by Mark Smiley | Jun 24, 2015 | Main Articles
Parks Head Dannemiller Dumped By Hancock
Kevin Flynn
by Charles C. Bonniwell
Neighborhood activist Wayne New will be sworn in as a Denver City Councilman on July 20, 2015, after a battle royale runoff against Mayor Michael Hancock’s handpicked candidate Anna Jones, a former member of the Denver Planning Commission, in a close vote 52% to 48%. The mayor and his real estate developer and lobbyist backers pulled out all stops to defeat New even going as far as bringing in the State Democratic Party to weigh in on the election. The party faithful canvassed neighborhoods to assert that New had at one time been a Republican and had given U.S. Senator Cory Gardner $250 in his election race.
The tactic may have backfired as some local Democrats resented the mayor trying to turn a nonpartisan municipal race into a partisan one. Numerous leading Democrats across the city began endorsing New. The fact that Jones was the mayor’s pick and had been a member of the ethically challenged Denver Planning Commission hurt her with some voters. The Denver Planning Commission all of whose members are appointed by the mayor, has in re
cent years been seen as little more than a rubber stamp for real estate developers’ plans to massively increase density throughout the city. Jones, in turn, attacked New claiming he did not give enough attention to developing more affordable housing in the 10th District which covers Cherry Creek North, the Golden Triangle and Congress Park.
Money For Jones, Volunteers For New
While Mayor Hancock and his allies such as Steve Farber of Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck, LLC and Maria Garcia Berry of CRL Associates were raising unprecedented amounts of money for Jones (in excess of $135,000 according to The Denver Post election Campaign Finance Report) nei
ghborhood groups throughout the city were mobilizing on behalf of New. Rafael Espinoza the winner in the general election over incumbent Susan Shepherd in District 1 not only endorsed New but sent scores of his volunteer army to the 10th District to knock on doors and get out the vote for New. Backers of former Washington Park Profile publisher Paul Kashmann who defeated the mayor’s candidate, Liz Adams, in District 6 in the May 5 General Election also volunteered for New as well as back-
ers of upset victor Tim O’Brien who will be the new City Auditor. One of the key Kashmann and O’Brien supporters who worked the Golden Triangle neighborhood for New was popular former Denver Councilwomen Kathleen McKenzie.
Despite the victory of New, as well as other neighborhood oriented candidates, it is not clear whether things will change at City Hall. Trish Abbott declared, “We now have three people who will fight for our neighborhoods — New, Espinoza and Kashmann — and they will fight the sleaze and corruption at City Hall.” Abbott cautioned however, “In the same election the so-called ‘dirty d
uo’ of Stacie Gilmore and Kendra Black also won seats and they will do as instructed by Farber and Garcia and of course real estate developer Pat Hamill.”
It is also unclear which side the former Rocky Mountain News reporter Kevin Flynn, who won in the 2nd District, is on. Both he and his opponent John Kidd were support-
ed by the real estate developers and lobbyists. Nobody knows for sure whether he will join the three recently elected pro neighborhood councilmen or fall under the sway of the mayor. Espinoza indicated that th
e pro neighborhood group of councilmembers is also looking for allies among re-elected members and they have hopes for Councilwoman-at-Large Debbie Ortega and re-elected Councilman Paul Lopez.
Dannemiller Dumped
In a separate but perhaps related move, Mayor Hancock refused to reappoint Lauri Dannemiller as the head of Parks and Recreation. The controversial Dannemiller had destroyed her reputation with some by refusing to follow her Parks and Recreation Advisory Board vote not to sell off Hentzell Park land for a development supported by Mayor Hancock. She also helped the mayor throw independent pro-park members off the Parks Advisory Board who voted against the mayor and helped put on the Board real estate lobbyists like Marcus Pachner.
Some neighborhood activists were surprised. “Lauri Dannemiller became a loathed individual in many circles in Denver for giving away the Hentzell Park land and destroying the independence of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board,” stated Abbott. “She did the mayor’s bidding and then he unceremoniously dumped her. She has become badly damaged goods, thanks to the mayor and now she is unemployed and perhaps unemployable.”
Other observers, however, see a greater long-term plan by the mayor. Larry Stevenson, the best man at Mayor Hancock’s wedding and the asserted godfather to Hancock’s son, held a key job at the city’s Excise and Licensing Department, but was at the end of April indicted for two counts of bribery by the Denver District Attorney. The indictment states businessmen were introduced to Stevenson as Hancock’s “right hand man” and someone Mayor Hancock would go to when “he needed something done.”
The mayor’s office has denied a recent close relationship between Mayor Hancock and Stevenson, but most observers confirm that Scott Gilmore and the mayor are close friends and has become according to some circles one of the men the mayor goes to when “he needs something done.”
Gilmore was the second in charge of Parks and Recreation behind Lauri Dannemiller. More than a few eyebrows were raised when the Mayor urged Scott Gilmore’s wife, Stacie, to run for the District 11 City Council seat in northeast Denver that Hancock once held and still remains a strong influence. Gilmore and her husband have previously been the recipient of city favoritism in the form of city contracts for over $500,000 to the corporation Environmental Learning for Kids, established by the couple in 1999.
The dismissal of Dannemiller places Gilmore as the head of Parks and Recreation at least for the interim. Whether Hancock would be brazen enough to place his personal friend Gilmore as the permanent head of the floundering Parks and Recreation Department while Gilmore’s wife sits on the City Council is unknown, but would at least provide a viable rationale for the Dannemiller dismissal.
by Mark Smiley | May 22, 2015 | Main Articles
Glendale Reauthorizes Eminent Domain But With Restrictions
by Mark Smiley
The Glendale City Council reauthorized its urban renewal authority with the power of eminent domain, but with various restrictions by unanimous vote on Tuesday, May 12, 2015. The City Council meeting was jam-packed with television cameras from every local news station lining one wall, reminding some veteran observers of council meetings in the late 1990s when meetings were known as the “Tuesday Night Fights.”
Some city officials were surprised by the vehemence and vitriol of the meeting which, in their minds, was simply reinvesting its urban renewal authority with eminent domain authority which it has previously done in 2004 and again in 2013.
Officials also expressed dismay that articles in the media wrongly indicated that property can be taken without paying the landowner full and fair compensation as determined by a Colorado court. They also noted that the notice applies to the entire 42 acre parcel of land and not a single property.
However, the wealthy and influential Kholghy family from Iran, who owns Authentic Persian and Oriental Rugs, viewed the notice of reauthorization as a precursor to condemnation of their business and the five acres it owns along Colorado Boulevard and East Virginia Avenue.
The Kholghys, as M.A.K. Investment Group, LLC, having retained two high-priced Denver law firms, sued the city’s urban renewal authority in Arapahoe County District Court, asserting abuse of governmental due process. In the complaint the law firms argued that the Kholghys rather than Wulfe & Co., a Houston, Texas developer, should have been chosen to redevelop the entire 42 acre parcel of land, notwithstanding the fact that the Kholghys do not have any experience as developers. Glendale 180, formerly known as the Riverwalk, has been years in the making and will be a dining and entertainment district along Cherry Creek. The Kholghys have also retained the non-profit Virginia-based law firm Institute for Justice who sent attorney Phil Applebaum to the meeting. “They have a right to keep what they’ve worked so hard to own,” said Applebaum.
City representatives pointed out that the Kholghys bought the land in 2006 in order to profit from the redevelopment, and they acquired the land two years after the area was declared blighted and an urban renewal authority had been set up.
For added heft and muscle, the Kholghys engaged the Oath Keepers, a paramilitary militia organization of current and former U.S. military and law enforcement members who assert that they will disobey any orders tha
t they are given if they believe it violates the U.S. Constitution. Former presidential candidate Pat Buchanan said of the Oath Keepers that “depending on where one stands, {they] are either defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of paranoia.”
At the meeting an Oath Keeper representative emphatically noted they had been a prominent part of the Bundy Ranch standoff in Nevada and the Ferguson, Missouri, demonstrations. The Oath Keepers demonstrated outside of city hall before the meeting on behalf of the Kholghys forcing attendees to walk through their lines to get to the meeting. One agitated attendee at the meeting wondered out loud, “Is it the Constitution of the United State or that of Islamic Republic of Iran that these guys are trying to intimidate the residents of Glendale into obeying. Who will the Kholghys bring in next to threaten everyone — biker gangs? Glendale residents don’t particularly like to be pushed around and intimidated so the Kholghys can hold up the city. Is this how they think this country works?”
The Kholghys also brought scores of its customers and acquaintances to the meeting from around the metropolitan area that generally excoriated the council and Mayor Mike Dunafon. None of their supporters were from Glendale.
The Oath Keepers originally indicated that they would attempt to recall anyone who voted for the reauthorization. The only actual resident of Glendale to speak, Doug Turner, praised what the city council was trying to accomplish in the small municipality.
Jimmy O ‘Connor, the owner of the property prior to his sale to the Kholghy family in 2006, said at the meeting that the Kholghys bought it from him for $6.5 million. The family indicated to the media it has offers for the property from third parties in the $20 million range. Upon conclusion of the meeting, Mayor Dunafon said they should accept one of the offers if they thought they could get that price. Local experts anticipated that the land was likely worth approximately $12.5 million. An independent appraisal has been ordered by the city.
After several hours of comments Mayor Pro Tem Paula Bovo stated, “The reason we have everybody in the room tonight is because eminent domain is a scary thing. If we can add an extra layer of security without compromising the entire project, I would be willing to do that. … I will do everything in my power to make sure it doesn’t come down to the big threat, the big stick of eminent domain.”
Bovo suggested a compromise whereby the City Council would approve the reauthorization resolution but with restrictions on the urban renewal authority. The city would act in good faith and make a full and fair effort to come to an agreement with any landowner prior to eminent domain.
After consultation with local legal counsel, attorneys for the city and the Kholghys, and Jody Alderman of the law firm Alderman Bernstein drafted an amendment which, among other items, requires the city to enter into mediation with a landowner. The mediator is to be chosen by the landowner but the cost would be borne by the city.
The compromise appeared to be generally acceptable to the main parties involved that night. However, Nasarin Kholghy was a guest on the Fox & Friends television show the following morning and demanded the city abolish the possibility of eminent domain regarding Glendale 180.
After the meeting Mayor Dunafon stated in interviews with local television stations that the city did not want to condemn anyone and did not anticipate the city doing so. “You can’t start the process and even enter into negotiation until the authority is empowered, and by the way, it doesn’t mean the authority ever has to use condemnation and it probably never will,” said Dunafon.
Dunafon generally received high marks from some attendees for facilitating and allowing attendees who wanted to speak an opportunity to do so and for maintaining an equitable demeanor notwithstanding the highly personal nature of some remarks by Kholghy supporters.
One Glendale resident who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation from the Kholghys and their militia supporters concluded, “Ali and Saeed push Nasarin out front and like to pretend to the press that they are victims. By threatening residents with a paramilitary demonstration of force shows who they really are. They know how to work the legal system, the press and everyone else, but in the end they will do anything to anybody to get their way.”
by Mark Smiley | May 22, 2015 | Main Articles
O’Brien Upsets Nevitt For Auditor
Kashmann Upsets Adams In District 6
Shepherd First Incumbent To Lose In 28 Years
New And Jones In Runoff On June 2
by Charles C. Bonniwell
The City and County of Denver’s municipal election on May 5, for mayor and all 13 council seats was considered relatively tame since incumbent Mayor Michael Hancock had no major opposition, but beneath the surface a major revolt appears to be gaining momentum which may be culminated in the four runoff elections on June 2. Hancock, and the real estate developers and unions that support him, had recruited a series of candidates and lavished them funding and logistical help. Many of them were also endorsed by The Denver Post which has strongly backed the mayor ever since he assumed office, and after an early dispute over whether the mayor had been a client of a prostitution ring known as Denver Players/Denver Sugar.
Perhaps the most surprising upset occurred in the Auditor’s race where former Colorado State Auditor Timothy O’Brien won by six percentage points over Councilman Chris Nevitt. The councilman was strongly backed by Mayor Hancock and his financial supporters along with outgoing auditor Dennis Gallagher. Nevitt raised close to $400,000, much of which came from unions, real estate developers and lobbyists, such Marcia Garcia Berry of CRL Associates who was Nevitt’s campaign treasurer. Nevitt also had the strong backing of “super lawyer” Steve Farber and his fellow attorneys at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP.
O’Brien, in turn, raised approximately $40,000 and had to lend his campaign an additional $40,000 to get his message out in the waning days of the campaign. Notwithstanding the fact that Nevitt was considered the heir apparent to Hancock as mayor of Denver, O’Brien took almost 55 percent of the vote. O’Brien supporters indicated that they thought reasons for the upset included O’Brien’s professional background and demeanor compared with Nevitt’s lack of qualifications for the post. What may have also contributed to Nevitt’s defeat was the fact that he supported two 31 story apartment buildings which some resi
dents believe will permanently scar the Denver skyline and a general dissatisfaction with City Hall being under the control of real estate developers.
Almost as surprising as the O’Brien upset was the victory of Rafael Espinoza. For the first time since 1987 an incumbent councilperson (Susan Shepherd) lost, and she lost badly. Rafael Espinoza garnered an amazing 69 percent of the vote. Shepherd set a potential record for lowest percentage of the vote ever by an incumbent councilperson getting only 31 percent from the voters. Shepherd, like Nevitt, had originally won in 2011 with overwhelming union support, but after the election, she became close to developers who got approval for projects in Sloans Lake and West Highlands. Members of neighborhood groups that opposed developments
approved by Shepherd, like No High Rises in West Highlands and Sloan’s Lake Neighborhood Association were believed crucial in the electoral tsunami. Shepherd was also lavishly supported by Steve Farber and members of his firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP according to financial disclosure records.
Another upset was the victory of former Washington Park Profile publisher Paul Kashmann over another Hancock picked candidate Liz Adams. She was also endorsed by popular outgoing Councilman Charlie Brown and The Denver Post as well as the coterie of lobbyists and real estate developers and members of the ubiquitous Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP law firm. The race in District 6 mirrored that in District 1 and the auditor’s race where some residents believed excessively dense and under planned real estate developments were being rushed through the City Council.
Whether the citizen revolt will be complete will depend on the runoff races on June 2.
In particular the races in Districts 10 and 11 involve neighborhood candidates against candidates picked by Mayor Hancock and his supporters. In the first round f
ormer Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association President Wayne New held a small lead (35% to 33%) against former Denver Planning Board member Anna Jones who is supported by the ever present Steve Farber and real estate developers. New surprisingly has the endorsement of The Denver Post.
In northeast Denver’s District 11, Mayor Hancock and Steve Farber’s candidate is Stacie Gilmore, wife of Scott Gilmore who is the appointee of the mayor as the Deputy Manager of Parks for Denver. Stacie Gilmore’s lack of independence and ethical challenges in voting on matters concerning the Parks and Recreation Department have become major issues in the race. Her opponent Sean Bradley is the president and CEO of the Denver Urban League. District 11 is one of the places in Denver where the mayor’s sub silencio support is believed to be of help. The ethically challenged Gilmore also has the endorsement of The Denver Post and money from members of the Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP law firm. In the first round Gilmore garnered 38 percent of the v
ote to 25 percent for Bradley.
While the May 2 results were generally a cause of celebration for neighborhood groups and grassroots activists there was one stain for them in the victory of Kendra Black in District 4 (Hampden area) over Halisi Vinson and Carolina Klein. Vinson had the strong endorsement of former mayor Wellington Webb and park advocates, but Black raised almost $200,000. One disappointed Vinson supporter who knows Black from the Thomas Jefferson High School Alumni Association noted that “at least the money boys got a win after so many other losses. She will do as instructed which will be sad for parks and neighborhoods in District 4, but her big money supporters will make a lot of money. Our neighborhood groups see her as the next Susan Shepherd. We have pledged to keep a close eye on what she is up to over the next four years. She is, according to people who know her, both amoral and dumb which is never a good combination.”
The runoff election is set for June 2 with ballots already being mailed by the Office of the Denver Clerk and Recorder.
by Mark Smiley | Apr 24, 2015 | Main Articles
by Danny Foster, Esq.
the managing partner of the law firm Foster, Graham, Milstein & Calisher, LLP
Recently the Denver District Attorney’s office, along with the city of Denver, unveiled their decision to participate in a public relations program sweeping the nation called “Start by Believing.” For those of you who are unfamiliar with the program, let me explain. “Start by Believing” is a campaign designed to encourage everyone (civilians, politicians, police, prosecutors, jurors, everyone) to immediately believe any person who claims to be a victim of a sexual assault as soon as they tell you they have been victimized. It doesn’t say “Start by Listening” or “Start by Supporting” it says “Start by Believing” them.
Yes, you read that correctly. The city of Denver and the Denver DA have decided that it is more important to believe any person alleging sexual abuse than to provide an alleged suspect the presumption of innocence. The concept of believing an alleged victim without any investigation specifically means that we must NOT believe the person accused of committing this act and presume them guilty. You can’t have it both ways. What a frightening concept. I am cynical by nature so it’s not a huge surprise that prosecutors’ offices across the country would embrace this notion. It makes it easier to secure convictions if there is an overwhelming PR campaign to bolster the credibility of victims. But when the city of Denver itself gets behind this concept and spends city funds on this issue to promote this unconstitutional concept, it causes me and many of those in the legal community great concern.
I want to stress that there are many real victims of sexual abuse. And, for those poor individuals who have been victimized, it is essential that we support them, help them and be there for them during the healing process. I have no doubt that many victims stay silent for fear of being blamed or not being believed. But this “Start by Believing” campaign is not the appropriate remedy to handle this problem. All too often we deal with cases where a “victim” says she was victimized only later to discover she lied for any myriad reasons, but by that time the damage has been done to the person who was charged with the crime. Once you are accused of being a sex offender you can never remove that label. That’s the term that sticks, even if acquitted of any wrong doing. That’s what happens when we “Start by Believing.” In my mind, there is only one type of person lower than the sexual offender, and that is the person who lies about being sexually assaulted and completely ruins an innocent person’s life. If you don’t think that happens, then all you need to do is look at the catastrophe on the University of Virginia campus this past year where a salacious allegation of sexual assault was levied against several members of a fraternity house. If it wasn’t for damn good legal investigation (NOT the investigation by Rolling Stone magazine) the “victim” would have gotten away with her lies and many young mens’ lives would have been ruined. These poor young men were eviscerated in the press, on campus and scared to death they could end up in prison for life. Frightening things happen when we “Start by Believing.”
Should the police and University have started this criminal investigation by “believing” the alleged perpetrators? Of course they should have. The Constitution demands that all people be considered innocent until proven guilty. Did the University of Virginia investigators start by “believing” the alleged victim instead? Of course they did. Why? Because it’s politically unpopular to ever question anyone who alleges being the victim of sexual assault. I get it, I understand the need for politicians and TV commentators and university officials to look tough on sex offenders. But this type of action CANNOT happen at the expense of violating suspects’ Constitutional rights.
Our office recently sponsored a free seminar to help prepare young men who are graduating high school in the spring and starting college in the fall. While a lot of the discussion revolved around the dangers of drugs/alcohol, the bigger concern was about how dangerous the climate is for young men on campuses across the country where even the slightest ambiguity regarding consensual sexual contact can equate to expulsion and criminal prosecution. I cannot sit idly by and watch more good kids get prosecuted and expelled for false sexual assault allegations. My colleagues and I believe this is absolutely our duty as lawyers to warn these boys about what could happen to them and how to avoid many of the pitfalls we have seen in the past. We have had to defend too many good people from outrageous allegations. While it would be nice if our seminar guaranteed they will avoid trouble, unfortunately it doesn’t work that way. All we can do is arm them with some useful information that we hope will give them an advantage. If you are a male, or have a son or grandson, BE FOREWARNED, men (and more specifically younger college age men) are in the crosshairs of an aggressive campaign led by victims’ advocate groups, prosecutors and the pandering politicians, to prosecute anyone who is even alleged to have committed a sexual crime. In Colorado that can equate to a life sentence in prison. And for those of you who don’t practice law, you should know that Colorado has a law called the Rape Shield statute. It prohibits an accused from mentioning anything to a jury about the alleged victim’s sexual past, even if the alleged victim has made false rape accusations in the past! The time has come to repeal this very dangerous statute.
Our firm has recently filed a lawsuit against a “victim” of sexual assault on the Boulder campus. Our investigation not only proved my client’s innocence, but the Boulder DA filed false information charges against the woman who lied to the police. She was convicted and now she can defend her actions in a civil lawsuit. She never even apologized to my client for what she put him through. No matter how much money we obtain from her, I don’t think it will ever even out the damage she caused by her accusations. Thankfully the Boulder DA didn’t “Start by Believing.” He started by doing what he is supposed to do, he started by investigating.
So, “Start by Believing?” How about “Start by Supporting” people who allege being victimized. “Start by Listening” to those who allege sexual assault. “Start by Loving” your kids and being there for them. And “Start by Investigating” the allegations of those who claim to be victims. But only Believe them when the weight of evidence points to guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, just like the Constitution requires.
Danny is a managing partner of Foster, Graham, Milstein & Calisher (FGMC). His practice focuses on personal injury. The law firm of FGMC, located in Cherry Creek, is a full service law firm focusing on: criminal defense, personal injury, real estate, litigation, liquor licensing, construction law, tax/estate planning, bankruptcy and zoning. This article does not create an attorney-client relationship and is for informational use only (what do you expect from an attorney!)
by Mark Smiley | Apr 24, 2015 | Main Articles
Development Along Cherry Creek Comes To Fruition
by Charles C. Bonniwell
It has been almost a fifth of a century in the imaging and planning but at long last a spectacular entertainment district along Cherry Creek from Colorado Boulevard to South Cherry Street appears to becoming a reality. The city held a press conference at Infinity Park in which the project principals were introduced and the newest vision outlined by Mayor Mike Dunafon and Deputy City Manager Linda Cassaday. Dunafon indicated the project was intended to augment and assist the entire area rather than compete with Cherry Creek and 9th and Colorado Boulevard.
Revised Plans
A little over three years ago Glendale applied for an $80 million tourism subsidy from the state under the Regional Tourism Act for its $360 million Riverwalk project. The application was turned down along with other small county and city projects for the highly controversial $800 million Gaylord Entertainment project in Aurora. That award for the Gaylord project was widely perceived as resulting from a rigged process and continues today to be mired in litigation. After the Regional Tourism Act rejection Glendale had to go back to the drawing board.
The revised project along Cherry Creek has a budget of $175 million of which the city will provide approximately $75 million for roads, creek edge treatments and in particular a parking garage as well as surface and underground parking.
What makes Glendale 180 somewhat unique is the fact that there will be no apartment houses or condominiums involved as a standard method of increasing the rate of return in mixed use projects in Colorado. The mayor pointed out that housing has proved a major impediment in many entertainment projects as residents soon fight to lessen the noise and traffic impacts.
New Name And Parking
The somewhat quixotic name “Glendale 180” is an oblique reference to the fact that Glendale in the 1970s and 1980s had one of the most vibrant entertainment areas in Colorado. The city fathers in the 1990s slowly destroyed the entertainment area to the enormous benefit of Denver’s LODO area. Thus “Glendale 180” is a type of homage to the phrase “back to the future” made famous by the 1985 movie by that title.
The 22 acre project will have 303,225 total leasable square feet including 109,000 anticipated for entertainment, 151,725 feet for food and beverage and 42,500 for retail. By way of comparison the Cherry Creek Shopping Center has a gross leasable area of 1,032,000 square feet.
A key to the success of Glendale 180 according to city officials will be the existence of ample parking. The city will provide 2,270 public parking spaces including 454 underground, 506 surface parking and a parking structure containing 1,310 spaces. Nearby Cherry Creek North has only 555 public parking spaces all on-street along with private parking.
Spokespersons For Developer And Architect
The developer of the project will be Wulf & Co. a commercial and retail real estate firm centered in Houston, Texas, founded in 1985. Bob Sellingsloth, the president of Wulfe & Co., spoke at the Infinity Park even
t praising the city for its forward looking perspective. He noted that at first his firm was unsure of the naming of the project Glendale 180 and so it had a survey done which proved that the name was in fact highly effective.
David Glover on behalf of the project architect, Gensler, spoke eloquently about the desire for the project to bring a vibrant sense of city to the area. He noted that 40 percent of the public surveyed indicated a sense of loneliness in today’s modern society. His design is intended to bring a feeling of light and air as well as “being a place for maximum happiness.”
Glover also indicated that Glendale 180 will be divided into three areas. The area nearest Colorado Boulevard will be known as the “Promenade” while the central area will be entitled the “Meadow” and the area adjacent to South Cherry will have the title the “Mountain.” He noted that if you valet your car you can have it delivered back to you anywhere along the project.
Common Consumption
Patrons will be able to walk from bar to bar with their beverage under the common consumption law.
The city helped pass, at the Colorado legislature, a common consumption area law with Glendale 180 in mind. The law allows patrons to go from bar to bar and long the sidewalks with open containers.
Among the remaining challenges is securing the parcels along East Virginia not owned by the city including the Staybridge
Suites Hotel on East Virginia and the property along Colorado Boulevard and east owned by M.A.K. Investment Group, LLC who acquired it in 2006 from the O’Conner family. The city is in negotiations with both property owners and ultimately has the power of eminent domain as the land is part of an urban renewal district.
City Officials
Overseeing the project for the city are Deputy City Managers Chuck Line and Linda Cassaday who were designated as officers for the urban renewal district titled Glen Echo. Line noted that for himself and Cassaday the project will mean long hours in addition to their normal duties, “but it is an incredibly exciting and fun project to work on.” Cassaday stated to the audience that the announcements on new tenants for Glendale 180 will be featured on its website at www.glendale180.com. Leasing on the project is being headed up by the Denver-based firm The Laramie Company and its leasing agent Mary Beth Jenkins.
Groundbreaking for Glendale 180 is scheduled for the fall of this year with the opening of the project in early 2017.
by Mark Smiley | Mar 27, 2015 | Main Articles
Little Known Treasury Dept. Anti-Money Laundering Scheme
Destroys Some Family Dreams In Cherry Creek Valley
by Charles C. Bonniwell
The housing market in the Cherry Creek Valley is hot and getting hotter. But finding a home one can reasonably afford in today’s market may only be a part of the challenge. Pursuant to a little kno
wn 2012 edict the United States Treasury Department quietly imposed a massive far-reaching program purportedly to address money laundering concerns. It has in fact destroyed some innocent families’ best laid plans and created a paperwork nightmare for many people trying to buy a home or refinance one.
Joe Metzler a mortgage specialist who heads Mortgages Unlimited in St. Paul, Minnesota, declared: “Even if you are the most perfect [borrower] expect that you might still get singed going through.”
Public Misconception And Misery
Many potential borrowers mistakenly believe their documentation quagmire is due simply to lenders tightening loan guidelines after the mortgage implosion in 2008 resulting from loose loan standards. The tightening of actual loan standards would have been relatively simple. Instead much of the paperwork debacle is caused by a federal agency (the Treasury Department) which has a totally different agenda i.e. preventing the laundering of money that has not been subject to being fully and completely taxed. The Treasury Department has no reason to disabuse the public of its misconception and the Treasury Department’s hidden role in their misery.
Justin Petrochko, events manager for non-profit Project Angel Heart, noted that the massive paperwork demands of the Treasury Department almost prevented him and his wife Marissa from acquiring
a home. Petrochko stated, “If it were not for Marissa working from home for a couple of days a week for several weeks the home buying process would not have happened for us. I don’t know how many families satisfy the demands and of course many end up not being able to buy a home.”
The executive editor of the Chro
nicle Mark Smiley had applied for a refinance of his home in Mayfair. “I thought it would be a simple process. We easily qualified for the loan and had more than sufficient equity in the house. Was I ever wrong. It was absolute torture. No matter what documents we provided there were ever increasing and endless and sometimes duplicative demands for items that had nothing to do with the underlying transaction but apparently for fear of rules and regulations from Washington.”
Smiley grimaced, “My parents gave us a $100 check to buy their granddaughter a birthday gift. It was required that I provide a letter from my parents declaring the reason and purpose of the gift. My parents were traveling so I had to reach and have them overnight the letter. We had scores and scores of demands that had absolutely nothing to do with our ability to repay the loan.”
Smiley, in fact, eventually gave up. “I called my lender and said ‘I’m done. I am not going to provide one more lousy additional document.’ I politely told the lender you can take your loan and shove it.” Fear of losing a valued and qualified customer resulted in higher ups at the bank waiving some of the more ridiculous paperwork requirements and Smiley did eventually close the loan, but the affair did not leave him happy. “As far as I am concerned the U.S. Treasury Department should be officially designated a ‘terrorist group’ for what they are doing to everyday families across America.”
Concerns Over Treasury Department
Homebuyers are not the only ones upset with the Treasury’s ever more intrusive anti-money laundering activities. The publication American Banker reported late last year in an article titled “Treasury, FinCEN Try to Quell Fears over Money-Laundering Enforcement” reported that “banks were cutting ties with entire business sectors such as check cashers and money transmitters, because of a blunt governmental approach to stamping out money laundering.”
The ever growing and more intrusive federal anti-money-laundering project began simply enough in 1970 with “The Currency and Foreign Transactions Reporting Act” (better known as the “Bank Secrecy Act”) which required banks to report cash transactions exceeding $10,000. The program went on steroids with the provisions of Title III to the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 in response to the events of September 11, 2001, and the attack on the World Trade Center Twin Towers.
In 2012 the Treasury Department through its Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCen”) issued a rule that required even non-bank residential mortgage lenders and originators to establish anti-money laundering (AML) programs and report so called suspicious activity reports (SARs). That required at a minimum (1) the development of internal policies, procedures and controls, (2) the designation of a compliance officer, (3) an ongoing employee training program and, (4) an independent audit function to test programs.
Failure to comply with a FinCEN rule subjects a person to possible violation of the USA PATRIOT Act with the imposition of major fines ($25,000) and imprisonment of up to five years. Experts estimate that all of the Treasury’s anti-laundering requirements including the more recent mortgage rules result in a drain of hundreds of millions from the United States economy in compliance and enforcement with little or no actual benefit as criminal money launderers simply shift their activities to other areas. FinCEN has also made an effort to go after even the smallest of businesses. It recently announced with great fanfare regarding Colorado, a $75,000 civil money penalty against a tiny cash checking company, Aurora Summit, Inc., for not complying with its mandates.
Fannie Mae Requirement
Many of the requirements that drive potential buyers crazy are issued by Fannie Mae (the Federal National Mortgage Association) which is the largest investor of mortgages in the country. Fannie Mae decides what documentation it requires for a mortgage to be considered qualified for purchase.
For example Fannie Mae requires that all funds used for down payment, closing costs and financial reserves come from acceptable and verified sources as a way to comply with the anti-money laundering of the Treasury Department. As a practical matter it means that all so-called “large deposits” are verified as coming from acceptable sources. Large deposits are in turn defined so that they include transactions no ordinary person would define as “large.” Under Fannie Mae’s rules any deposit in excess of 50 percent of a borrowers “qualified income” is declared to be “large.” Thus if a borrower has qualified income of $3,500 per month, any deposit of $1,650 is potentially a large deposit and the mortgage company will demand the source of all of those funds down to the least significant check.
While the provisions in Fannie Mae’s Section B3-4.2, Verification of Depository Assets, would provide certain leeway in issuing verification demands, that is not what happens in the field. A company’s local compliance officer is often a low paid staff member who greatly fears a governmental audit which could destroy his or her life. They in turn err at their company’s urging on the side of caution and make ever greater demands. In the case of the Chronicle’s Mark Smiley, consulted experts could not pinpoint any specific rule or regulation that would cause that a single $100 check deposit from a parent to generate a demand for verification other than the general fear generated by the Treasury Department and FinCEN.
Treasury View Of Public
A small mortgage lender who asked for anonymity for fear of attracting undue federal attention stated, “The federal anti-money laundering scam has become a bureaucratic beast that is ripping apart the fabric of the home mortgage business as well as other whole sections of the banking industry. It was Republicans that gave us the Bank Secrecy Act and the USA PATRIOT Act and it is a Democratic administration that has come up with these most recent inane requirements under an out of control Treasury Department. As far as the Treasury Department is concerned the members of the American public are sheep to be sheared and they simply don’t care how bloody the shearing is.”
