AURORA | There are many lessons to be learned in the bedlam that continues to dog the Aurora Gaylord hotel and conference center.
On April 29, state lawmakers heard a bill that, even if it doesn’t jeopardize construction of the embattled $825 million project, will certainly have a lasting impact on future urban-renewal projects planned for creation in the middle of nowhere.
Enemies of this project have worked for years to sink the hotel, right up to now. After a clear, albeit abandoned, attempt to kill the Gaylord project through the Colorado Legislative Audit Committee last month, a new bill backed by some of the usual Colorado Springs suspects could impact the project by taking aim at how Aurora has financed construction.
All of this comes after a cadre of hoteliers from Downtown Denver and Colorado Springs enlisted every tactic and political ally they could muster to wrench the $81 million state tourism development grant from Aurora and scuttle what they see as competition for their own hotel rooms.
Each time Aurora has enabled enemies to capitalize on the project’s weaknesses. Too much of the Gaylord project has been done surreptitiously, which gives the hotel a toxic appearance of impropriety. The most recent example of that is the surprise groundbreaking last week of the hotel. After months of telling everyone publicly that the project could not break ground until this fall, RIDA development began pushing dirt around. The stunt was an obvious move to counter further attempts to scuttle the hotel by state lawmakers, who are constrained to back off once a state-granted project gets underway. The ploy came off as sneaky.
Since Gaylord Aurora has a long list of influential and determined enemies, why would Aurora conduct business in any way that would give adversaries ammunition to further their cause? It should have been obvious that having a corporate employee act as the sole vote in a district-tax election, which will clearly benefit the corporation, would be an easy opportunity for critics to capitalize on, even if the process was just standard operating procedure for these kinds of projects and districts. Rather than just allow the critics’ clouds to set in, the city should have made a big, public deal about the single and unanimous vote for jobs and the biggest hotel in the state. Now, Aurora has to defend that vote in appeals court, and it’s the subject of a potential change in state law now being considered.
Last week would have been so different if the Gaylord team had made a big, public spectacle out of the groundbreaking, pushing over mock opposition or at least drawing attention to the fact that the move was an above-board, preemptive strike at Aurora and Gaylord being treated unfairly. Instead, the discreet scheme backfired into making the city look desperate and disingenuous. Here’s a tip. Since the Gaylord team has thrown down the gauntlet on this groundbreaking thing, they best have bodies out there every day looking as if the project is actually underway. If the groundbreaking has become a parking lot for a couple of tractors, it will only fuel what is certain to be yet another lawsuit bent on impeding this hotel.
After long and close scrutiny, this massive project is as good and above-board as any giant state tourism project. It’s irrefutable that the construction and operation of this conference center will be a boon to Aurora, the region and the entire state. But any government-backed project, and especially one of this magnitude, only suffers unless everything about it is carried out openly, frankly and with cheerful accountability. Get happy, Aurora.
As an Aurora resident, I don’t trust this project. Surreptitious is right, and therefore it doesn’t deserve any trust. I am still want to find any real, tangible benefit that the people of Aurora will gain from the manifestation of this prairie monstrosity. “A real boon to Aurora”? A real boon to the corporation who owns the land and the developer who is building it you mean. Jobs? They’re going to hire whomever fits the position whether they’re from Aurora or Westminster. Who’s got their hand up the mayor’s backside making these arguments come out of his face?
Jason, there are several advantages to this project. That’s why your on the outside trying to look in with no factual claim. NFL/MLB stadiums, NBA arena, convention centers, theme parks, state fairs, these are all RISKS a city and state take by incentivizing these businesses in order to compete and attract what they believe is needed for a city. I am not for nor against this particular project; however, let’s stay positive about the outcome. I would want my city to use my tax dollars if it believes it will benefit it in the long run
The risk was that the stock show wouldn’t end up next to this thing, which was what they designed this thing for in the first place. Didn’t happen. Guess we’d better stay positive given all the tens of millions of state dollars and eye-popping tax giveaways they’ll get for building this albatross.
Wasn’t this supposed to be for a Western Cattle Show that’s no longer going in there? I can’t imagine anyone booking that place for a convention when you walk out the door and instead of all of downtown Denver and great restaurants, all you see for miles around are cows, tumbleweed and the airport. I hosted a meeting near the airport and all the out-of-town attendees were bummed out that we weren’t downtown. Stupid. By the way, Aurora, what’s happening with the Regatta Plaza debacle? Are you going to bungle that, too?
No Retiree. I attended a meeting yesterday and discussion was of RTD Lite Rail work, and Regatta Plaza area. Shame you did not attend that, because our City Council and developers, property owners of those parcels are working, and from what I heard, that will be destination area for all within next few years. Also all the building that is planned while the lite rail is being completed, with a lot of work still to be done. Was a very interesting meeting, and will certainly go long way to bring my property values back up, from they dropped with the immigration debacle of past few years, still on-going. And with economy tanked in past 6-7 years, lot that was delayed, or changed. Can’t blame our city leaders for what originates in Washington, can we?
Great to hear. I wish I had known about the meeting. I would have been there. However, friends who have lived here much longer than me have said the problems at Regatta have been going on for much longer than 6-7 years. But enough. I’m definitely glad something is being done. Hopefully we’ll see some positive change soon.
What media does not touch on, is that area is owned by many different property owners, and they opposed many ideas over the years. When Paul Tauer was re-elected in Aurora the last time, I invited him to come to a NAUS meeting (I was secretary) in the Buffet (Buckingham) at Mississippi and Havana. He said he had to come meet the person who wrote email inviting him, and before about 70 members, he gave us very inciteful view of what happens when trying to upgrade properties. Owner of that entire site, except where Target owns then/now was a very old gentleman in Kansas City. His son-in-law was manager for the owner. Aurora wanted to upgrade that site, but the old gentleman did not have a good relationship with his son-in-law and was completely opposed to spending any money for changes. When City council threatened eminent domain force, the old man told his lawyers, Hell Yes, let them. Will spend my money fighting them in court. ——————-I suspect the old fellow died few years ago, because that whole site has now been upgraded, with all new buildings, roads, and has become center of Aurora, along with Aurora Shopping Center on I-225 and Alameda. RTD lite rail is going to add new shopping and living experiences to Aurora in next 10-15 years also. —————–Same delay and problems with the Fan Fair building, with that now gone. And to be developed when everyone can agree. Almost had a developer few years ago, but folks on east side of Havana complained of a 14story housing development, because that would block their view of the Rockies. —–I found that funny, and stupid, because they 10foot wood fencing along east side of Havana there, with trees and limbs down to fence. No view of mountains unless they walked out into the road, itself. People can be stupid at times, then blame it on others.
What parallel universe do you dwell in? “It is irrefutable that the construction and operation of this center will be a boon to Aurora …” The incentive agreement gives Gaylord 100% of all available tax revenue for 33 years, plus Gaylord is an enhanced taxing district that can charge a higher tax rate than Aurora and on top of that, they have their own metro district. The City says the incentive is worth 300 million dollars but the incentive is not capped at 300 million dollars. The incentive is 100% of available tax revenue for 33 years whatever that amount will truly be.
One wonders if the tax revenue falls below 300 million dollars will Aurora be required to infill the loss. Or is that part of the moral obligation pledge to guarantee the debt?
Can you explain to this concerned citizen how giving away 100% of future tax revenue is sound public policy, espically since 33 years is longer than the life expectancy of the Gaylord.
Will Aurora keep giving away tax revenue for revitalization of Gaylord when it becomes necessary? Or will they merely create another urban renewal district and extend the current incentive package.
Somehow I don’t see it being that simple. I support the idea of destination hotel, and that Gaylord will retain the taxes that come from their own operations and sales. Rental for conference rooms, and scheduled programs. How ever the leased space within Gaylord, bill be paying their own taxes to city, state, federal on products they sell, just as in any shopping mall or development in any state. And with all the folks moving here in next 33 years or more, for pot, drugs, or just to live somewhere else than they do now, the city of Aurora will grow on east. I can see where Denver and its businesses have problem being landlocked and surrounded. I came to Denver in 1951 to attend military school, came back and married Denver citizen in 1952. Bought home here in 1963, and live in it now in Aurora. Do I have to tell anyone of changes since 1951 to now? I hope not, since only the late comers did not experience the growth. As for sneaky, as in this article, nothing has been sneaky, but why not disclose how the same lawyers and hotel operators in Denver have tried to sabotage this project since it was first written about years ago. They are the closed door, sneaky ones. They also sabotaged project in the past, planned Aurora or eastern plains. I don’t go into Denver now, if I can avoid it. And that is true of many of my peers.
Casual Observer, It seems as though you are NOT, NOT, going off of facts, in fact, about 90% of what you said is not factual. a TIF district NEVER gives back 100% and will only match dollar for dollar for a certain period of time. Also, these types of incentives are always given to businesses such as Gaylord. Take for example, a convention center, an NFL or NBA stadium/arena, theme parks, and so forth. Your negativity is what Aurora does not need. Seems as though you have too much time on your hands to waste on making Aurora look bad.
Have you read the incentive agreement?
With Denver city being landlocked, I see a real need to change some of our state representative (house and senate) at state capitol. Restrictions have been passed that effect ranchers, farmers to benefit the metro area, but growth is inevitable and there have been several project initiate in past, that never came to be, due to opposition to the east. With I-70 to Kansas border, we will see growth as water and utilities are available, and less opposition to planned growth will happen. Gaylord and the different operations with airports out that way, will bring this about. Agriculture will decrease in future years, just as ranching is now. And I don’t believe those moving to Colorado in past 20 years or so are much concerned about seeing wheat growing. I knew in 1950 (drafted) that farming was in my past.