Block 173 Associates v. City and County of Denver, 89CA0152
| Citation | 797 P.2d 771 |
| Decision Date | 05 April 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89CA0152,89CA0152 |
| Parties | BLOCK 173 ASSOCIATES, a Colorado general partnership; Donald Oberndorf; Leo Stern; Harry Paul Wertheimer; Carol Brodie, administrator for the Edith O. Wertheimer Trust; and Dottie Hammell, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. The CITY AND COUNTY OF DENVER; The City Council of the City and County of Denver, by its council members (not as individuals, but as members of the city council), T.J. Hackworth, M.L. Sandos, Stephanie A. Foote, Paul L. Swalm, John J. Silchia, Nieves Perez McIntire, Hiawatha Davis, Jr., Salvadore Carpio, Cathy Donohue, William R. Roberts, Robert L. Crider, Cathy Reynolds, William A. Scheitler; The Denver Urban Renewal Authority; Federico Pena, as Mayor of the City and County of Denver; Thomas P. Briggs, Manager of Revenue of the City and County of Denver and Ex Officio Treasurer and Assessor of the City and County of Denver; Felicia Muftic, City Clerk of the City and County of Denver; BCE Development Properties, Inc., a Colorado corporation, f/k/a Oxford Properties, Inc.; and Freida Marin, Public Trustee, Defendants-Appellees. . V |
| Court | Court of Appeals of Colorado |
Baker & Hostetler, James A. Clark, Bruce D. Pringle and Joan B. Burleson, Denver, for appellant Block 173 Associates.
Holmes & Starr, Kenneth L. Starr and Michael Touff, Denver, for appellants Oberndorf, Stern, Wertheimer, Brodie and Hammell.
Stephan H. Kaplan, City Atty., Robert M. Kelly, Donald E. Wilson and Karen A. Aviles, Asst. City Atty., Denver, for appellees City and County of Denver, City Council, Federico Pena, Thomas P. Briggs, Felicia Muftic and Freida Marin.
Opperman & Associates, P.C., Marlin D. Opperman, William M. Schell and Linda A. Surbaugh, Denver, for appellee Denver Urban Renewal Authority.
Davis, Graham & Stubbs, Dale R. Harris, Neil Peck and David R. Hammond, Denver, for appellee BCE Development Properties, Inc.
Opinion by Judge RULAND.
Plaintiff, Block 173 Associates, and co-plaintiffs, Donald Oberndorf, Leo Stern, Harry Wertheimer, Mike Smith, and Dottie Hammell (Oberndorf plaintiffs), appeal from a summary judgment dismissing their complaints against defendants City of Denver, the Denver Urban Renewal Authority (DURA), BCE Development Properties, Inc. (BCE), and the individual defendants who are designated in their capacity as public officials. The dispositive issue concerns the extent to which an order of the United States District Court precludes assertion of certain claims in the trial court under the doctrine of collateral estoppel and res judicata. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
Associates own Block 173 in downtown Denver. The Oberndorf plaintiffs are owners of a 50% interest in part of Block 196 as tenants-in-common with BCE.
According to the complaints, BCE's predecessor announced plans to develop a retail/office complex on property which included Blocks 196 and 173. Concluding that the project was not feasible without public funding, BCE proposed construction of the complex pursuant to the Colorado Urban Renewal Law (CURL), § 31-25-101 et seq., C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 12B). CURL authorizes eminent domain to acquire property as part of an urban renewal plan. See § 31-25-105, C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 12B).
Defendants conducted a blight study on a 15-block area which included the property owned by plaintiffs. This study concluded that the area was blighted within the meaning of the statute, see § 31-25-103(2), C.R.S. (1986 Repl.Vol. 12B), and the city council authorized DURA to prepare an urban renewal plan.
Thereafter, pursuant to §§ 31-25-107(3) and 31-25-107(4), C.R.S., the city council conducted a public hearing concerning the renewal plan. Though it was conceded that the plaintiffs' property was not "blighted" within the meaning of the statute, the council determined that the 15- block area was a blighted area, and approved the plan.
As enacted, Phase I of the renewal plan called for acquisition of plaintiffs' property for development by BCE. However, the Phase I plan did not include any development for 12 of the blocks in the area.
Associates dismissed voluntarily four of its claims for relief, and the Oberndorf plaintiffs dismissed their first claim. In its sixth and eighth claims for relief, Associates requested a declaratory judgment that the city council's finding of blight, and subsequent enactment of the urban renewal plan, was a sham, promulgated in bad faith and for the purpose of subverting CURL (bad faith claims). They contend in the fifth and seventh claims for relief that the classification scheme of the renewal plan invidiously discriminates among similar properties, and is not justified by a legitimate public purpose in violation of equal protection as guaranteed by the Colorado and United States Constitutions (the constitutional claims).
The only remaining claim asserted by the Oberndorf plaintiffs alleges that defendants have acted in an arbitrary and capricious manner with the result that the city's ordinance constitutes a taking in violation of...
To continue reading
Request your trial