Sample Email

It's important to copy us and the press for transparency.  The media needs to see we care.  Our elected leaders also need to see this sunlight by copying the press to hold them accountable.

​

To:  AllCouncil@coloradosprings.gov

​

cc:  integritymatterscos@gmail.com, westsidewatchcos@gmail.com, chelsea.brentzel@krdo.com, news@krdo.com, brennan.kauffman@gazette.com, breeanna.jent@gazette.com, mary.shinn@gazette.com, achalfin@krcc.org, news@krcc.org, akeith@kktv.com, news@kktv.com, maggie.bryan@koaa.com, news@koaa.com, asack@kxrm.com, news@fox21news.com, news@cpr.org, jesse@coloradosun.com, newsroom@coloradosun.com, newsroom@denverpost.com, talkshow@aol.com

​

Subject: Vote Against the OneVeLa Urban Renewal Area Designation

​

Dear Members of City Council,

​

I am writing to urge you to vote against the proposed OneVeLa Urban Renewal Area (URA) designation. Based on an objective analysis of the claims presented by the developers, it is clear that the area fails to meet the statutory requirements for a blight designation under Colorado Urban Renewal Law (C.R.S. § 31-25-103).

​

Key Issues with the Blight Claims

The developers have exaggerated or misrepresented the conditions of the area to justify a blight designation. Below are specific examples where their claims fail to meet statutory requirements:

1. Slum, Deteriorated, or Deteriorating Structures

   • The buildings were structurally sound before the developer acquired them, with only minor cosmetic issues like chipped paint and boarded windows. These do not meet the threshold for blight.

2. Defective or Inadequate Street Layout

   • Streets and sidewalks near the parcels, particularly along Vermijo, are newly paved and well-maintained. Taxpayers already funded these improvements under the SW Downtown Development Partnership, which included the Olympic Museum and related infrastructure such as new roads, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and even music piped through speakers. These conditions directly contradict claims of a defective street layout.

3. Unsanitary or Unsafe Conditions

   • The developer relies on ZIP Code-level crime data, which does not reflect the minimal crime incidents in the specific block. Block-specific data shows only two property crimes in the past year, refuting any claim of pervasive unsanitary or unsafe conditions.

4. Vacant Structures and Successful Businesses

   • The parcels were vacated intentionally by the developer after acquisition. Before this, successful businesses operated at these locations, including a law firm, a chocolate supply company, a foundation, and a tile company warehouse. These businesses contributed to the economic vitality of the area and demonstrate that the area was not blighted prior to the developer's actions.

5. Disproportionately Underdeveloped Parcels

   • The parcels were fully developed and occupied prior to the developer's acquisition. Labeling these parcels as "underdeveloped" is a misuse of the statute, which requires genuine underdevelopment impacting municipal growth.

6. Successful Leasing and Above Market Values

   • Office spaces in the area lease at competitive rates of $23.75 per square foot, consistent with Class A and B office spaces downtown. Additionally, the developer acquired the properties at above-market rates, and current valuations remain high. These factors contradict claims of economic stagnation or impairment.

7. Additional Misrepresentations

   • The area includes thriving infrastructure, nearby amenities such as a soccer field, and substantial prior taxpayer investment. These conditions reflect economic vitality rather than blight.

​​

Broader Concerns

• Public Funds for Private Gain: The proposed use of $17 million in public urban renewal funds to construct a parking garage for luxury apartments is a clear misuse of taxpayer money, especially when ample parking already exists in nearby lots, including those at the U.S. Olympic Museum.

• Ignored Public Voice: Over 6,500 residents signed a petition demanding a building height limit to protect our iconic views of Pikes Peak, yet the City Council has ignored this call for public discussion. The proposed 317-foot skyscraper, significantly taller than the current tallest building, will forever alter our skyline without proper input.

• Broken Promises: When City Council denied allowing the public to vote on building heights, it promised there would be stakeholder discussions as part of an updated Downtown Master Plan. This process is now being ignored as a development plan for a 300-foot luxury residential and retail skyscraper has already been submitted, bypassing the promised public engagement.

• Misallocation of Taxpayer Dollars: Taxpayers are in effect subsidizing luxury downtown housing which many believe would be built whether or not the URA existed. For example, the Pikes Peak Library District (PPLD), which recently closed the Rockrimmon library branch primarily due to lack of funding, is giving up approximately $500,000 of citizen tax dollars over the life of the URA. The people are being taxed for a skyscraper they do not want, and the conditions do not warrant it.

 

Conflict of Interest and Ethics

It is also deeply concerning that members of the City Council have received campaign contributions from the O’Neil Group, which stands to benefit significantly from the URA designation. Specifically:

• Councilmember Lynette Crow-Iverson: $10,000

• Councilmember Brian Risley: $10,000

• Councilmember Dave Leinweber: $10,000

• Councilmember Nancy Henjum: $2,000

• Councilmember Mike O'Malley: $2,000

This totals $34,000 of financial influence from the O’Neil Group represented on the dais. According to City Code, 

1.3.114:  CONFLICTS OF INTEREST - APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY:  An appearance of impropriety is created when a covered person will or may take a direct official action that, although not constituting a conflict of interest, will or may create a reasonable perception that the covered person's ability to carry out his or her official duties with integrity, impartiality and competency is impaired.

even the "appearance of a conflict of interest" requires recusal. Therefore, Councilmembers Risley, Leinweber, Lynette Crow-Iverson, Henjum and O'Malley should recuse themselves from voting on the URA to ensure public trust and uphold ethical standards.

 

Call to Action

As stewards of Colorado Springs, it is your duty to ensure that urban renewal funds are used responsibly and in compliance with the law. The OneVeLa URA designation represents an abuse of the blight standards and prioritizes private development over the public good. It is your fiduciary, ethical and moral duty to:

1. Vote NO on the OneVeLa URA designation.

2. Require recusal of any councilmember with financial ties to the O’Neil Group from the vote to avoid conflicts of interest.

3. Delay approval of any development projects in the area until comprehensive public input has been gathered, especially regarding building height limits.

4. Ensure that urban renewal funds are directed toward truly blighted areas that need revitalization, not artificially created conditions.

The citizens of Colorado Springs deserve transparency, accountability, and thoughtful development that aligns with the community’s values. Please stand with your constituents and vote against the OneVeLa URA.

​

Sincerely,

[Your Name]