In February, the citizens of Greeley will be asked to vote on an issue that could have long-lasting — and potentially devastating — effects on our city.
Ballot Issue 1A is being widely misunderstood.
This is not a vote to stop Cascadia.
It is not a vote to defund certificates of participation.
It is a vote to overturn zoning that was legally, publicly and appropriately approved by our city planners.
That distinction matters — a lot.
The funds for Cascadia that were approved by the Greeley City Council have already gone waaaaaay down the road at this point. In fact, a key portion of the financing has already occurred, and money has already been spent. You don’t need to dig into spreadsheets to see that — just drive by the site and look at the heavy equipment moving dirt.
Despite that reality, opponents were successful in forcing this issue onto the ballot. But make no mistake: this is not an up-or-down vote on Cascadia itself. It is a yes/no vote on a city-approved Planned Unit Development (PUD).
Approval of the measure would expose the city to significant financial risk, including potential default on expenditures already incurred, adverse impacts to the city’s creditworthiness, and reduced capacity to secure future funding for downtown and redevelopment initiatives. A no vote would avoid those risks and maintain the city’s current financial position.
As a longtime Realtor in Greeley, I cannot overstate how dangerous this precedent is.
Allowing voters to step in after the fact and decide whether an approved project can proceed sends a chilling message to anyone considering investing here. It tells developers, employers and lenders that even if they follow the rules, secure approvals and invest millions, the project can still be killed later by a ballot campaign.
Here’s what that looks like in the real world:
A major company spends years and significant money evaluating sites. Greeley checks every box. Then — after approvals are granted — voters swoop in and pull the rug out. That company doesn’t “rethink” things. They leave. One of our neighboring towns gets the jobs, tax base and momentum instead.
This kind of uncertainty is poison for economic development.
Right now, the loudest voices belong to ignorant social media keyboard warriors who don’t have to deal with the consequences of what they’re advocating for. That’s not how representative government is supposed to work. We elect leaders to make complex decisions. If you don’t like those decisions, vote them out.
Ironically, every council member who voted for Cascadia retained their seat — along with a new mayor and two new council members who have leaned in favor of Cascadia. That should tell us something.
Regardless of anyone’s feelings about how Cascadia was funded, opinions of the developer or frustrations about money going to Windsor schools — all of that is moot. Those arguments are backward-looking.
This vote is 100% about real estate law, city credibility and Greeley’s future economic development.
A NO vote on 1A is a vote to keep Greeley growing, competitive, and moving forward.
John DeWitt works for RE/MAX Alliance.
Hence then, the article about guest opinion john dewitt the real reason i m voting no on 1a was published today ( ) and is available on GreeleyTribune ( Saudi Arabia ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( (Guest opinion) John DeWitt: The real reason I’m voting no on 1A )
Also on site :