Westminster Council OKs Citywide Redevelopment

Seeking funds to improve aging roads and sewers, the Westminster City Council on Wednesday unanimously approved a controversial plan to designate the entire city a redevelopment zone.

“I have historically opposed redevelopment,” Councilman Kermit Marsh said. “But this amendment excludes eminent domain. That can’t happen with this redevelopment plan.”

Council members say the plan was written to require a two-thirds vote by property owners and a unanimous council vote before private property is taken for public use.

By designating virtually all 10 square miles of the community a “blighted” area, the city for the next 30 years will be able to keep a large part of any increase in property tax revenue to pay for an estimated $260 million in needed repairs to streets and public facilities.

The redevelopment plan drew opposition from some residents who feared that property values would plummet, creating a hardship for anyone trying to sell a home. A dozen people spoke against it Wednesday night, most asking to be excluded from the redevelopment zoning created by the proposal.

“It disturbs me that the city sold this as a ‘Infrastructure Revitalization Plan,’ not as a redevelopment plan,” 27-year resident Craig Schweisinger said. “There would have been 400 people here tonight protesting if they had known.”

Redevelopment law, he said, “was not designed as a financing vehicle. What scares me is that now the city will be able to transfer general funding revenue into pet projects.”

State redevelopment experts say Westminster and neighboring Stanton are the first cities in the state to declare their towns blighted since 1993, when the law was changed to tighten loopholes and prevent abuses.

Across the nation, the object of most redevelopment efforts has been to entice industry and large retailers into town, adding sales and property tax revenue to city treasuries and creating jobs.

But Westminster officials have held fast to the idea that their Infrastructure Revitalization Plan is sound and have held a series of town-hall meetings to explain state redevelopment laws and calm concerned residents.

“This was not an underhanded attempt,” Councilwoman Joy L. Neugebauer said. “My property is listed within the redevelopment zone, and I have no problem with it.”