Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Hold the line

Don't water down law on transit-related development

The Rocky

Published December 4, 2007 at 12:05 a.m.

Text size  

More Editorials

More stories »

A couple of months ago, we urged the Regional Transportation District to try to avoid using eminent domain as it acquires the property needed to build the West Corridor of the FasTracks light-rail line.

We continue to believe the district should do all it reasonably can to accommodate landowners and purchase the needed property from willing buyers, not condemn it. But as the timelines to start construction draw nearer, hopes are fading that all these acquisitions can be completed amicably.

The tensions have heightened because several landowners are convinced that RTD may get their property at bargain-basement prices and then turn a portion of it over to private developers who would convert it to shops or offices or housing units and make a tidy profit.

We'd like to think those fears are unfounded. After all, by law RTD can obtain land only for transit-related uses. And legislation passed last year that bars public agencies from acquiring property through eminent domain to boost economic development should in theory prevent such abuses.

Still, there are reasons for concern. The law does allow some commercial and retail operations on RTD property for the purpose of serving transit riders. That's how coffee shops and small groceries can open their doors inside RTD stations. And legislation the district is proposing for next year would add residential development to permissible transit-oriented uses.

RTD management says it has no intention of entering the property development business, and that may be true. But that attitude could change in years to come, especially as demand grows to place mixed-use retail, commercial and residential properties near RTD stations in what's known as "transit-oriented development."

A future transit board or new management team is under no obligation to maintain the same policies. They could argue that putting an office building on the same block as a light-rail station would benefit transit riders, some of whom may work or do business there. The same would apply for a mixed-use structure that has retail stores and apartments.

But if those scenarios were to occur, they could easily result in private developers benefiting from the condemnation of land owned at the moment by other private parties. And that's wrong.

A more serious danger to property owners along and near the West Corridor might be posed by nearby municipalities, which have much more sweeping condemnation powers than the transit agency.

Land-use attorney Bob Hoban, who represents some property owners along the corridor and who ran for the RTD board last year, points out that even if RTD acquired all the land it needed from willing sellers, Lakewood could try to condemn nearby land for redevelopment and claim it's "blighted."

Last year's law limiting the use of eminent domain still lets cities condemn private land for economic development if the goal is "eradication of blight." And since Lakewood officials have drawn up plans that include upscale offices and residences on or near the West Corridor, property owners have reason to be leery.

RTD could allay some of those fears now by dropping plans to lobby the legislature to add residential use as a transit-related purpose under the law.

Lakewood could help, too, by abandoning eminent domain as a tool for pursuing economic development.

Comments

  • December 25, 2007

    noon

    Suggest removal

    warrengfunk7 writes:

    If a private developer constructs a parking structure for RTD with now charge, thus saving tax payers' money, in return for the right to construct additional floors (without increasing the footprint and using more land) for use as commercial, residental and/or retial -- that is not wrong. That is a good thing. This article is writen is a clearly bias tone.

  • December 25, 2007

    12:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    warrengfunk7 writes:

    CORRECTION:
    If a private developer constructs a parking structure for RTD with NO charge, thus saving tax payers' money, in return for the right to construct additional floors (without increasing the footprint and using more land) for use as commercial, residental and/or retial -- that is not wrong. That is a good thing. This article is writen is a clearly bias tone.