These two words aren’t normally seen together!
The very thought of Denver County annexing any land from surrounding counties has been virtually impossible since the Poundstone Amendment was passed in 1974. Prior to that time, the City and County of Denver made hundreds of annexations, doubling its area between 1941 and 1974 to about 120 square miles, much to the anger of surrounding county commissioners. Since Poundstone, Denver has been treated more as a county than a city when it comes to annexations. You wouldn’t see Arapahoe County trying to annex a piece of Douglas County for example.
Another law was also passed in 1974—at the same time as Poundstone—but it is little remembered today. A Boundary Control Commission was passed by voters and offered another option for Denver’s expansion—or not—during that era. This regional agreement between Denver, Jefferson, Arapahoe and Adams Counties technically allows for adjustments to Denver’s borders but it has been virtually impossible to get any agreements on such changes since it was passed. Thus, Denver’s borders have been essentially frozen in time since 1982 and are among the most convoluted of any major city in the country.
So how shocked was I to read the Denver Post article related to the potential use of the Boundary Control Commission or other maneuvers to allow Denver to annex 300 acres adjacent to its land near DIA in order to have a place within its boundaries for the relocation of the National Western Stockshow.
We here at DenverUrbanism were talking about this very scenario after the Stockshow announced it was moving to Aurora. But we thought using the Boundary Control Commission was as likely as getting the Poundstone Amendment repealed. The fact that it is even being brought up is testament to a belief in regionalism and working towards common goals. It also doesn’t hurt that Denver Public Schools is no longer under a desegregation order, but that’s another story.
Whether or not a Gaylord Entertainment Complex and National Western Stockshow relocation to the northeast metro area has merit is also questionable and could, would and should take up many other blogs herein. It’s a complex issue relating to sprawl, long-term sustainability, lack of transit even though the DIA train will be nearby and overbuilding of hotel rooms so far from the center of the city. Consequently, I’m just focusing on the annexation issue for now.
Ironically, the land for both projects sits just north of 64th Avenue. South of 64th is a large parcel of land that used to be in the City and County of Denver (north of Green Valley Ranch) that had to be de-annexed by court order after Poundstone was passed. In other words, Denver had nearly annexed the land back in 1973 that is now proposed for both Gaylord and the Stockshow.
The land is certainly not in the core of Aurora or Denver. But if the Stockshow is going to relocate to this area and if Denver voters are supposed to pay for its relocation, then it certainly should remain within the city/county boundaries of Denver. I fully support, and in fact, I demand that the wheels of government pursue this boundary change to allow for annexation. But even if this occurs, the battle will only be half won for Denver. The parcels currently sit in Aurora and Adams County with an Aurora mailing address under zip code 80019. This will remain in place even if the land is brought into Denver. If Denver truly wants the Stockshow to have a Denver mailing address, it is also going to have to battle the US Postal Service to get permission to move a zip code boundary. Such a battle as this could make a repeal of Poundstone look easy!!
“Thus, Denver’s borders have been essentially frozen in time since 1982..”
Um, except for DIA. Don’t mean to nitpick, but it seems like any discussion of annexation for the stock show should take into account how the DIA annexation was accomplished.
I think Shawn was assuming everyone understood that this discussion about annexations was about everything other than DIA, but it’s a good point: perhaps Shawn could provide, as part of this broader discussion about Gaylord/Stockshow, a post dedicated to the 1980s political drama that was the DIA annexation.
“We here at DenverUrbanism were talking about this very scenario after the Stockshow announced it was moving to Aurora.”
Maybe I’ve missed something, but the Stockshow isn’t moving to Aurora *just yet*, is it? It’s well documented, of course, that they *want* to move, but they haven’t broken their lease with the City of Denver yet, have they?
Definitely not. There is a LOT that would have to happen before it could become official.
This Stock Show development may very well induce sprawl if located near DIA. Why should Denver pay for this? Is this or anything else an appropriate use of green fields? Where is the domestic water coming from? How do workers pay to travel 50 miles RT to go to work as maids, and cooks? How disconnected could our investments be from the rest of the city? Who services and maintains the infrastructure overhead?
We need to be asking many many questions. ~nico
I hate to sound like a NIMBY, oh wait, on the other hand I do mean to sound like a NIMBY. I don’t support moving the Stock Show outside of the city, nor do I support repealing the Poundstone Amendment, I think supporting either one of these is supporting sprawl. Personally, and I know I am going to get a lot of grief for saying this, but I would rather have the Stock Show move to Kansas than have Denver sprawl out into the horizon, like so many Western city’s (i.e Phoenix, Houston, and Las Vegas). Additionally, I think working with the Stock Show, and keeping it near its current location, is the only chance we have at revitalizing that area within the next thirty to fifty years. Sorry everyone, but I guess I am just a NIMBY on this matter.
Hi John. I don’t think anyone is calling for a repeal of Poundstone (personally, I think Poundstone was, in hindsight, one of the best things that could have happened to Denver), and I bet many DenverUrbanism readers support finding a solution at the Stockshow’s present location or, if it must relocate, within Denver city limits. This is going to be a fascinating and significant story to watch unfold.
Completely agree with you. Would far rather have the Show stay where it’s at. Particularly with RTD developments in the next few years. Stock Show provides Denver with a great opportunity to show it’s “cowtown” roots if we can keep it close to home instead of letting it form a new outlying cancer cell on an annexed city fringe.
As these many great comments illustrate, the potential move of the National Western Stockshow is a multi-faceted and complex issue. Opinions vary widely on the best outcome for all parties involved. I focused narrowly on the issue of annexation only and the use of the Boundary Control Commission to achieve such a goal. This would be to Denver’s benefit since the voters of the city are likely to be asked to pay for a move for this Denver institution. Right now, the Stockshow and the city of Aurora feel like they are in the driver’s seat and I believe they will stop at nothing until they get their wish for new facilities on the urban periphery. I am certainly NOT advocating for such an outcome however. But the way I see it, if this is to be inevitable, then Denver should not just sit idly by. A regional–and more thoughtful–approach should be pursued and if a joint development between Gaylord/Aurora and Denver/Stockshow is in the cards, then portions of this co-development should be within the city limits of Denver.
This ultimately points out the problems I have with the Poundstone Amendment. Denver has no power to affect what happens just outside its boundaries. While it is true that Poundstone has arguably had a very positive effect on Denver’s core neighborhoods and downtown, it has had the opposite effect on Denver’s periphery. Where Denver’s county line abuts suburban counties, so-called sprawl is still the name of the game. The jigsaw border that Denver has in northeast, southeast and southwest Denver is the legacy of Poundstone as the city fought with suburban counties and cities over who would have control of new suburban development from the 1940s to the 1970s. This has resulted in a jurisdictional nightmare of competing governments, special districts and the like. It’s no way to plan and is the worst way to plan “sprawl”. Poundstone also has no effect on Aurora or any other suburban town from sprawling all the way to Kansas. In short, we are still growing regionally, but the competition among cities to get the newest mall or biggest Gaylord development is alive and well. The health of our cities and region depends so heavily on sales taxes that sprawl development is still pursued by everyone else except Denver, since its borders have been essentially frozen in time. The new towns of Weld County have no Poundstone to stop them nor does Aurora. In other words, unless we institute mandatory growth controls on everyone, such as Poundstone is to Denver, then there will always be the next Gaylord project potential just outside of Denver’s jurisdiciton. The surprising thing is that it hasn’t happened more. Denver has been able to retain so many great attractions downtown such as Elitch’s and sports facilities, etc. that would have been built on the periphery in many other cities.
Yes, Denver was able to use provisions set forth in Poundstone to annex 50 square miles of Adams County farmland in 1988 for the airport. Did this stop Commerce City and Aurora from growing and annexing land up to the airport boundaries? No. Growth has come and Denver can’t stop it. It can only hope to use its influence and power to modify Aurora’s grand plans. The economy and Denver voters will also play a key role. But if the Stockshow is hell-bent on getting out of its current location by partnering with Gaylord in Aurora, what should Denver do? I believe the city of Denver should use Poundstone’s sister–the Boundary Control Commission–to annex these 300 acres for the Stockshow.
In addition to Shawn’s excellent comments above, another point is that to a good degree, Denver is in the driver’s seat on this. They can choose to not let the Stock show out of their long-term lease, or make life very difficult for them if they try to break the lease, or resist asking Denver voters to support funding a new facility, wherever it may be located, unless the city gets a great deal out of it. While Denver has an affinity for its Stock show as a long-time cultural institution, and everyone loves to talk about how much the Stock show means to Denver, I can’t see the city just acquiescing to Aurora/NWSS/Gaylord along the way. If it does, there’ll be hell to pay.