Harry’s Liquor store, 9508 E. Colfax Ave., was singled out by the city as an example of a business that makes changing the atmosphere of the East Colfax corridor difficult. (Photo via City of Aurora)
AURORA — City lawmakers sent a controversial proposal to a future council meeting after several members asked for changes, setting up a broader debate about how far government should go to shape neighborhood economies.
“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, who sponsored the bill.
The study session on the proposed “Socioeconomic Impact Sales and Services Impact Permit” unfolded as a philosophical clash: some council members emphasized the need to revitalize neighborhoods, while others warned the measure could amount to government overreach and anti-business regulation.
The permit would tie new restrictions to the city’s general business license, regulating the concentration and operations of businesses that some officials link to blight and crime in lower-income areas. Trevor Vaughn, manager of licensing and finance, described the target of the policy at a September Public Safety, Courts and Civil Service Policy Committee meeting.
“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,” Vaughn said.
Under the proposal, the permit would add buffer requirements between certain businesses that sell regulated substances — alcohol, tobacco and similar products — while allowing existing businesses to remain in place. Vaughn said the intent is to prevent over-saturation of similar businesses in lower-income corridors, particularly along stretches of East Colfax Avenue.
Previous discussions have named a range of businesses that proponents would like to limit: payday loan stores, motels, vape shops, pawn shops, gas stations, plasma donation centers and some rent-to-own retailers, such as rent-to-own furniture outlets.
“This seeks to deal with that,” Mayor Mike Coffman said, arguing the ordinance could help break patterns of poverty and crime that have affected 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. This says, respectfully, let’s not have that concentration that feeds that kind of behavior.”
But not all council members agreed. Councilmember Steve Sundberg said the ordinance “rubs the cat the wrong way” for those who believe in free market principles, and questioned whether the city should be in the business of deciding which types of businesses can open where.
“Are we in the business of determining what types of businesses can and cannot go where?” Sundberg asked. “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.”
Sundberg also warned the restrictions could reduce competition and raise prices, using nearby gas stations as an example of outlets that compete to keep costs down for consumers. “If there’s only one convenience store allowed in an area, the consumer loses,” he said.
Councilmember Stephanie Hancock framed the proposal as both a public-safety and equity effort. “Tobacco, liquor and marijuana stores have the right to operate, but no business has the right to harm the neighborhood,” she 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.”
Other council members raised different concerns. Councilmember Curtis Gardner cautioned against prohibition-style measures, noting past council debates about regulating restaurant menu choices for children and arguing that banning businesses does not eliminate demand or criminal activity. “Prohibition of products or services or businesses has never worked in our country, and it will not work now,” Gardner said. “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 urged language changes so the permit would not single out specific business types, such as gas stations, and to ensure the ordinance’s wording avoids reinforcing possible discrimination. Councilmembers Françoise Bergan and Sundberg asked whether stronger code enforcement and policing could address the same concerns without restricting where businesses can locate.
“Can we not do something to strengthen, maybe our code?” Bergan asked, adding that the city must ensure existing laws are being enforced.
Vaughn responded that the new permit would give the city additional leverage to revoke or restrict licenses of businesses that repeatedly violate nuisance or public-safety standards.
The council voted to advance the proposal to the next full council meeting for further debate, with amendments expected. Councilmembers Sundberg, Gardner and Bergan said they opposed moving the ordinance forward.
If approved, the ordinance would not force the closure of existing stores, Coffman clarified; it would apply to future licensing requests.
As drafted by Vaughn, the separation rules under the ordinance would include:
– No new businesses of the same type within 2,000 feet of one another (for example, 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.
The proposal will return for further debate with likely revisions.
This article was adapted from an original report published on sentinelcolorado.com. All rights belong to the original publisher.