Arvada Urban Renewal Authority v. Columbine Professional Plaza Ass'n

85 P.3d 1066 (Colo. 2004) · Supreme Court of Colorado · March 1, 2004 · No. 03SA329

Summary

The Supreme Court of Colorado held that an urban renewal authority could not condemn a portion of a parcel that had been sold, developed under an urban renewal plan, and formally released after the original blight determination. Once blight has been cured or eliminated, the authority lacks statutory condemnation power over the parcel absent a renewed finding that the area is currently blighted. The court reversed and remanded with directions to dismiss the condemnation action.

Holdings

  1. The quarry lake parcel was no longer subject to the 1981 blight determination because AURA disposed of the property through the statutory redevelopment process, certified that its use conformed to the urban renewal plan, and released its right of re-entry.
  2. An urban renewal authority may not exercise its condemnation power over or for the benefit of a parcel from which blight has been eliminated unless the municipality makes a renewed finding that the area to be condemned, in its current condition, is blighted.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether subsequent private development and AURA's certificates of completion and release cured or eliminated the 1981 blight finding as to the quarry lake parcel and the Arvada Marketplace parcel.
  2. Whether AURA retained statutory condemnation authority over the quarry lake parcel under the existing urban renewal plan after the parcel and the marketplace parcel had been redeveloped and were no longer subject to the original blight finding.
  3. Whether a renewed municipal finding of current blight was required before AURA could condemn the lake parcel.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (7)

  • Simpson v. Bijou Irrigation Co., 69 P.3d 50, 58 (Colo. 2003)(followed)
  • City and County of Denver v. Block 173 Assoc., 814 P.2d 824, 828 (Colo. 1991)(followed)
  • Matter of Estate of Royal, 826 P.2d 1236, 1238 (Colo. 1992)(followed)
  • Rabinoff v. District Court, 145 Colo. 225, 360 P.2d 114 (1961)(distinguished)
  • Aposporos v. Urban Redevelopment Commission, 259 Conn. 563, 790 A.2d 1167, 1175-76 (2002)(followed in part)
  • Thornton Dev. Auth. v. Upah, 640 F. Supp. 1071, 1081 (D. Colo. 1986)(followed)
  • Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33-34 (1954)(followed)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…