It's not eminent domain, but it's close. An update to the Unite For Colorado case brought by the Secretary of State.
It's not eminent domain, but it's close: a hostile historic designation.
Denver City Council voted recently to designate a home a historic landmark despite the owner not wanting it (the vote was asked for by some neighbors in that same part of Denver). As I say, this isn't quite the same as the government coming in and taking by eminent domain, but it is close in that this designation being forced on this property owner limits his ability to do with his property what he wishes.
Despite being not-quite-the-same, I still struggle here as I do with eminent domain.* I think I'd rather sacrifice some history in order to preserve property rights (and if people really do see that much value in something, let their wallets do the talking and let them buy it).
I'll leave it to you to read the article below. There is more context to be had there including the accusation that this vote was forced in order to prevent the house being torn down and turned into affordable housing. I think it's also fair to mention that an attempt to buy the house from the current owner failed.
Where do you fall on this one? Is this an okay use of historic designation? Is it okay to force it on a property owner?
**I'm not the only one apparently and that includes the city council itself. Quoting Councilwoman Sawyer from the article, "'To be very honest, I hate hostile historic designations. I think it’s unfair, I think it’s interfering with people’s property rights and that’s not OK.'" Saying so right before ... you guessed it ... voting to force the designation on the house. Yes, you read that right.
https://www.denverpost.com/2023/04/25/denver-mansion-historical-landmark-mike-mathieseon/
An update to the Unite for Colorado case.
A quick bit of context if you'd not read or forgot.
501c3 groups (see the first link below for the IRS page on it) are non profits that are allowed to dip their beaks into politics but NOT required to list their donors. I say "dip their beaks" because there are limits to what and how much political activity and lobbying they can engage in. Groups that do this are often tagged with the pejorative "dark money" because they mix in politics and no one knows for sure who's funding it.
The limits on politics are somewhat defined, but still nebulous enough to allow mischief. There was (I say "was" because the group disbanded) a conservative group called Unite for Colorado that the Secretary of State Jena Griswold's office went after for being too involved in politics.
Her office won a judgment against Unite for CO on the charge that the group's "major purpose" (a legal term that delineates how much is too much) was politics because of its spending $4 million on ballot initiatives in Colorado in the 2020 election. The group got fined $40,000 and was told to reveal its donors.
Well, it took a good long while but the group did appeal and recently won that appeal.
I celebrate this particular ruling for a few reasons, and I also lament it.
I'll be perfectly honest in telling you that Unite's values match mine and thus I'm glad to see them win.
Beyond tribalism, however, I have thought since I first read of this ruling that this was pure partisan politics on Jena Griswold's part. Her bringing an action against Unite would be easier for me to swallow if she ever, once, did the same for the manifold left-leaning dark money groups in this state. And it cannot be said that she's unaware either: I know of one complaint filed against The North Fund and have personally written two against Sixteen Thirty Fund.
While I celebrate on those counts, part of me is greatly disappointed. I am disappointed because I despair of ever getting full financial transparency in, or getting dark money out of, politics in this state regardless of political orientation.
If you look at Unite, they simply folded up shop and came back as a different group. If you look at things like Sixteen Thirty Fund, they spend, but they're also careful to make sure they hide their spending. They spend their own and then give money to other groups so no one individual group spends too much.
On top of this you have a Secretary of State who talks a good game about fighting dark money but doesn't have the guts to bring charges that her office isn't sure they'll win.
The decision made about the appeal is fair in the sense of justice. It synchs up the enforcement of the law so no one group is targeted.
Still, it's not in our best interest in the long run.
https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/charitable-organizations/exemption-requirements-501c3-organizations
https://coloradosun.com/2023/04/21/unite-for-colorado-campaign-finance-case-resolution/