Blight, Rights (of Way), and the Broncos: Can Denver Consider Road Conditions in Blight Studies?

Cameron Westbrook

In February 2026, the Denver Urban Renewal Authority sent notice letters to property owners in Denver's Lincoln Park and Baker neighborhoods.[1] This letter informed residents that DURA was conducting a "conditions study" to determine whether an area stretching from First Avenue to Thirteenth Avenue qualifies as "a slum or blighted area" under Colorado's Urban Renewal Law.[2] The study area (below) encompasses not only private parcels but also public rights-of-way like streets, sidewalks, and infrastructure bordering I-25.[3]

[4]

DURA spokesperson Sammie Mason confirmed the study was initiated at the request of the Denver Broncos, whose ownership group plans to build a privately funded retractable-roof stadium and mixed-use district on the nearby Burnham Yard site.[5] At a March 2026 public open house on the Burnham Yard project, DURA representative Mike Guertin confirmed with me that public rights-of-way (“ROW”) will play a role in the determination of whether blight factors are “predominant” in the study area.

The inclusion of public ROW raises a question that Colorado courts have never squarely addressed and which may have a direct impact on property owners in the neighborhood: whether conditions on government-controlled transportation infrastructure can satisfy statutory blight factors and thereby justify the condemnation of neighboring private property. That question sits at the intersection of urban renewal, transportation law, and takings doctrine, and this study may be the vehicle that forces it into the open. This post, the first of two, introduces the statutory framework, the factual context, and the doctrinal stakes. Subsequent posts will examine the ROW inflation problem in statutory detail.

Colorados Urban Renewal Law defines a “blighted area” as one that, by reason of the presence of at least four of eleven enumerated factors, substantially impairs the sound growth of the municipality or constitutes an economic or social liability.[6] The eleven factors range from deteriorated structures to environmental contamination to defective street layout.[7] Where a municipality intends to use eminent domain, state law raises the threshold to five factors.[8]

           

To understand how a blight determination can rest substantially on public infrastructure, it helps to examine which statutory factors public ROW conditions can satisfy and how the statute's structure compounds that possibility. For present purposes, what matters is which factors can be satisfied by conditions on public ROWs rather than on private parcels. At least five of the eleven factors may be able to. Factor (b) addresses “defective or inadequate street layout”—streets, of course, being transportation infrastructure located in public ROW.[9] Factor (f) explicitly references "inadequate public improvements or utilities."[10]  Factor (e) covers "deterioration of site or other improvements," which in practice encompasses sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and drainage infrastructure typically situated in the ROW.[11] Factors (d) and (h), addressing "unsanitary or unsafe conditions" and "conditions that endanger life or property," are broad enough to capture hazards on either public or private land.[12]

           

Three structural features of the statute amplify this overlap. First, state law on blight provides that any single condition may satisfy as many blight factors as are applicable.[13] Second, while DURA has said it is looking only for “predominant” conditions, the law itself doesn’t set a minimum prevalence threshold.[14] The law does not require blight factors to be found on any particular percentage of parcels within the study area.[15] Third, blight is assessed on an area-wide basis rather than parcel-by-parcel.[16] As the Canyon City urban renewal authority's FAQ explains, individual properties are not declared blighted; areas are, and conditions are most frequently observed in publicly accessible locations rather than on private parcels.[17]

           

The combined effect of these features is that a study area like Burnham Yard could meet the four-factor (or even five, for eminent domain purposes) threshold required for a blight determination based substantially or even entirely on conditions that exist on public ROWs. Those ROWs are spaces over which the affected private property owners have no control and for which the government itself bears maintenance responsibility.[18]

           

The Burnham Yard context gives this structural concern a concrete factual setting. The Broncos’ ownership group has assembled approximately 150 acres for a stadium and mixed-use development, purchasing the Burnham Yard railyard from the state, acquiring 25 acres from Denver Water, and buying at least fifteen additional private properties through LLCs for over $150 million.[19] The project has been characterized as privately funded, but a blight designation is the statutory predicate for establishing an urban renewal area and deploying tax-increment financing (“TIF”), which would divert incremental property and sales tax growth to subsidize project costs for up to 25 years.[20] Former DURA Executive Director Tracy Huggins confirmed in July 2025 that preliminary TIF conversations with the Broncos and the mayor's office began in 2024 and that there was a strong likelihood the area would be deemed blighted given its industrial railyard history.[21]

           

Several property owners within the study area have expressed concern. Alex Ringsby of Ringsby Realty said his fully leased industrial building should not be considered blighted.[22] Ariel Elich, whose family owns 5 Green Boxes, questioned whether the study was a pretextual effort to acquire their property.[23] At a February 2024 community meeting, property owner Thom Cook identified eminent domain as his primary concern.[24] These reactions highlight the tension at the heart of the blight framework: the statute evaluates areas, not individual parcels, so a non-blighted property can be swept into a blighted designation (and potentially condemned) based on conditions elsewhere in the study area, including on public ROW.[25]

           

This tension is not new. The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a version of it in Berman v. Parker, holding that eliminating blight is a legitimate public purpose under the Fifth Amendment.[26] Legislative judgments about how to accomplish that goal— including perhaps condemning an area comprehensively rather than parcel-by-parcel— are entitled to broad judicial deference.[27] Kelo v. City of New London extended that deference beyond blight, holding that the promotion of economic development alone satisfies the public use requirement.[28] Colorado responded to Kelo with HB 06-1411, which prohibits takings "for the purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenue" and imposes a clear and convincing evidence standard on blight-based condemnation.[29] But the legislature did not tighten the blight definition itself, and the Institute for Justice now gives Colorado a D grade for the adequacy of its post-Kelo protections.[30] This is a downgrade driven largely by the Colorado Supreme Court's decision in Carousel Farms Metropolitan District v. Woodcrest Homes, Inc., which allowed a private developer operating through a metropolitan district to condemn a competitor's land.[31]

           

The result is a doctrinal architecture in which the blight definition is the last meaningful gatekeeping mechanism between a private property owner and condemnation for a project that would otherwise be barred as an economic development taking. If that definition can be satisfied by conditions on public rights-of-way (transportation infrastructure the government itself maintains), the gate may not hold.

           

The next post in this series will examine the ROW inflation problem in closer statutory detail, tracing how each relevant blight factor interacts with public infrastructure conditions and analyzing the doctrinal gap left by the absence of any Colorado appellate decision on point. DURA’s Burnham Yard study is expected to conclude by late April 2026, running concurrently with the Burnham Yard Small Area Plan process, which is scheduled for plan adoption in November 2026.

[1] Max Scheinblum, At Broncos' Request, DURA Searches for Blight Around Stadium Site, BUSINESSDEN (Feb. 23, 2026), https://businessden.com/2026/02/23/at-broncos-request-dura-searches-for-blight-around-stadium-site/.

[2] Id.

[3] Paolo Zialcita, Why Are the Broncos Looking for 'Blight'? It Could Lead to Tax Subsidies and Eminent Domain Near Their Planned Stadium, DENVERITE (Feb. 24, 2026), https://denverite.com/2026/02/24/broncos-new-stadium-blight-burnham-yard/.

[4] Id.

[5] Scheinblum, supra note 1.

[6] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-25-103(2) (2024).

[7] Id.

[8] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-25-105.5 (2024).

[9] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 31-25-103(2) (2024).

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] See id. (establishing no minimum parcel percentage for blight determination).

[15] See id. (establishing no minimum parcel percentage for blight determination).

[16] CANON CITY URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY, Urban Renewal Frequently Asked Questions (Aug. 2019), https://www.canoncity.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1095/Frequently-Asked-Questions.

[17] Id.

[18] See C.R.S. § 31-15-702(b)(I)–(II) (granting municipalities authority and responsibility for construction and maintenance of sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and street improvements).

[19] Jessica Alvarado Gamez, Broncos Push Ahead with Land Acquisitions Near Burnham Yard for New Stadium, THE DENVER POST (Feb. 3, 2026), https://www.denverpost.com/2026/02/03/denver-broncos-burnham-yard-land/.

[20] See Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 31-25-105(1)(a), 31-25-107(9) (2024) (authorizing tax increment financing upon adoption of urban renewal plan).

[21] Luca Evans, Broncos, Mayor's Office Inquired About Urban-Renewal Tax Incentives for Potential Burnham Yard Stadium Site,  THE DENVER POST (Sept. 9, 2025), https://www.denverpost.com/2025/07/09/broncos-stadium-burnham-yard-tax-incentives/.

[22] Scheinblum, supra note 1.

[23] Id.

[24] Bennito L. Kelty, Broncos Stadium Plan Calls for Eighth Avenue Redesign, New Streets, WESTWORD (Feb. 13, 2026), https://www.westword.com/news/broncos-stadium-plan-eighth-avenue-redesign-new-streets-40843857/.

[25] See CANON CITY URBAN RENEWAL AUTHORITY, supra note 16.

[26] Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 34–36 (1954).

[27] Id.

[28] Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469, 484 (2005).

[29] Colo. Rev. Stat. § 38-1-101(1)–(2)(b) (2024).

[30] INST. FOR JUSTICE, Colorado Eminent Domain Laws, https://ij.org/issues/private-property/eminent-domain/colorado-eminent-domain-laws/ (assigning Colorado a D grade).

[31] Carousel Farms Metro. Dist. v. Woodcrest Homes, Inc., 442 P.3d 402 (Colo. 2019); see also INST. FOR JUSTICE, supra note 30.