-defects law - Denver Post; October 14, 2014]

This city council rarely has open discussions and/or debates at regular meetings. They have workshops where canned presentations are given and some minimal, stilted discourse is offered. But ideas, opinions, information to explore issues or possible proposals ... we just don't see that at Arvada council meetings. Usually all we get are a few utterances as part of the official public hearing process just before the usual 7-0 final vote.

If this council wants to come-up with a construction defects work-around law for Arvada, they ought to do ALL of it in the open in front of us, the citizens of this city. We should be able to hear each council member tell us their ideas, let us know how informed they are on the issue, explain their thinking, etc., after all they are our representatives and we all have to live under the consequences of the local laws they pass.

From the very little information given to us in the agenda, this 'Executive Session' seems to be clearly outside the spirit if not the letter of the Open Meetings law.

"Ask Arvada" ... Ask What?

Published in the print edition of YourHub/Denver Post for Arvada, Westminster, Wheat Ridge on Thursday, May 14, 2015

“Ask Arvada” a calculated failure | Stan Dyer/YourHub-May 14, 2015

With abundant rains this Spring, and the resultant proliferation of grasses and
weeds, many Arvada residents are rediscovering the city’s “Ask Arvada” program as citations from code enforcement arrive in the mail. “Ask Arvada” is a page on the city’s website that allows citizens to make compliments, ask questions, express concerns, and, of course, register complaints. In theory, it sounds like a good idea, but, in practice, the program is a failure, and a “calculated” failure at that. It is a failure because hundreds of “service requests” go unanswered every year, and a calculated failure because it appears to be “planned” to happen that way all along.

Citizens using the website fill out service requests that are supposedly sent to the appropriate people in the appropriate departments. These requests will be time stamped once entered, and a time frame noted for a city response. That is failure number one because the time stamps are often meaningless. Hundreds of these service requests are being time stamped, and labeled as “resolved” immediately upon submission. Then, they are never addressed, even though it would appear they had been. Despite all of these “ignored” requests being reports of legitimate violations and concerns, they, for some reason, do not merit consideration by the city, not even to decline them. These include service requests sent directly to the Mayor, and the City Council. Of course, the Mayor and the City Council do not address service requests themselves, but the people assigned to do that work for them, are purposely dropping the ball. They are picking and choosing which

 to address, and which to ignore with little more basis for judgment than their own arbitrary feelings, and sentiments on the matter – not a good way to run a city.

The second failure of the system comes from the city’s policy in regard to code 

enforcement as being “reactive,” instead of “proactive.” What that means is, 

by city policy, code agents generally overlook violations instead of acting on them until someone, some citizen, makes the effort to report the violation. And, then, if the city does respond, they will respond only to that particular violation, even if other, obvious violations are visible nearby. Code officers are trained to turn a blind eye to unreported violations, but they might make an exception if they know you, but don’t like you, or they think they don’t like you.

The third, and probably greatest failure of this system is that the city does not enforce code on itself. Even as they are responding to code violations on citizens throughout the city, the city’s own properties remain unkempt with weeds at excessive heights, branches hanging too low over sidewalks, and branches hanging too low over the streets. I have actually seen a situation where the branches were hanging so low over the street alongside city property that no vehicle could park under that tree without having branches hang on the windshield. Selective non-enforcement of code would seem to apply to “favored” citizens as well. For one, the branches around the office building where the mayor has his law practice have been hanging too low over the sidewalk, and over the street for years. Despite being reported numerous times, the problem has never been adjusted to be in compliance with code, and, apparently, never will be.

The saddest part about all of this for me is the way these failures seem to represent the city’s general attitude toward its citizens. To me, “Ask Arvada” perfectly reflects the way the city wants to create “appearances.” They want to appear to be concerned, appear to promote good communication, and appear to provide responsive government, but the conviction seldom goes beyond appearances. No matter how it may look from the outside, it is not responsive government to routinely disregard any service requests. It is not responsive government to claim to be “reactive” instead of “proactive,” but never to do either with fair and even consistency. And, it is not responsive government when the city, by its actions, reveals it does not feel obligated to abide by its own code. This is not responsive government at all. This is little more than “selective enforcement,” which is just a nice way of saying “prejudiced enforcement,” not unlike the kind that is getting other cities, (including Denver), in some big trouble.

If you use “Ask Arvada,” and you get results, consider yourself lucky, but don’t go to the well too often. If you do, you may soon find yourself just as ignored as others who have tried to be actively involved in their community in the past. The city doesn’t really want your input, or help as much as they want you to “feel” that they do. The city already has plans, already has ideas, and already thinks it can do a better job without your input. “Ask Arvada” is just a calculated failure, a dead end, to make citizens think they are being listened to, to think they have a voice in their community, and to think their city cares. The reality, however, is uneven application of the law steeped in favoritism, cronyism, and bias; a reality that is rapidly becoming an identifiable Arvada trademark.

ALL the People Factor Helps Arvada Businesses Stay Open

Imagine an Arvada city council that respects free enterprise, the rights of individuals, listens, and compromises for the good of the community all of the time!

Efforts of local vape businesses, their customers, and Arvada for ALL the People sent a powerful message to this city's citizens at the council meeting of Monday, May 4, 2015: change is possible -- a better city council can be elected.

At issue was a proposed ordinance that would have regulated vaping (e-cigarettes, related accessories/supplies and vape retailers) exactly like tobacco. [Arvada Ordinance 07.B.05. CB15-017]  These devices produce a flavored vapor (which may or may not contain nicotine) that an individual inhales and exhales. However, there isn't any tobacco, fire or smoke involved. 

For vape businesses to be profitable they need to offer samples of the vaping liquid, since it is flavored and consumers prefer to sample and then purchase something they like; the proposed ordinance would ban and prohibit sampling even inside the vaping stores themselves!

The anti-free enterprise aspects of the proposed ordinance was explored in a previous article: Arvada City Council Against Free Enterprise -- Target This Time: 'Vaping' - April 23, 2015.

A compromise was engineered by District 3 council member John Marriot that keeps vape retailers in Arvada open for business, keeps citizen-consumers provided with product, and keeps sales tax revenue flowing to the city. (Tax dollars, by the way, that are not diverted by the Arvada Urban Renewal Authority away from paying for necessary city services.)

The amended ordinance passed on a five-to-two vote of the city council.

While it will be the law in Arvada that no one under 18 years of age can purchase vape devices or supplies and that public vaping is restricted, the stores and the services they offer for their customers will be allowed -- just as they have been up to now.

Arvada for ALL the People was diligent and persistent in its effort to inform the public of the basic free enterprise, free market and personal freedom issues involved in this controversy. 

Arvada small business owners and concerned citizens can take encouragement from this particular episode because it shows that genuine, grassroots involvement can yield worthwhile and constructive results. It may be a small step, but challenging the entrenched clique at city hall by informing the public and remaining vigilant on local government can produce a positive outcome.

A thanks to council member John Marriot for his work to forge the compromise -- and a great thanks to the Arvada citizens and small business owners who spoke persuasively on their own behalf.

Now ... imagine a city council that always puts ALL the People first ... 

Read the Citizen Notes for the entire Monday, May 5, 2015 city council meeting.