Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Alerts | Electronic edition | Subscribe to the paper
Subscribe

HomeNewsLocal News

RTD land grab raises hackles

Owners riled by idea of seizures for development

Originally published 12:30 a.m., December 3, 2007
Updated 11:57 a.m., December 3, 2007

Media Player

Please download the latest version of Adobe Flash Player, or enable JavaScript for your browser to view the video player.

Story Tools

Map my news

Galen Foster's home and business of 23 years is supposed to make way for parking for the Wadsworth Boulevard light-rail station in Lakewood.

But what chaps Foster's hide is that there already are conceptual plans showing his property being used not for transit parking, but for a five-story commercial office building.

While government's right of condemnation, more politely called eminent domain, has been recognized for centuries, the Regional Transportation District is entering an untested area that includes economic development in its efforts to build the FasTracks West Corridor line.

While there is little room to challenge RTD's acquisition of land for tracks, stations and parking lots, the policy of "transit-oriented development" could put a new property-rights law to the test.

Foster and his wife, Kim Snyder, are among property owners along the West Corridor who are organizing to battle RTD over that point.

RTD, which is scheduled to begin construction on the West Corridor next summer, has notified 16 property owners that it needs all of their land for the project.

Most are for the big light-rail stations planned at Wadsworth and Sheridan boulevards. The others are near the South Platte River, where a large bridge will be built and streets realigned.

RTD will later issue notices to an additional 110 or so owners from whom it needs only part of their land.

Under federal law, RTD must pay owners at least fair market value for their property and also pay for certain relocation costs and services.

RTD and Lakewood officials have developed several alternate plans that would bring in commercial, retail and residential development on land RTD is restricted to condemning for transit purposes only.

"We want them to build light rail only wide enough for what's necessary," said Tom Wambolt of the Colorado Property Rights Coalition. "If it's strictly for RTD use, like the parking garage, and nothing else is built around it, then it's transit.

"But if only half the block is for parking and the rest of it is for retail, office or other development, we would be opposed to that."

Guidelines tightened

At Sheridan, RTD wants all the property from the gas station at 10th Avenue north to the apartment complex at 11th Avenue, and west past Ames Street, including several private homes.

At Wadsworth, RTD has notified seven property owners along the east side from 13th to 14th avenues, and eastward halfway to Vance Street.

Longtime plans have targeted that block for a 1,000-car park-n-Ride garage. If that's all that's built, then there's no beef.

But planning concepts developed by Lakewood, working with RTD, aim to diversify the land uses near the station. The idea is to spread out the parking on several blocks and attract developers to put up high-density residential buildings, retail plazas and office buildings.

While the city can pursue that strategy for land off the RTD site, the transit agency is more limited.

The law allows RTD to include only small-scale commercial and retail facilities at stations, catering to the needs of transit riders. RTD cannot build retail for a general customer base.

That means a coffee shop or newsstand is all right. But a five-story office building, stores, apartments? Maybe not.

Last year, the legislature adopted even tighter guidelines to exclude economic development from the "public purposes" for which governments can use eminent domain.

"The intent was to prevent stuff like this," said the sponsor, Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D- Thornton. "If RTD is just using eminent domain for FasTracks, that's one thing, but if it's for private development, that could be another."

Early next year, RTD will seek developers to build the Sheridan and Wadsworth park- n-Rides. The proposals will address the right to include commercial development on those blocks.

Foster's Pro Tint window- tinting business has been on Wadsworth at 14th Avenue for 23 years. He and Snyder also have their home there.

"We already know what they want this site for," said Foster, while he put a clear bra on the hood of an SUV in his shop. "They want a five-story office building here.

"If it ultimately comes down to that, Kim and I would redevelop all this ourselves. This is hers and my gold mine, no one else's. I pity the first person who tries to come onto this property."

RTD acknowledges the limitations.

"We have to operate under the assumption that we're getting the land for transit with the potential for someone to add something that is incidental to it," said Bill Sirois, RTD's transit-oriented development manager. "All of the properties we acquire need to have a transit purpose to them."

If some of the land isn't used for transit, RTD can't simply sell it to a developer, he said.

"If we take it for transit purposes and figure out we don't need a portion of it, the first person we would discuss it with is the former owner," Sirois said.

But RTD is supporting a move to add housing to allowable uses at transit stations in the next legislative session. That signals that the agency believes "transit-related use" means more than a coffee shop and a newsstand.

'Flexibility' foreseen

Lakewood takes an even broader view, that wrapping RTD's parking garage with a commercial or residential structure is legitimate even with the prohibition on using eminent domain for economic development.

"I think it depends on how the parking structure can be used," said Rebecca Clark, Lakewood's planning director. "RTD will use that whole block for parking, but we have some flexibility on how that gets developed."

She said the city wants to attract developers who will work with the community and not use eminent domain. The plan showing offices and residences is simply a concept, and no actual project exists at the moment, Clark said.

Bob Hoban, attorney for Foster and another property owner, helped Tochtrop write last year's legislation. He says if Lakewood and RTD want the area redeveloped, they should work with current owners.

"This is their first land acquisition over 12 years of FasTracks and they shouldn't get off on the wrong foot," he said. "If they want something done commercially, let us do it. Just take the brain damage out of this thing. We'll build whatever they'd like to see there."

Comments

Posted by warrengfunk7 on December 3, 2007 at 5:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)

A parking structure wrapped with retail is much better than a parking structure. That should not be fought.

Posted by fiesty on December 3, 2007 at 6:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Easy to say when it's not your home or business being taken from you against your will.

Eminent domain has been grossly misused. It was intended for necessary things like telephone poles, power lines, etc, and is supposed to be used as little as possible. It was NOT intended for a city or agency to gain sheer economic benefit or profit! That's why a parking garage with *limited* retail is okay, but a five-story office building is not.

Posted by Gene on December 3, 2007 at 7:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ownership of private property is much better than a state controlled economy. That should not be fought.

Posted by LS on December 3, 2007 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Gene, your comment makes no sense to me.

Posted by Gene on December 3, 2007 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Dear LS,
Trying to turn around that first stupid comment. . . "a parking structure with retail is much better than a parking structure" - THAT IS NOT THE POINT OF THIS DISCUSSION. , the discussion is taking of private property. What should not be fought is the idea of private property rights.

Posted by pappy on December 3, 2007 at 11:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I support RTD FasTraks, and the necessary minimum acquisition of land required to make it work. I do not support FasTraks being used as a vehicle to seize Private property beyond it's needs, to turn it over to another private entity for profit beyond that given the original owner. That seems like a 'theft for profit' deal.

This grab must be opposed, or more grabs will surely follow, either by RTD, or by Lakewood.

Posted by jackwoehr on December 3, 2007 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Government these days is like a spoiled child always testing the limits of acceptable behavior. A series of high-profile eminent domain cases over the past few years have made it crystal clear that the majority of Coloradans believe that seizure of private property to hand over to commercial developers is neither consitutional nor in the public interest.

So here comes FasTracks, giddily intoxicated with their already over-budget dream project, trying to test the limits of eminent domain again.

Very naughty.

Posted by denverjason on December 5, 2007 at 7:42 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is far from "untested water." In Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the US Supreme court ruled private development can be public use: "The governmental taking of property from one private owner to give to another in furtherance of economic development constitutes a permissible 'public use' under the Fifth Amendment."

And don't act shocked, our Constitution explicitly states that private property may not be taken for public use without just compensation. Meaning that WITH just compensation, land MAY be taken. No one wants to hear it (especially when heir property is at stake), but the framers knew that the needs of many outweigh the needs of a single landowner.

I feel for these people, but this land grab is constitutional.

Posted by AC on December 6, 2007 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DenverJason: You're wrong. Kelo doesn't apply here because, first, RTD is limited by statute and second, all government agencies are limited by statute passed in Colorado last year, as the article points out, to prohibit economic development from being a "public purpose." It was legal in New London because no statute there cut it out of the definition of "public purpose."

Posted by SR on December 7, 2007 at 3:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just work with the current owners and give them their fair share (if there will be profits being generated from their land). I think that would be fair and would resolve all these issues.

Posted by mrw650 on December 22, 2007 at 12:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

They should pay fair market value for the land AND give the owners a percentage of all profits in perpetuity. After all, if the land will be for public use, the original landowner's family should in turn "profit" as much as the government entity taking it.

Post your comment (Requires free registration.)

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.




(Forgotten your password?)




News Tip

Know about something we should be reporting? Tell us about it.


Reprints