Pinch me.
OK, not that hard.
I must have dozed off during Monday’s Aurora City Council meeting and dreamed that the hard-hitting Republicans on the council were arguing about imposing restrictions on types of businesses in poor neighborhoods so they could engineer nicer, cleaner spaces for the community.
“Oversaturation of high-risk retail in underserved areas is a form of exploitation,” said Republican Councilmember Stephanie Hancock. “As a policy-making body, it’s our duty as policymakers to prevent predatory clustering that harms communities.”
Sorry, not sorry, but I’ve been around long enough to remember right-wing types like Hancock lambasting Democratic-Socialist members of the city council for saying just about the exact same thing, only in easy-to-understand words.
“High-risk retail?”
Would that be things like off-track betting parlors or gun stores, or dietically dubious doughnut shops? Maybe pubs and bars?
No, bars are cool. Two city lawmakers own and operate pubs. No limits there, for sure.
The proponents of this idea want to limit things like vape shops, gas stations, check-cashing stores and pawn shops in northwest Aurora. The theory here is that fewer of these “unsavory” types of businesses in a poor area like East Colfax Avenue at Elmira Street will sprout the next Cherry Creek, or something like that.
I guess they think that because of the weird furniture rental stores and funky little markets, Original Aurora can’t have a place to get a decent wagyu filet mignon.
“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,” Aurora Mike Coffman told fellow lawmakers Monday. “This says, respectfully, let’s not have that concentration that feeds that kind of behavior.”
“That kind of behavior.”
Let me be the bearer of bad news here to let his honor and others in on the reality that prostitution and drug use are not limited to Colfax, and, as many in the police department would advise, is not the corridor’s most pressing problem.
It really begs a bigger question: Do some of these lawmakers even know any poor people? Are they so far removed from a world where rising rents on a dilapidated house or shabby apartment eat the bulk of your retail-job paycheck that there’s literally nothing left to spend the hard-earned dollars on except some gas for the car and maybe a six-pack of beer on Friday, or a breakfast burrito for a Saturday treat?
There are a lot of people in Aurora, and across the metro area, who can’t get gas for their car to get to work unless they can pawn the tools they don’t need on the job that day. Changing out the corner Fill-m-Fast for a yoga studio is not going to turn the Alton-Beeler ‘hood into Park Hill.
No doubt this is a well-intentioned idea wrapped in bad economics and worse logic, but if Aurora adopts this “Socioeconomic Impact Sales and Services Permit,” it will be making a grave mistake.
The truth is simple. Businesses don’t create blight. Blight creates business conditions. A payday loan store or a vape shop doesn’t move into a thriving area and bring it down. These shops go where there’s demand. They’re a symptom, not a cause, of the larger social and economic problems.
Blaming them for urban decay is like blaming an umbrella for the rain.
Removing vape shops from a strip mall won’t stop anyone from buying vape products. It will just make them drive farther or pay more.
I woke up when I heard other City Council Republicans argue against this bad idea.
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?” 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.”
No doubt.
“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.”
That means higher prices, fewer choices, and one more way in which poorer residents end up paying more for the same things. That’s not economic justice. That’s economic punishment.
If Aurora’s goal is revitalization, then the strategy should be attraction, not restriction. Instead of pushing out existing businesses, the city should be offering incentives for new, desired ones. Seek things like cafés, cultural venues, small arts spaces, co-working hubs, and family-friendly entertainment. These are the kinds of enterprises that draw people with realistically disposable incomes and inject energy and diversity into a neighborhood’s economy. You can’t bully a blighted area into vibrancy. You have to build it up, not shut it down.
Aurora has tried nearly every trick in the book in the last three decades I’ve been watching all this, except offering businesses real, meaningful incentives to open up on or near Colfax.
And if rundown properties are the problem, Aurora already has the tools to fix that, as Councilmember Francoise Bergan pointed out this week. Use the city’s existing code enforcement teams and system. Penalize neglectful landlords, and ensure that property owners, not small business tenants, are held accountable for the conditions of their lots and buildings.
The idea that Aurora can legislate its way to prosperity by labeling some businesses “predatory” is not just misguided, it’s condescending. It assumes that low-income residents can’t make their own spending choices responsibly. It replaces economic empowerment with paternalism. And it distracts from the harder, more necessary work of tackling crime, education, and opportunity.
Aurora needs real police to be visible all over the Colfax corridor and the rest of the city. It doesn’t need a imperious squad telling people they should be shopping for an engagement ring at Zales instead of Paternack’s Pawn Shop.
Follow @EditorDavePerry on BlueSky, Threads, Mastodon, Twitter and Facebook or reach him at 303-750-7555 or dperry@SentinelColorado.com
Well, Dave, having graduated from Hinkley and taken the 15L down to Metro during college, I can personally attest to the fact that, no, restricting vape shops and payday loan businesses (hilariously, Dave and his team have been arguing for decades now that the latter in particular are, in fact, predatory against poor people due to their massive interest rates) isn’t actually going to harm the people in those neighborhoods. As you already admit, if they want stuff to vape, they can find somewhere else in Aurora to get it, so your complaint in that regard is immaterial.
Putting all the onus on the property owner to keep a property in decent condition, shows Dave believes tenants are allowed to trash a property to their heart’s content simply because they’re “paying rent,” and should bear no responsibility for even the bare minimum of upkeep as part of signing a rental contract.
Nice false dilemmas that you present throughout your piece, but that’s been your style for decades now, so it’s par for the course.
Hilariously, Dave doesn’t seem to realize that gas station food is far more expensive than buying it at a grocery store, as anyone who’s actually purchased food there can attest. Seems he doesn’t actually know any poor people himself, either.
Excellent opinion piece! I taught economics at a university and find this logic refreshing. It appears that voters are turning out council members who are not problem solvers, rather they are problem makers. Now, it is up to the new council to create new revenue streams to replace defeated ones, realistically find a homeless solution, create an atmosphere for completed police reform, encourage new small business formation, and finally listen to Aurora residents!
Considering the track record of deep blue havens post-COVID, none of those actually appears likely.
What was the core of your economics class? That “real communism has never been tried”?
In general, things being bad for business are good for the rest of us so who cares? I’m not a major shareholder or a CEO. Business needs should serve the people not the other way around
I owned a business on Colfax, just outside Aurora during the ’80’s. That led me to work with NABA, (North Aurora Business A’ssn) during the 90’s. That Colfax neighborhood hasn’t changed hardly at all in the next 25 years with a lot of time and effort to change it from what is was and is. I doubt that this “law” can change it much at all if it passes. Just more effort lost in trying to do good.
The bigger issue is that being a capitalist in a capitalist country, government should not be declaring where or what a business should be or do. This is what Dave, Steve and Curtis are trying to say. Not that we can change a ghetto to something that it cannot be.
“If Aurora’s goal is revitalization, then the strategy should be attraction, not restriction.” Finally, something from the editor with which I agree 100%! “Attraction” aka “draw” aka “foot traffic” is what every store, cafe and bar needs most to survive.
“Aurora has tried nearly every trick in the book…” Nearly? The un-played trick: City Council and the Aurora delegation at the Capitol have never sought changes to how our cultural facility taxes are distributed. We pay over $8 million per year into the 7-county SCFD Ponzi scheme and over 90% of our money goes to other cities. Meanwhile, the Fox Theater remains stuck in time as the neighborhood rots.
Over $8 million per year and we have the Fox Theater. Now consider the $35 million grant our beloved Guv arranged for Boulder to host a film festival one week per year.
Feeling played yet?
I cannot help but notice how often politicians try to engineer prosperity instead of trusting people to make their own choices. Labeling businesses as “high-risk” or “predatory” may be worded in a compassionate tone, but it’s really just another form of government gatekeeping.
Markets reflect demand. If pawn shops and check-cashing stores exist, it’s because people use them, not because they’re being coerced. Limiting access won’t eliminate poverty; it will just reduce options and increase costs for those already struggling.
Real renewal does not come from constraining enterprise; it comes from cutting red tape, lowering taxes, ensuring public safety, and allowing local entrepreneurs to take risks. Freedom and responsibility are what make communities strong, not regulation and paternalism.