New foreclosure reports jumped this week to 16 new entries, more than 2 per day! And the Classified section, which is the D section, had so many notices it had to continue at the end of the C section. Once again, there were many more than 16 new foreclosures, but the others were mostly in Boulder.
View Longmont Foreclosures in a larger map
KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries (41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries (55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries (47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries (48 total)
Purple-5/9/09 13 new entries (62 total)
Magenta-5/16/09 9 new entries (56 total)
Blue(pin)-5/23/09 16 new entries (52 total)
-------------------------------------------
The new numbers by Ward broke down fairly proportional to the overall numbers: Ward 1=7, Ward 2=5, Ward 3=4. Here are the overall numbers by Ward.
Ward 1=46 (Councilmember: Brian Hansen, resignation imminent?)
Ward 2=39 (Councilmember: Karen Benker, up for re-election Nov '09)
Ward 3=27 (Councilmember: Sean McCoy, rumored Mayoral candidate Nov '09)
Of note here is Ward 1's Councilmember Brian Hansen. The most consistent complaint, even from people who say they backed and voted for him, is his complete lack of communicating with his constituents. They say he never returns calls, letters, or emails. When I write him and couple other members of council I don't expect a response - which in itself is not acceptable, last time I checked I'm a taxpaying voter just like everyone else. But it must be reassuring to the people in his ward - the highest foreclosure ward in the city - that he's less interested in you, and more interested in things like neighborhood gardens (can people still garden there while in foreclosure?) and starting business incubators (that already exist) on your tax dime.
The rumor going around town is that Mr. Hansen is on the verge of quitting his council seat. I don't make this stuff up, it comes to me in various communications from several people "in the know". The other rumor is that he's going to hold off quitting until after the November election so as to keep his seat safe in case there's a wholesale change to 3 seats that are up for grabs. If there's a shred of truth to these rumors, here's what it boils down to: For political purposes (saving a voting majority, or "bloc" on council), this council is in collusion to waste around $75,000 of city funds (the cost of a special election).
If Mr. Hansen really is thinking of devoting more time to his business (which reportedly includes harassing his neighbor Mountain View Welding, and questionable zoning use of his property), than he should announce his resignation now (effective in November), so candidates can have time to campaign for his vacant seat, voters can save time only having one election, and the taxpayers don't get taken to the cleaners for the additional fees and postage.
But this council has shown a penchant for not taking good advice, I expect it to continue.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Friday, May 22, 2009
Longmont feels the heat, starts killing prairie dogs
In what’s sure to be yet another hot topic in the city of Longmont, Colorado, the wholesale extermination of prairie dogs at the Vance Brand Airport is under way. What’s going to be interesting is the interaction between the city staff that moved forward on it, and a few on city council who spoke out against it – and of course a few vocal citizens.
...rest of article at Examiner.Com
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Longmont’s prairie dog solution a bad joke
In the FoxNews report in my previous story, it said the City of Longmont “planned to spend up to $14,000 to build a new barrier fence” to keep prairie dogs out of the airport movement area. The fence is built, and I thought you might like to see where and how your money was spent.
...rest of the article at Examiner.Com
Longmont’s prairie dog situation makes national news
The scourge of Longmont’s Vance Brand Airport, its prairie dogs not its vocal pilots, are now national news. FoxNews did a piece called “Cute, Cuddly Menace”.
...rest of article at Examiner.Com
Monday, May 18, 2009
LIFT frustrated with city council over city mall
(contributed by Greg Burt)
Longmont Investing For Tomorrow (LIFT) is touting the success of its first major event held last month to encourage Longmont city leaders to form a public/private partnership to redevelop Longmont's Twin Peaks Mall. Over two-hundred people attended the Economic Summit initiated and largely financed by LIFT in partnership with the Longmont Area Chamber of Commerce.
The summit, held at the Radisson Hotel & Conference Center in Longmont, brought together a panel of redevelopment experts and senior Longmont city staff. The discussion, and the question and answer period at the end, centered on the city's declining tax revenues and the need for the city council to join forces with the mall's owner, Panattoni Development Company, to prevent further deterioration of the retail outlet.
LIFT is frustrated with city council for dragging feet
LIFT Board Chairman Rick Samson and board member Forrest Flemming proposed the Economic Summit to the Longmont Chamber last year because of LIFT's frustration with the city council members' apparent lack of urgency regarding a once successful retail hub. "Members of the current city council are dragging their feet on redeveloping the mall," said Samson. "Longmont's mall has been a great source of sales tax revenue for the city in years past. The city's general fund has lost $1.5 million in sales tax revenue from the mall in the past two years. Forward thinking communities all around Longmont are forming public/private partnerships to develop or redevelop their malls. Our mall desperately needs help as does our general fund, but four members of our city council are stalling or outright opposing the process."
The chairman of the Longmont Chamber public policy committee, Alex Sammoury had similar sentiments. "There is a lot of potential for the redevelopment of the mall," Sammoury said. "But the process through the city has been long and painful, not only for the developer Panattoni, but to the city staff and the community in general." There has been talk about a partnership from the city council, he said, but so far nothing has happened.
City council uses tactics to stall redevelopment
Panattoni Development Company's Senior Vice President Will Damrath also attended the summit. Late last summer talks between Damrath and the city council broke off after the two sides failed to agree on a public financing plan to help with the mall's redevelopment. Since then, according to Samson, the city council has employed various tactics to stall the redevelopment. First, the council hired its own consultant, Citi Venture Associates, in October and conducted a two-day workshop to gather community input and to conceptualize what a complete mall redevelopment could look like. Although Damrath was a participant, he did not believe the mixed-use concept that emerged from the workshop was financially viable anytime in the near future.
Then recently the council decided to expand the urban renewal district planned for the mall site to include 175 additional acres surrounding the mall property, which delayed a possible partnership agreement even further.
Developer has plans to build a new movie theater soon
During the question and answer period at the Economic Summit, Damrath announced his plans to bring the first stages of a mall redevelopment project to the city within the next few months. In an interview afterward, Damrath explained in the short term, he has decided public financing is not necessary to build a pared-down, first-phase of the project, which includes a redesigned movie theater. "For the long term, future build-out to materialize, it is likely that city participation and council action will be required," Damrath said. "However, the roll-out of the first phase may not need anything but expedited approvals and fee waivers."
According to Longmont's Director of Community Development Phil DelVecchio, getting the city to approve a mall redevelopment plan without a request for public financing could take as little as one to two months. But that all depends on whether city staff determine the changes to the mall sight plan as major or minor. While minor changes only require staff approval, a major change would need the approval of the Longmont Planning and Zoning Commission, which could extend the approval period for up to four months. The city council only needs to get involved if Damrath requests city financing for the project, DelVecchio explained.
LIFT concerned about micro-managing
According to Samson, LIFT's concern is that there may be attempts by some members of council to micro-manage the project, take the authority away from the city staff, and thereby prolong the entire development process.
DelVecchio, also a panel speaker at the Economic Summit, publically assured the event audience of the city's commitment to the mall's redevelopment. "The city stands ready and willing to work with the developer towards redeveloping the mall," he said.
Samson was encouraged by this statement, even if it seems to contradict the voting record and public statements of four Longmont city council members: Karen Benker, Sarah Levinson, Brian Hansen, and Sean McCoy. "Whether or not that is the position of the city council, I don't know. But their public person (DelVecchio) said it was."
Samson hopes summit spurs city council to action
Samson not only hopes the summit spurs the city council to treat the mall redevelopment with increased urgency, but he hopes the summit impacts the city council elections this November. "We now have fleshed out some issues for some of the council candidates," Samson said, expressing his hope that candidates use the facts presented at the summit to expose the council members responsible for stalling the mall's redevelopment.
LIFT initiated the summit and paid for two of the panel of speakers Marilee Utter with Citi Venture, and Arne Ray with Ray Real Estate Services. The summit also had other financial supporters including the Longmont Daily Times-Call, Panattoni Development Company, Radisson Hotel and Conference Center, and Workforce Boulder County. The Longmont Area Chamber of Commerce hosted the summit and provided staff time to take care of the conference details.
Longmont Investing For Tomorrow (LIFT) is touting the success of its first major event held last month to encourage Longmont city leaders to form a public/private partnership to redevelop Longmont's Twin Peaks Mall. Over two-hundred people attended the Economic Summit initiated and largely financed by LIFT in partnership with the Longmont Area Chamber of Commerce.
The summit, held at the Radisson Hotel & Conference Center in Longmont, brought together a panel of redevelopment experts and senior Longmont city staff. The discussion, and the question and answer period at the end, centered on the city's declining tax revenues and the need for the city council to join forces with the mall's owner, Panattoni Development Company, to prevent further deterioration of the retail outlet.
LIFT is frustrated with city council for dragging feet
LIFT Board Chairman Rick Samson and board member Forrest Flemming proposed the Economic Summit to the Longmont Chamber last year because of LIFT's frustration with the city council members' apparent lack of urgency regarding a once successful retail hub. "Members of the current city council are dragging their feet on redeveloping the mall," said Samson. "Longmont's mall has been a great source of sales tax revenue for the city in years past. The city's general fund has lost $1.5 million in sales tax revenue from the mall in the past two years. Forward thinking communities all around Longmont are forming public/private partnerships to develop or redevelop their malls. Our mall desperately needs help as does our general fund, but four members of our city council are stalling or outright opposing the process."
The chairman of the Longmont Chamber public policy committee, Alex Sammoury had similar sentiments. "There is a lot of potential for the redevelopment of the mall," Sammoury said. "But the process through the city has been long and painful, not only for the developer Panattoni, but to the city staff and the community in general." There has been talk about a partnership from the city council, he said, but so far nothing has happened.
City council uses tactics to stall redevelopment
Panattoni Development Company's Senior Vice President Will Damrath also attended the summit. Late last summer talks between Damrath and the city council broke off after the two sides failed to agree on a public financing plan to help with the mall's redevelopment. Since then, according to Samson, the city council has employed various tactics to stall the redevelopment. First, the council hired its own consultant, Citi Venture Associates, in October and conducted a two-day workshop to gather community input and to conceptualize what a complete mall redevelopment could look like. Although Damrath was a participant, he did not believe the mixed-use concept that emerged from the workshop was financially viable anytime in the near future.
Then recently the council decided to expand the urban renewal district planned for the mall site to include 175 additional acres surrounding the mall property, which delayed a possible partnership agreement even further.
Developer has plans to build a new movie theater soon
During the question and answer period at the Economic Summit, Damrath announced his plans to bring the first stages of a mall redevelopment project to the city within the next few months. In an interview afterward, Damrath explained in the short term, he has decided public financing is not necessary to build a pared-down, first-phase of the project, which includes a redesigned movie theater. "For the long term, future build-out to materialize, it is likely that city participation and council action will be required," Damrath said. "However, the roll-out of the first phase may not need anything but expedited approvals and fee waivers."
According to Longmont's Director of Community Development Phil DelVecchio, getting the city to approve a mall redevelopment plan without a request for public financing could take as little as one to two months. But that all depends on whether city staff determine the changes to the mall sight plan as major or minor. While minor changes only require staff approval, a major change would need the approval of the Longmont Planning and Zoning Commission, which could extend the approval period for up to four months. The city council only needs to get involved if Damrath requests city financing for the project, DelVecchio explained.
LIFT concerned about micro-managing
According to Samson, LIFT's concern is that there may be attempts by some members of council to micro-manage the project, take the authority away from the city staff, and thereby prolong the entire development process.
DelVecchio, also a panel speaker at the Economic Summit, publically assured the event audience of the city's commitment to the mall's redevelopment. "The city stands ready and willing to work with the developer towards redeveloping the mall," he said.
Samson was encouraged by this statement, even if it seems to contradict the voting record and public statements of four Longmont city council members: Karen Benker, Sarah Levinson, Brian Hansen, and Sean McCoy. "Whether or not that is the position of the city council, I don't know. But their public person (DelVecchio) said it was."
Samson hopes summit spurs city council to action
Samson not only hopes the summit spurs the city council to treat the mall redevelopment with increased urgency, but he hopes the summit impacts the city council elections this November. "We now have fleshed out some issues for some of the council candidates," Samson said, expressing his hope that candidates use the facts presented at the summit to expose the council members responsible for stalling the mall's redevelopment.
LIFT initiated the summit and paid for two of the panel of speakers Marilee Utter with Citi Venture, and Arne Ray with Ray Real Estate Services. The summit also had other financial supporters including the Longmont Daily Times-Call, Panattoni Development Company, Radisson Hotel and Conference Center, and Workforce Boulder County. The Longmont Area Chamber of Commerce hosted the summit and provided staff time to take care of the conference details.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Longmont foreclosures - the hits keep on coming
The hits (to the local housing market) just keep coming. This week there were 9 new entries into the list of foreclosures, more than one every day. There were actually more new foreclosures, but they were in Boulder, Lafayette, and Louisville. In case you were wondering how they broke down by Ward, with an election coming up this November, here it is:
Ward 1=39 (Councilmember: Brian Hansen)
Ward 2=34 (Councilmember: Karen Benker, up for re-election Nov '09)
Ward 3=23 (Councilmember: Sean McCoy)
(look below map for a note to city council)
View Longmont Foreclosures in a larger map
KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries (41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries (55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries (47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries (48 total)
Purple-5/9/09 13 new entries (62 total)
Magenta-5/16/09 9 new entries (56 total)
-------------------------------------------
This council has pretty much become a laughing stock due to the issues they spend a lot of time on, and the precious little they spend on important, grown-up things, like foreclosures.
Here's a little note I sent them recently, didn't expect a response from some of them, and I wasn't disappointed. It was sent over the city's server, so I know they all got it. So, if you are one of the ones struggling here in the city, know that your city leaders are fully aware of what's going on, but find other things more pressing.
----------------
Greetings,
I know some of you on council won’t read beyond the FROM: portion of this communication, and fewer will actually respond, but just want to make sure you’re on record of being aware of a couple of things.
Foreclosures: While more and more time is being wasted on affordable housing programs and getting more borderline borrowers in homes they can’t afford, I’ve gone through the effort of mapping out current foreclosures in Longmont – based on information in the Legal ads in the Times-Call (more on that paper later). I invite you to look at it in case you haven’t yet.
In case you were wondering how those broke down by wards, Ward 1=35, Ward 2= 30, and Ward 3=22 (now higher). On average, in the last 5 weeks, Longmont is adding 2 new foreclosures every day. So while you’re having fun with chickens, prairie dogs, cat leashes, cutting mosquito spraying, suing churches and neighboring cities, watching the mall go down the toilet, rewriting election code and tinkering with the budget on the fly, and considering adding more affordable housing – lots of your constituents probably aren’t paying a lot of attention to these often silly escapades of yours as they try to stay afloat financially. And many are failing.
Yet I hardly ever recall any of you who advocated for the above issues mentioning this issue proportionally to its importance. But how you went to bat for 50 chicken permits, bravo. No, I’m not about to become an advocate for victims of foreclosure. Many probably knew what they were signing, knew they couldn’t afford it, and by the looks of some of these records some hardly made any payments at all.
But what struck me was how absent this council has been on this. No excuses now. Many of your constituents are suffering and would be appalled (if they knew) at what you’re spending your time on.
Times-Call inquiry: By some comments on council, it appears there is some animosity with our local paper. I don’t work for them, they even call me the competition, so I’m not speaking on their behalf by any means. But I noticed this in the latest agenda: “Council member McCoy requested information regarding the amount of money the City spends annually with the Times Call…” I don’t expect an honest answer here, and people around the city are claiming there is a concerted effort against the paper by some in this city (and council), would this be another step in that direction?
If not, what is the reason for this inquiry? How much time did the City Clerks Office have to spend on the reply? Looked like a lot of information, I assume it was for a good reason?
Consider this my "Public Invited To Be Heard" (are all truly "invited"?) as I can't attend tonight's meeting.
Thanks, Chris
Ward 1=39 (Councilmember: Brian Hansen)
Ward 2=34 (Councilmember: Karen Benker, up for re-election Nov '09)
Ward 3=23 (Councilmember: Sean McCoy)
(look below map for a note to city council)
View Longmont Foreclosures in a larger map
KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries (41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries (55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries (47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries (48 total)
Purple-5/9/09 13 new entries (62 total)
Magenta-5/16/09 9 new entries (56 total)
-------------------------------------------
This council has pretty much become a laughing stock due to the issues they spend a lot of time on, and the precious little they spend on important, grown-up things, like foreclosures.
Here's a little note I sent them recently, didn't expect a response from some of them, and I wasn't disappointed. It was sent over the city's server, so I know they all got it. So, if you are one of the ones struggling here in the city, know that your city leaders are fully aware of what's going on, but find other things more pressing.
----------------
Greetings,
I know some of you on council won’t read beyond the FROM: portion of this communication, and fewer will actually respond, but just want to make sure you’re on record of being aware of a couple of things.
Foreclosures: While more and more time is being wasted on affordable housing programs and getting more borderline borrowers in homes they can’t afford, I’ve gone through the effort of mapping out current foreclosures in Longmont – based on information in the Legal ads in the Times-Call (more on that paper later). I invite you to look at it in case you haven’t yet.
In case you were wondering how those broke down by wards, Ward 1=35, Ward 2= 30, and Ward 3=22 (now higher). On average, in the last 5 weeks, Longmont is adding 2 new foreclosures every day. So while you’re having fun with chickens, prairie dogs, cat leashes, cutting mosquito spraying, suing churches and neighboring cities, watching the mall go down the toilet, rewriting election code and tinkering with the budget on the fly, and considering adding more affordable housing – lots of your constituents probably aren’t paying a lot of attention to these often silly escapades of yours as they try to stay afloat financially. And many are failing.
Yet I hardly ever recall any of you who advocated for the above issues mentioning this issue proportionally to its importance. But how you went to bat for 50 chicken permits, bravo. No, I’m not about to become an advocate for victims of foreclosure. Many probably knew what they were signing, knew they couldn’t afford it, and by the looks of some of these records some hardly made any payments at all.
But what struck me was how absent this council has been on this. No excuses now. Many of your constituents are suffering and would be appalled (if they knew) at what you’re spending your time on.
Times-Call inquiry: By some comments on council, it appears there is some animosity with our local paper. I don’t work for them, they even call me the competition, so I’m not speaking on their behalf by any means. But I noticed this in the latest agenda: “Council member McCoy requested information regarding the amount of money the City spends annually with the Times Call…” I don’t expect an honest answer here, and people around the city are claiming there is a concerted effort against the paper by some in this city (and council), would this be another step in that direction?
If not, what is the reason for this inquiry? How much time did the City Clerks Office have to spend on the reply? Looked like a lot of information, I assume it was for a good reason?
Consider this my "Public Invited To Be Heard" (are all truly "invited"?) as I can't attend tonight's meeting.
Thanks, Chris
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Twin Peaks Mall: Tax subsidies may be for naught
Should Longmont’s taxpayers help bail out the ailing Twin Peaks Mall and, if so, then why not extend that favor to every business in town? This gnawing question of fairness weighs heavily on the minds of many locals, as city officials continue to negotiate a “partnership” deal with the mall owner.
Let’s face it: Shopping malls across America are losing their oomph, no matter their location, status or upgrading. The sagging economy and inflated gasoline prices played a part, but the word “anachronism” might better fit the declining shopping-mall era. Fickle shoppers, famous for flitting from mall to mall, are fleeing to the stand-alone big boxes and, ominously, to the matchless variety and convenience of the Internet where, of course, they don’t even have to pay sales taxes.
On April 16 the nation’s second largest mall owner, General Growth Properties Inc. of Chicago, filed for bankruptcy. Of the 200 malls GGP owns, four are in Colorado: Park Meadows in Lone Tree (south Denver), Foothills in Fort Collins, Southwest Plaza in Littleton, and Chapel Hills in north Colorado Springs. All of these four are considered upper tier. Chapel Hills, one of the newer malls in Colorado Springs, lured shoppers from the Citadel Mall in east Colorado Springs, which earlier had plundered the Sears-anchored Southgate Mall on that city’s south side. City officials naturally don’t care who wins the dizzying mall game, just so the tax revenues keep flowing.
Having lived in Colorado all my life and being casually observant of shopping malls around the state, very few of the once-flourishing malls are left. Although not the oldest, Denver’s Cherry Creek is probably still the classiest. Louisville tried valiantly to get into the mall game in 1980 but developer Jacobs-Kahan of Chicago had no luck signing an anchor store and finally gave up.
Retail outlet stores were popular for a while. Clusters sprouted up at places like Frisco and Castle Rock. Probably the most successful was at Loveland -- until the Centerra strip mall opened nearby.
Even Urban Renewal with its eminent domain power and tax increment financing “partnering” with local taxpayers could not save Englewood’s charming Cinderella City Mall, which opened in 1968 to compete with the nearby Villa Italia Mall, built in 1965. Despite the investment of millions of TIF tax dollars to renovate it mid-term, Cinderella City, an elaborate, covered complex, was demolished in 1999.
Villa Italia, despite a $120 million infusion of cash by the City of Lakewood in converting it to a “sustainable” mixed-use housing/stores complex, and after changing the mall’s name to Belmar, it still lost anchor stores Dillard’s and J.C. Penney and has never recovered. Shoppers complained that the “village feeling” of the mixed-use concept was confusing and made the mall hard to navigate.
Boulder’s Crossroads Mall, funded almost entirely with huge amounts of Urban Renewal TIF money--those who know will not reveal the total indebtedness--ran into trouble when the Westminster Mall just down the road (both opened in the early 1960s) began expanding. But of course, the Westminster Mall had diverted shoppers from the once-prosperous Northglenn Mall, helping shut it down. Then, with Broomfield’s bold, new Flatiron Mall arriving on the scene in 1999, the City of Westminster spent $7.5 million helping its mall owner renovate, but to little avail. Flatiron had lured shoppers away from both the Westminster Mall and the Crossroads Mall (refurbished in 1983; closed in 2004 and renamed Twenty Ninth Street) and neither has recovered. All the Crossroads stores except Foley’s were demolished.
The onus is now on Flatiron and its age and vulnerability are showing. The new Event Center nearby is struggling. Looking ahead, no doubt, Broomfield officials, in reconfiguring the city’s boundary into a county, made sure to secure, yes, a viable mall site at the junction of Colo. 7 and I-25, pretty far afield. But upscale anchor stores are scarcer than ever, and discount retailers, disdaining the stiff mall rent, find they can operate just as well on the periphery – in Longmont, that’s just west across the street.
Mixed-use or not, the Longmont City Council has no business diverting tax revenue through TIF into this privately owned mall project -- “on the come” or for any other concocted reason, such as “infrastructure.” Obviously, if TIF availability is a deal killer, then that should raise some red flags.
“Blight” is a term that, unfortunately, reflects negatively on both the property-owner, for letting his holdings deteriorate and doing nothing about it, and the City Council and manager for allowing it to continue. A further example of the city's inaction is the truly blighted, burn-scarred flour mill, in my opinion an eyesore that could drive potential businesses away.
The city should get down to business: shut off the sales pitch, fire the high-priced consultants, tell the Twin Peaks mall owner to present his financial capability, submit his plan for review, and whenever he is ready, let’s see the renovating start--without leaning on the taxpayers.
Let’s face it: Shopping malls across America are losing their oomph, no matter their location, status or upgrading. The sagging economy and inflated gasoline prices played a part, but the word “anachronism” might better fit the declining shopping-mall era. Fickle shoppers, famous for flitting from mall to mall, are fleeing to the stand-alone big boxes and, ominously, to the matchless variety and convenience of the Internet where, of course, they don’t even have to pay sales taxes.
On April 16 the nation’s second largest mall owner, General Growth Properties Inc. of Chicago, filed for bankruptcy. Of the 200 malls GGP owns, four are in Colorado: Park Meadows in Lone Tree (south Denver), Foothills in Fort Collins, Southwest Plaza in Littleton, and Chapel Hills in north Colorado Springs. All of these four are considered upper tier. Chapel Hills, one of the newer malls in Colorado Springs, lured shoppers from the Citadel Mall in east Colorado Springs, which earlier had plundered the Sears-anchored Southgate Mall on that city’s south side. City officials naturally don’t care who wins the dizzying mall game, just so the tax revenues keep flowing.
Having lived in Colorado all my life and being casually observant of shopping malls around the state, very few of the once-flourishing malls are left. Although not the oldest, Denver’s Cherry Creek is probably still the classiest. Louisville tried valiantly to get into the mall game in 1980 but developer Jacobs-Kahan of Chicago had no luck signing an anchor store and finally gave up.
Retail outlet stores were popular for a while. Clusters sprouted up at places like Frisco and Castle Rock. Probably the most successful was at Loveland -- until the Centerra strip mall opened nearby.
Even Urban Renewal with its eminent domain power and tax increment financing “partnering” with local taxpayers could not save Englewood’s charming Cinderella City Mall, which opened in 1968 to compete with the nearby Villa Italia Mall, built in 1965. Despite the investment of millions of TIF tax dollars to renovate it mid-term, Cinderella City, an elaborate, covered complex, was demolished in 1999.
Villa Italia, despite a $120 million infusion of cash by the City of Lakewood in converting it to a “sustainable” mixed-use housing/stores complex, and after changing the mall’s name to Belmar, it still lost anchor stores Dillard’s and J.C. Penney and has never recovered. Shoppers complained that the “village feeling” of the mixed-use concept was confusing and made the mall hard to navigate.
Boulder’s Crossroads Mall, funded almost entirely with huge amounts of Urban Renewal TIF money--those who know will not reveal the total indebtedness--ran into trouble when the Westminster Mall just down the road (both opened in the early 1960s) began expanding. But of course, the Westminster Mall had diverted shoppers from the once-prosperous Northglenn Mall, helping shut it down. Then, with Broomfield’s bold, new Flatiron Mall arriving on the scene in 1999, the City of Westminster spent $7.5 million helping its mall owner renovate, but to little avail. Flatiron had lured shoppers away from both the Westminster Mall and the Crossroads Mall (refurbished in 1983; closed in 2004 and renamed Twenty Ninth Street) and neither has recovered. All the Crossroads stores except Foley’s were demolished.
The onus is now on Flatiron and its age and vulnerability are showing. The new Event Center nearby is struggling. Looking ahead, no doubt, Broomfield officials, in reconfiguring the city’s boundary into a county, made sure to secure, yes, a viable mall site at the junction of Colo. 7 and I-25, pretty far afield. But upscale anchor stores are scarcer than ever, and discount retailers, disdaining the stiff mall rent, find they can operate just as well on the periphery – in Longmont, that’s just west across the street.
Mixed-use or not, the Longmont City Council has no business diverting tax revenue through TIF into this privately owned mall project -- “on the come” or for any other concocted reason, such as “infrastructure.” Obviously, if TIF availability is a deal killer, then that should raise some red flags.
“Blight” is a term that, unfortunately, reflects negatively on both the property-owner, for letting his holdings deteriorate and doing nothing about it, and the City Council and manager for allowing it to continue. A further example of the city's inaction is the truly blighted, burn-scarred flour mill, in my opinion an eyesore that could drive potential businesses away.
The city should get down to business: shut off the sales pitch, fire the high-priced consultants, tell the Twin Peaks mall owner to present his financial capability, submit his plan for review, and whenever he is ready, let’s see the renovating start--without leaning on the taxpayers.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Longmont foreclosure weekly update
Longmont foreclosures hit a new high this week, according to the Classified section of the Times-Call. There was a total of 62 foreclosures, of which 13 new ones were added. Over the last 5 weeks, on average, Longmont is adding almost 2 foreclosures every day (1.88). Here's the latest map
View Longmont Foreclosures in a larger map
KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries (41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries (55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries (47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries (48 total)
Purple-5/9/09 13 new entries (62 total)*
Worse than it looks
*The 13/62 numbers don't tell the whole story. There were 3 instances of new foreclosures that appear to be a second addresses (possibly a duplex) under the same borrowers name that are not included in the new/total numbers . Also, one property that had ran its 5 week course in the paper has reappeared and is starting a new 5 week printing.
Troubling trend
When I type this in, and look over which ones are new or old, certain street names are bound to sound familiar. What I'm seeing is multiple homes on a street, in a row, going into foreclosure one right after the other. I find it hard to believe that it's just a coincidence that 3 or 4 homes side by side (more if you include duplexes) have borrowers that all fell on hard times at the exact same time. It's not impossible, but improbable. The only other explanation is plummeting home values and neighbors seeing the handwriting on the wall and just abandoning their home and mortgages. This kind of copycat defaulting could prove devastating to Longmont and other places around the country.
View Longmont Foreclosures in a larger map
KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries (41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries (55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries (47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries (48 total)
Purple-5/9/09 13 new entries (62 total)*
Worse than it looks
*The 13/62 numbers don't tell the whole story. There were 3 instances of new foreclosures that appear to be a second addresses (possibly a duplex) under the same borrowers name that are not included in the new/total numbers . Also, one property that had ran its 5 week course in the paper has reappeared and is starting a new 5 week printing.
Troubling trend
When I type this in, and look over which ones are new or old, certain street names are bound to sound familiar. What I'm seeing is multiple homes on a street, in a row, going into foreclosure one right after the other. I find it hard to believe that it's just a coincidence that 3 or 4 homes side by side (more if you include duplexes) have borrowers that all fell on hard times at the exact same time. It's not impossible, but improbable. The only other explanation is plummeting home values and neighbors seeing the handwriting on the wall and just abandoning their home and mortgages. This kind of copycat defaulting could prove devastating to Longmont and other places around the country.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Longmonts foreclosures, and other governmental failures
Just a snapshot for those that still think things are going so swimmingly in Longmont. Below is a map (which should automatically update) of foreclosures throughout the city. The first week I started tracking these was April 11th, which is why Blue (the first color I used) is predominant, as it depicts new and old foreclosures in that newspaper section. Afterwards, the other colors are just the new additions by week.
View Longmont Foreclosures in a larger map
In the KEY below, you can see new and total entries by week. These are in the Saturday Longmont Times-Call in the Classifieds D section, and these take up most of the Classifieds section. It appears that these foreclosures must run for five (5) consecutive weeks in the paper. Other information included in these foreclosures (which I did not include here) are the names of the people that are on the deeds, the amount originally loaned, the loan balance, and the date of auction.
KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries (41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries (55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries (47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries (48 total)
-----------------------------------------------
Impressions
I waited until I had a few weeks of data to see trends before posting this map and these numbers. One thing to keep in mind when looking at the total numbers when 50 or so don't seem so bad - there are surely many more, they've just run out their 5 week requirement to be published in the paper. While things peaked on 4/18/09, the new and total numbers are fairly stable and the total number is actually higher than the first tracking week of 4/11/09.
One troubling thing when looking deeper into the foreclosures is the differences between the original loan and the amount owed. No doubt there are always seconds and lines of credit taken out on a home when it's appreciating. But many of these homes were bought (or refinanced) when values were already sliding, so enough appreciation to get a second appears unlikely. Some loans were short term and some looked like no payments were ever made at all. Still others could have been loans over 100% of the homes value.
Stealing from the future
Just a hypothetical, philosophical question here: how is taking out several thousand dollars on a second/line of credit (some are over $20k), and then just walking away not stealing? Is it really any surprise that banks are failing all over the country given this situation? Many were forced into dealing in these sub-prime mortgages or face sanctions from the government (thanks to Barney Frank and friends), and lent money to people with income/debt ratios that were set-ups for failure - for the lender and borrower - and we all are paying for it, and will for decades.
Cold hard truths
Not everyone can buy or own a home. Putting someone into a home they can't afford, instead of renting permanently or temporarily to save money, is not doing that person a favor. In every one of these foreclosure notices is a story; many paid several thousand dollars (again, some over $20k) lowering their balance, only to lose their home (and all the money they paid into it) trying to keep their word on a loan.
Meanwhile, while these people are struggling to hold on (some surely are still in these homes), the City of Longmont is playing tiddlywinks with more people who can't afford homes and throwing money at affordable housing programs. Great, more future failure. If the next fact doesn't bother you, nothing will: In a recent City Council meeting, it was revealed that some homes in the affordable housing program have gone into foreclosure. But that's not all - not only did you (if you're a taxpayer) help fund getting someone into one of these homes, some of these people got out seconds/lines of credit, trashed the house, left it, and took the money from the second/line of credit with them - which you will also help fund. Taking it in the front end, and the back.
End affordable housing
This is surely not going to make me popular, but someone has to say it.
Longmont should temporarily (or better yet, permanently) end all funding in its budget for affordable housing. First, help, where possible, people in foreclosure, if they are suitable candidates - in other words, can they keep up payments? Second, (and this is after foreclosure candidates are taken care of) look into affordable renting assistance. Isn't the overall goal to get people off of the streets and into warm places? That doesn't necessarily mean home ownership, and it's a mistake (in my opinion) to make that risky leap, for the city and the potential affordable housing candidate.
Rights, not guarantees
The Declaration of Independence says you have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - which was actually a tweak on a passage from the Virginia Declaration of Rights' "the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety" - which itself was a tweak on John Locke's "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions". These are rights, not guarantees, not promises, and definitely not endowed by a government entity like some program that gives away breaks on homes at the expense of others (taxpayers in this case). This is not to say government can't help in these situations, it can and should. But it needs to do it smarter and differently.
One example
I'm going to disagree with someone I rarely disagree with, Councilmember Mary Blue, who I believe is perhaps one of the best councilmembers we currently have. She made a statement about not being able to tell the difference between the affordable homes, the Habitat for Humanity homes, and the regular homes in her neighborhood. Ironically, a couple of weeks before she said this during a council meeting, a friend of mine who lives in the same neighborhood painted a completely different picture - that the ratio of these homes is too high, that some bigger homes are wedged and surrounded by these smaller homes that stick out and bring down home values making it nearly impossible to sell - regardless of the market. Some of these homes have also been abandoned. Whatever positives came from these homes was apparently only temporary.
That is one but one example of this failed system, as is the foreclosure map above, and you probably are aware of stories in your own neighborhood along these lines. People can point blame in whichever direction that helps make their own personal points: banks, sub-prime lenders, borrowers, over-regulation, under-regulation, unemployment, or bad luck. For more than one reason, my pick is bad government, whether elected or appointed bureaucrats, nationally and locally. What's being done nationally and locally is not helping, only exacerbating and extending the misery.
You've heard of pro/anti/smart growth, this isn't about big/small government, it's about smart government. Currently, ours isn't very.
View Longmont Foreclosures in a larger map
In the KEY below, you can see new and total entries by week. These are in the Saturday Longmont Times-Call in the Classifieds D section, and these take up most of the Classifieds section. It appears that these foreclosures must run for five (5) consecutive weeks in the paper. Other information included in these foreclosures (which I did not include here) are the names of the people that are on the deeds, the amount originally loaned, the loan balance, and the date of auction.
KEY
Blue= 4/11/09 16 new entries (41 total)
Red= 4/18/09 20 new entries (55 total)
Green= 4/25/09 8 new entries (47 total)
Yellow= 5/2/09 9 new entries (48 total)
-----------------------------------------------
Impressions
I waited until I had a few weeks of data to see trends before posting this map and these numbers. One thing to keep in mind when looking at the total numbers when 50 or so don't seem so bad - there are surely many more, they've just run out their 5 week requirement to be published in the paper. While things peaked on 4/18/09, the new and total numbers are fairly stable and the total number is actually higher than the first tracking week of 4/11/09.
One troubling thing when looking deeper into the foreclosures is the differences between the original loan and the amount owed. No doubt there are always seconds and lines of credit taken out on a home when it's appreciating. But many of these homes were bought (or refinanced) when values were already sliding, so enough appreciation to get a second appears unlikely. Some loans were short term and some looked like no payments were ever made at all. Still others could have been loans over 100% of the homes value.
Stealing from the future
Just a hypothetical, philosophical question here: how is taking out several thousand dollars on a second/line of credit (some are over $20k), and then just walking away not stealing? Is it really any surprise that banks are failing all over the country given this situation? Many were forced into dealing in these sub-prime mortgages or face sanctions from the government (thanks to Barney Frank and friends), and lent money to people with income/debt ratios that were set-ups for failure - for the lender and borrower - and we all are paying for it, and will for decades.
Cold hard truths
Not everyone can buy or own a home. Putting someone into a home they can't afford, instead of renting permanently or temporarily to save money, is not doing that person a favor. In every one of these foreclosure notices is a story; many paid several thousand dollars (again, some over $20k) lowering their balance, only to lose their home (and all the money they paid into it) trying to keep their word on a loan.
Meanwhile, while these people are struggling to hold on (some surely are still in these homes), the City of Longmont is playing tiddlywinks with more people who can't afford homes and throwing money at affordable housing programs. Great, more future failure. If the next fact doesn't bother you, nothing will: In a recent City Council meeting, it was revealed that some homes in the affordable housing program have gone into foreclosure. But that's not all - not only did you (if you're a taxpayer) help fund getting someone into one of these homes, some of these people got out seconds/lines of credit, trashed the house, left it, and took the money from the second/line of credit with them - which you will also help fund. Taking it in the front end, and the back.
End affordable housing
This is surely not going to make me popular, but someone has to say it.
Longmont should temporarily (or better yet, permanently) end all funding in its budget for affordable housing. First, help, where possible, people in foreclosure, if they are suitable candidates - in other words, can they keep up payments? Second, (and this is after foreclosure candidates are taken care of) look into affordable renting assistance. Isn't the overall goal to get people off of the streets and into warm places? That doesn't necessarily mean home ownership, and it's a mistake (in my opinion) to make that risky leap, for the city and the potential affordable housing candidate.
Rights, not guarantees
The Declaration of Independence says you have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" - which was actually a tweak on a passage from the Virginia Declaration of Rights' "the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety" - which itself was a tweak on John Locke's "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions". These are rights, not guarantees, not promises, and definitely not endowed by a government entity like some program that gives away breaks on homes at the expense of others (taxpayers in this case). This is not to say government can't help in these situations, it can and should. But it needs to do it smarter and differently.
One example
I'm going to disagree with someone I rarely disagree with, Councilmember Mary Blue, who I believe is perhaps one of the best councilmembers we currently have. She made a statement about not being able to tell the difference between the affordable homes, the Habitat for Humanity homes, and the regular homes in her neighborhood. Ironically, a couple of weeks before she said this during a council meeting, a friend of mine who lives in the same neighborhood painted a completely different picture - that the ratio of these homes is too high, that some bigger homes are wedged and surrounded by these smaller homes that stick out and bring down home values making it nearly impossible to sell - regardless of the market. Some of these homes have also been abandoned. Whatever positives came from these homes was apparently only temporary.
That is one but one example of this failed system, as is the foreclosure map above, and you probably are aware of stories in your own neighborhood along these lines. People can point blame in whichever direction that helps make their own personal points: banks, sub-prime lenders, borrowers, over-regulation, under-regulation, unemployment, or bad luck. For more than one reason, my pick is bad government, whether elected or appointed bureaucrats, nationally and locally. What's being done nationally and locally is not helping, only exacerbating and extending the misery.
You've heard of pro/anti/smart growth, this isn't about big/small government, it's about smart government. Currently, ours isn't very.
Saturday, May 2, 2009
Longmont’s Mall theater solution: Netflix!
Contrary to what some, or even many, people may think, I don’t go out of my way to try to make some members of Longmont City Council look bad. They usually do it all by themselves. Problem is, most people in this city have no idea what kinds of things come out of their mouths, and if they did they would occasionally be appalled – or at least entertained.
On Saturday May 2nd, three councilmembers (Karen Benker, Sarah Levison, and Brian Hansen) hosted a town meeting along with members of city staff. The hottest topic that took up most of the meeting was the Twin Peaks Mall. Whenever the mall is a topic in the Times-Call, the comments from citizens are many, long, and heated. For the most part, people want something done with this failing piece of property. And yesterday.
Who needs theaters when you have Netflix?
Many of the comments by the above councilmembers were quite revealing. The most ridiculous has to go to Mr. Hansen. Most people in the city seem to be in favor of a new theater, the old one has lousy seating, along with sub-par picture and sound quality. It’s ugly and people go elsewhere, plain and simple. When asked about this theater situation, Mr. Hansen said that no one is going to theaters anymore, and a viable alternative is to stay at home and rent from Netflix.
Now, I love Netflix, use it constantly, both streaming and by mail. But how many of you relish the idea of sitting around the glow of your TV (and the warmth of your mercury-laden CFL bulbs) and staying home to watch movies? Keep in mind Netflix doesn’t have movies when they first come out, so you have to wait a bit for that new picture you want to see. Mr. Hansen also used the excuse of getting the flu or cold in theaters, which is possible anywhere you have actual interaction with live human beings. Who needs that, right?
It's tough being green
Then the point of driving to the theater came up and how he can just walk down to the mailbox and drop off his DVD. This is not very eco-friendly when you take into account everything involved with multiple vehicles in the US Postal system getting that DVD to and from your mailbox. It’s a much smaller carbon footprint to drive a mile, or even several miles, to a theater. Or walk, or ride your bike, or take a bus – just about anything.
Then there’s the “benefit to the city” issue: What sales/use tax does Netflix bring to the City of Longmont? I’d guess ZERO. And Mr. Hansen is endorsing a service that competes directly with companies around town that rent or sell DVD’s who actually do bring revenues into the city.
His excuse was the improvements in flat panels and home theaters, and that the sound they offer is about as good as you’re going to get at a theater. How many of you would agree with that? It may be better than what Twin Peaks Mall theater has NOW, but not in a new stadium seating, Dolby Digital theater, which is about the bare minimum now in new theaters surrounding, but not in, Longmont.
How do you really feel?
But it wasn’t just the theater with Mr. Hansen. He said more than once he isn’t against the mall redevelopment, yet he has consistently spoken and voted against it. There is a contingent here in Longmont, and they always side with Mr. Hansen and the “Benker-wing” of city council, who have made it clear it’s just fine with them if the land where the mall now sits became one big Open Space with prairie dogs as far as the eye can see. It’s my opinion that Mr. Hansen’s above comments reveal his true feelings about the mall: let it fail, let it be bulldozed, let it be “returned to its natural state” (my term).
What was really infuriating was his comments that now is not the time to do this with the economy in the shape that it’s in, and that the city was in a “much better position to do something” prior to the downturn. I’ve been writing about this situation for well over a year, (see for yourself at this link) and the stalling game this council has played with the mall. There have been public meetings (which Mr. Hansen never attended), studies, a “charrette” – you name it, it’s been done ad nuaseam with this mall. And long before these “hard economic times”.
The most accurate thing he said was “they (Panattoni) are in the mall business, and I’m not. They’re probably more experts than we are.” You wouldn’t know that watching City Council meetings on this subject for the last year and a half. Karen Benker noted that “people are voting with their feet”, which is true, right into other malls and theaters in Boulder, Erie, and Loveland.
Council's Mall hostility
Sarah Levisons continued apparent hostility towards Panattoni continued with her comments about “strip mall stuff like Harvest Junction”, and how inexperienced the company is. She also kept saying they could build any time they want – although there is the little issue of getting it through Planning and Zoning and a vote of council – which is a consistent NO vote from Ms. Levison.
Like I said prior, drive by Harvest Junction, is that (and the now planned hotel) the small, meaningless potatoes that some on this council pretend it to be? The question was asked, and Ms. Benker didn’t quite get it, so I’ll rephrase it: The pro-mall comments at this meeting notwithstanding, about a year ago you were more positive on the mall situation, something changed and as your support went south, the project stalled. Without using the excuse of the economy (your support fell prior to that), why did your support wane? Was it a shifting interest and prioritization towards Downtown? What has Panattoni done wrong, or differently, to warrant this negative treatment?
These things have consequences
Whatever the reason, all of the citizens of Longmont suffer over this council’s inaction, stalling, and stonewalling of this issue. If nothing happens with Twin Peaks Mall before November, regardless of your newfound and returned support, the stalling by you and the consistent non-support by your fellow councilmembers (Levison, Hansen, and McCoy) will be a major election issue. Count on it.
(Additional resources for this report provided by the Longmont Examiner)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)