Aurora lawmakers advance proposal to regulate ‘predatory’ vape shops, motels, gas stations

AURORA | City lawmakers forwarded a proposal to limit some businesses deemed “predatory” and linked to urban blight to a future city council meeting after multiple council members suggested changes.

“I will turn it over to (city staff) to give the presentation and then allow my colleagues the opportunity to hack it up however they would like,” said City Councilmember Danielle Jurinsky, the bill’s sponsor. 

The council study session hearing on the controversial permit idea, named the “Socioeconomic Impact Sales and Services Impact Permit,” turned into a philosophical debate among lawmakers, dividing those focused on neighborhood revitalization from those wary of government overreach.

The proposed permit would regulate the density and operations of certain businesses some lawmakers say are linked to blight and crime in lower-income neighborhoods.

“When you have these concentrated sales and services that are targeted, sometimes called poverty industry or predatory economics, towards lower-income or historically disadvantaged communities, it gives you a feeling of social disorder and blight,” Trevor Vaughn, manager of licensing and finance, said during a Public Safety, Courts and Civil Service Policy Committee meeting in September.

The measure would require the permit to be attached to the city’s general business license. It would establish buffers between certain businesses that sell regulated substances such as alcohol and tobacco, while grandfathering in existing businesses. The intent, Vaughn said, is to prevent over-saturation of similar businesses in lower-income corridors, particularly along stretches of East Colfax Avenue.

In previous meetings, proponents of the measure have suggested restricting businesses such as payday loan stores, motels, vape shops, pawn shops, gas stations, plasma donation sites and some rent-to-own businesses, such as those offering rent-to-own furniture. 

“I think there’s an exploitation in lower-income areas where these businesses coalesce and really a predatory economic system,” Mayor Mike Coffman said. “This seeks to deal with that.”

Councilmember Steve Sundberg said the ordinance “rubs the cat the wrong way” for anyone who believes in the free market.

“Are we in the business of determining what types of businesses can and cannot go where?” Councilmember Steve Sundberg said. “We’re treading into territory that is anti-business. This is just me speaking from a business point of view. I think we’re crossing over into an area that we haven’t before. And so I’m really hesitant with this one.”

Councilmember Stephanie Hancock said the proposal was a public-safety and equity measure.

“Tobacco, liquor and marijuana stores have the right to operate, but no business has the right to harm the neighborhood,” Hancock said. “Oversaturation of high-risk retail in underserved areas is a form of exploitation. As a policy-making body, it’s our duty as policymakers to prevent predatory clustering that harms communities.”

Coffman said the ordinance could help break patterns of poverty and crime that have long plagued parts of the Colfax corridor.

“It’s hard to get some oxygen in there for revitalization or redevelopment, when every other store is a liquor store or it’s a motel that’s engaged in prostitution and in drugs,” Coffman said. “This says, respectfully, let’s not have that concentration that feeds that kind of behavior.”

Sundberg said he was also worried about the economic consequences and that the ordinance could restrict competition and raise prices, noting that gas stations close to each other compete, keeping prices more affordable. 

“If there’s only one convenience store allowed in an area, the consumer loses,” Sundberg said. “We’re edging out competition and taking away the benefit of the free market.”

Councilmember Curtis Gardner said that five or six years ago, the city council was going to regulate restaurant menu choices for children, but decided that was not their role. 

“Prohibition of products or services or businesses has never worked in our country, and it will not work now,” Gardner said. “To Councilmember Sundberg’s point, if there is criminal activity happening, we should enforce the law. We should have the police there enforcing the crimes that are on our books, but simply saying that we’re not going to allow these businesses does not make the use of those products go away.”

Councilmember Alison Coombs suggested changing the language so the permit is not specific to gas stations. She said she also wants to make sure they use language that prevents rather than reinforces possible discrimination. Councilmember Françoise Bergan and Sundberg asked whether more vigorous code enforcement and policing could address the same issues without restricting business placement.

“Can we not do something to strengthen, maybe our code?” Bergan said. 

She said they also need to ensure existing laws are being enforced.

Vaughn said that the new permit would give the city additional leverage to revoke or restrict licenses from businesses that repeatedly violate nuisance or public-safety standards.

The council voted to advance the proposal to the next city council meeting for further debate, with amendments likely to be made. Councilmembers Sundberg, Gardner, and Bergan said they opposed moving the ordinance forward. 

The ordinance, if approved, would not close any existing stores but would apply to future licensing requests, which Coffman clarified. 

The draft ordinance separation, as they are currently presented by Vaughn:

• No new businesses of the same type within 2,000 feet of one another (e.g., liquor store to liquor store).

• No “Socioeconomic Impact Business” within 300 feet of another such business.

• No “Socioeconomic Impact Business” within 1,000 feet of an extended-stay motel.

• No “Socioeconomic Impact Business” within 500 feet of a major transit hub, such as a light-rail station or large bus junction.

• No Socioeconomic Impact Business” in a retail center with more than 50% vacancy or visible blight.