RTD condemnation splits board
Some displeased with handling of eminent domain
Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News
The RTD board showed division in its ranks Tuesday night over how the transit agency is using property condemnation for FasTracks projects.
The disagreement came hours after several legislators announced a bill that would limit RTD’s ability to commission private development on land it acquires through condemnation.
And it came on the heels of the third monthly meeting in a row in which property owners along the West Corridor light rail project and their supporters spoke about how they are being treated.
“There’s got to be a more creative way to be fair to the people who own property,” board member Barbara Yamrick said.
“I am not against eminent domain,” O’Neill Quinlan said. “My objection is how we’re doing it.”
The two voted against a resolution authorizing RTD to proceed with property acquisitions for the West Corridor, which passes 12 miles through Denver, Lakewood and Golden. But some of the other 13 who voted yes also expressed qualms.
Earlier, Lakewood business owner Galen Foster complained to the board about RTD’s intention to acquire his home and shop at Wadsworth Boulevard and 14th Avenue. A 1,000-car transit garage has long been planned on that block.
But Foster said RTD’s plan to solicit developers to build the garage in exchange for development rights for a high-density project on his land is unfair.
“It’s caused us a lot of stress,” he said.
A bill at the Capitol, to be sponsored by Rep. Al White, R-Hayden, Sen. Lois Tochtrop, D-Thornton, and Rep. Ken Summers, R-Lakewood, would prevent that. Earlier Tuesday they said their measure would prohibit RTD from developing anything but transit- related improvements on land it gets through condemnation.
“Economic development is not a good enough reason for government to take private property from citizens,” White said.
Cal Marsella, RTD general manager, pledged to the property owners and board members that the agency would treat them fairly.
“My obligation to you,” he said, “is to be as fair and equitable to you as I can,” he said.
But RTD says it ought to be able to allow commercial redevelopment on station sites if local zoning permits it.
Marsella said such private partnerships can save taxpayers money as FasTracks, which is over budget, is built out. Developers can build the transit garages for less than RTD if they are permitted to include other development in the deal.
Board member Barbara Brohl said how much RTD can build or allow is at issue. Current law limits RTD to commercial and retail shops that serve transit riders and doesn’t encourage customers who come by auto.
“I got the sense that the biggest issue for (Foster) isn’t just that we’re taking his property, but somehow that we’re going to benefit from it,” Brohl said. “If we’re going to put condos and all these other things on it too, that’s what ticks him off.”
flynnk@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5247
Filed under: Uncategorized
This unholy alliance between RTD and commercial development is getting to be downright greedy. If we had any indication whatsoever that RTD had the capability ot staying anywhere near within its budget, or that it wasn’t going to use the excuse that it can’t really pay what the land is worth because already there isn’t enough money to do the project, and they can’t help it, we, the voters, might be more willing to do something “for the common good.”
But RTD paid for a year and a half’s worth of media consultants to “sell” this project (FasTracks) knowing full well they gave us a number to vote on that was less than what it would actually cost, assuming we’d be dumb enough to fork out the rest (or take it out of the pockets of the folks they gyp out of land).
One of the absolute first requests for proposal from RTD before the FatTracks legislation even went through was looking for “property acquisition” specialists (for eminent domain), just as soon as they got the OK from the legislature (who is really who sold us out) to do eminent domain.
They have been playing fast and loose with facts for some time (in my community we’ve been asking for a plan for quite awhile with no real answers forthcoming). Where the money’s coming from isn’t clear, and until it is, I don’t see why ANY property owner shouldn’t fight back for what they’ve worked so hard to build.
Also, it makes no sense. TOD (Transit Oriented Development) is supposed to LIKE businesses that have owners living there. Why don’t they just qualify to be part of it all? Why would they take away a multi-use property just to spend more money in 2008/9 dollars to build a new one?
But then again, RTD rarely makes common sense. I applaud those members of the board who showed some backbone on something that is clearly borderline in the ethics department. Wish ours would do the same.