The curtain is being pulled back a little more each time the Big Sky/CDN exemption is discussed.
The end result of the hearing last night before the Lakewood City Council was predictable and not very substantive. Dave Skilling, leading the effort to provide this exemption for Big Sky/CDN with help from Barb Franks, realized that it should be an “ordinance” not a resolution.
So, Skilling moved and the council voted to change the “resolution” into an “ordinance”, start over again and bring it back to council July 27 for the first reading and then the council meeting after July 27 for a final vote.
Thats all that officially happened last night.
But the discussion surrounding the issue brought new light to what is really going on.
First, it is now clear that Dave Skilling is leading this effort to help out Big Sky/CDN, guaranteeing they can build as much – whenever they want – and that the 1% growth cap passed by the residents over Mayor Paul’s aggressive opposition simply doesn’t apply to Big Sky/CDN. Big Sky/CDN can do whatever they want to as if the Strategic Growth Initiative never existed.
Second, Barb Franks, the other Ward 4 representative, is on board. She repeated Skilling’s argument: (paraphrasing)
“This is good for the citizens to grant this exemption for Big Sky/CDN because if we don’t grant this exemption now, a rogue city council in the future could decide to make the exemption worse”
Skilling/Franks only see two scenarios (of course there are more) – but in both scenarios Skilling/Franks have set up, Big Sky/CDN is always the winner – gets exactly what it wants – building as much as they want to, whenever they want to.
Skilling/Franks scenario 1 is: Big Sky/CDN gets to build whatever they want whenever they want AND the number of permits for each home they get from the city won’t count against the other developers 1% cap. In other words, Big Sky CDN gets everything they want – 1% doesnt’ apply to them AND the other developers get their full 1% allocation – divided among them.
Skilling/Franks scenario 2 is: Big Sky/CDN gets to build whatever they want whenever they want AND the number of permits for each home they get from the City DOES COUNT AGAINST THE OTHER DEVELOPERS 1% cap. In other words, Big Sky/CDN gets everything they want – 1% doesn’t apply to them BUT the other developers 1% cap is less.
Real numbers:
Lets say the 1% cap is calculated for next year and a total of 500 permits are allowed. Under Skilling/Franks scenario 1, Big Sky/CDN is guaranteed whatever they ask for – say 400 permits. Under scenario 1, the rest of the developers still get to divide up 500 permits.
Total permits is now 900 instead of 500. Big Sky/CDN wins, Citizens penalized.
Under Skilling/Franks scenario 2, Big Sky/CDN is still guaranteed whatever they want – again lets say 400 permits for next year. Again, lets say the 1% cap equals 500 permits allowed for next year. Under scenario 2, Big Sky/CDN still gets their guaranteed 400 permits first, and then the rest of the developers fight over what’s left (500 total minus 400 for Big Sky/CDN equals 100 permits left for the rest of the developers).
Total permits is still 500. Big Sky/CDN still wins, Other developers penalized by Big Sky/CDN special treatment preferential treatment.
So, the Skilling/Franks argument is – we need to pass this ordinance (Scenario 2) now, guaranteeing the Big Sky/CDN exemption and penalizing other developers, to prevent a future city council from passing an ordinance adopting scenario 1 – again guaranteeing the Big Sky/CDN exemption but penalizing the citizens instead of penalizing other developers.
What a choice – penalize other developers or penalize the citizens – all to guarantee Big Sky/CDN is exempt from the Strategic Growth Initiative. Preferential treatment for Big Sky because . . .
Of course, there are other choices, including, don’t penalize anyone and treat Big Sky/CDN the same as any other developer. No special preferential treatment. (There’s a novel idea).
Another problem with this Skilling/Franks argument is – there is absolutely nothing preventing a future city council from adopting the “boogey man” scenario or even worse – passing an ordinance completely gutting the Strategic Growth Initiative passed by the citizens. For example, during the mayoral campaign, Paul’s fiancée openly declared the first thing Paul was going to do was reverse the SGI. He’s working at it. He announced last night that (paraphrasing) “we really need to remember that we represent the foreign developers (CDN are three Canadian land speculators) as well as the residents – and in this case what CDN wants is more important than what the residents want” (about 1:35:40 on the video tape)
This proposed ordinance will not protect the SGI. We will, the residents will, through recalls, elections and pressure (emails). Not special exception ordinances favoring one developer over another.
There are more choices than just the two Skilling/Franks scenarios.
Leave it alone. Don’t do anything. Big Sky/CDN is years away from pulling any permits to build. They can’t build without sewer – and because they refuse to follow the rules with public hearings and are suing instead to force Green Mountain Water and Sanitation District to provide sewer based upon an election night agreement Big Sky had the old board sign the very night they were being voted out of office – they won’t be building until all the appeals are over and will almost certainly lose. Because of their own mistakes and poor decisions, Big Sky/CDN won’t be building for a long while – until they follow the rules for getting sewer service.
So, there is no reason to go through all this about guaranteeing permits for Big Sky/CDN when they aren’t going to be doing anything for a long while.
Look at the public documents. Big Sky/CDN has 7 subdistricts. 6 are formally “inactive”. The one that is not “inactive” published their most recent “audit” requesting permission not to file an “audit” because they haven’t done anything. Their attorney’s letter says they have spent over $6 million developing Big Sky – not according to their published financial documents.
Nothing happening. There is no issue now. Wait until they are ready to build. A whole lot will change between now and then.
Passing laws when there is no issue – no real problem – is really bad public policy.
And creating false “boogey man” “what if” arguments is counter productive – especially when suggesting that an ordinance now will prevent another different ordinance in the future.
There is nothing to prevent a rogue city council from passing their own law – an ordinance now won’t prevent that from happening.
The only thing that will prevent it, that will protect the SGI, is – us.
Finally, one might ask – who cares. Under the proposed ordinance (Skilling/Franks scenario 2) Big Sky/CDN gets what they want but the end result – the net result – is still a total cap of 1%. Under the Skilling/Franks ordinance, scenario 2, Big Sky gets what it wants but it only hurts the other developers, not the citizens.
Think about that for a moment. The two Skilling/Franks scenarios either punish the citizens or punish the other developers – but Big Sky/CDN always comes out on top. They always win. The Skilling/Franks scenarios just decide who gets hurt – pick your poison – either the citizens or the other developers.
Nice choice.
That is the kind of public policy analysis generated by a profiteering motive, not a public policy motive. That is a developer approach to making public policy. It is not a representative of the residents approach to good public policy – guided by what’s good for the residents as opposed what’s profitable for the developer. (Yet another example of why its a bad idea to have a private developer running a government – a special district.)
And what about the other developers. Do you think they have an argument that this ordinance violates the equal protection clause – passing a law that favors one specific developer over another. Legislation targeting and benefiting one private special interest is always fraught with danger. Sets the City up for failure with more challenges from other developers.
There are other choices. One choice is to do nothing. We can deal with it if it becomes an issue – and if it does – the legal argument in response is that Big Sky/CDN may have a “vested” right to 1,630 units in 25 years, but that is no guarantee as to the RATE they will be built. The citizens have spoken on the RATE of growth and it is capped, for everyone, including Big Sky/CDN, at 1%.
Let Skilling/Franks and the other councilors know what you think, one way or the other.
Ms. Johnson, Mr. Bieda, Ms. Springsteen have heard you.
Skilling is promoting the deal he has apparently brokered with Big Sky/CDN.
Franks is supportive of Skilling, but still listening. (Franks and Skilling both Ward 4)
Paul is a lost cause – he still wants to tank the SGI.
Harrison, LaBrue, Gutwein normally fall in line behind Paul but have not committed yet. Vincent has already fallen in line with Paul and is in support of the special exemption ordinance.
Able has not committed on the record yet.
David Skilling <dskilling@lakewood.org>,Barb Franks <BFranks@lakewood.org>,Ramey Johnson <rjohnson@lakewood.org>,Charley Able <cable@lakewood.org>,Anita Springsteenlaw <anita@springsteenlaw.com>,Mike Bieda <mbieda@lakewood.org>,Karen Harrison <kharrison@lakewood.org>,Dana Gutwein <dgutwein@lakewood.org>,Jacob LaBure <jlabure@lakewood.org>,Sharon Vincent <SVincent@lakewood.org>,Adam Paul <apaul@lakewood.org>
There will be two more hearings on the new ordinance beginning July 27.
John Henderson