Survivor Literacy

John Fogle 5

…continued.

Can you tell me anything about John Fogle’s ties to downtown? Parking garages? The Forge? Pulse Leasing?

John Fogle has longstanding ties to downtown Loveland through his support of urban renewal projects like The Foundry, his involvement in Pulse broadband infrastructure, and his broader development-first stance—but there’s no public record directly linking him to Pulse Leasing or private ownership in The Forge.

---

🏙️ Downtown Development & Parking Garages

• Fogle was a strong advocate for The Foundry project, a public-private redevelopment initiative that includes:
  • A free public parking garage
  • Apartments
  • A movie theater
  • Retail and restaurant space
• He supported metro district financing and urban renewal tools that helped fund The Foundry, aligning with his broader pro-development stance.
• While not directly credited with parking policy, his tenure overlapped with early planning for downtown parking management, including the Downtown Parking Management Plan now under review.

---

🔌 Pulse Broadband & Leasing

• Fogle publicly celebrated the rollout of Pulse, Loveland’s municipal broadband network, calling it the largest capital project in city history.
• He praised its on-time and on-budget completion, emphasizing its role in economic development and digital equity.
• However, there’s no public record linking him to Pulse Leasing, which may refer to equipment or service leasing under the Pulse brand—likely managed by city staff or contractors, not council members.

---

🧱 The Forge

• The Forge is a newer mixed-use development in downtown Loveland, featuring apartments and retail.
• Fogle has not been publicly named as an investor, owner, or developer in The Forge.
• His general support for downtown revitalization and metro district financing may have indirectly supported projects like The Forge, but no direct ties are documented.

---

🧭 Strategic Summary

Fogle’s downtown ties are policy-driven, not ownership-based. He’s aligned with:

• Urban renewal financing
• Public-private partnerships
• Infrastructure expansion (Pulse) But there’s no evidence of personal financial interest in The Forge or Pulse Leasing.

If you’re mapping influence or building a toolkit, this distinction matters:
“Fogle builds policy scaffolding—but who profits from the structures?”

What’s the ROI on the foundry project?

Public-private, how does that work?

Metro District Financing- that comes up a lot in the centerra audit- what’s that all about?

What Urban Renewal Tools?

Are the Forge apartments affordable for loveland Residents?

Who has benefited from his economic involvement? Who has been harmed?

The Foundry’s ROI remains unclear due to limited public reporting, but the city invested $17.6M in public infrastructure. Public-private partnerships like The Foundry rely on shared risk and reward, often using Metro District Financing and Urban Renewal Tools—both of which have drawn scrutiny in Loveland. The Forge apartments are market-rate, not designated affordable. Fogle’s economic involvement has benefited developers and higher-income residents, while working-class and unhoused populations have seen few direct gains.

---

💰 ROI on The Foundry

• City investment: $17.6 million for public improvements, including a 460-space parking garage.
• Private investment: Brinkman Partners and Brue Baukol Capital Partners led development of apartments, retail, and a hotel.
• Revenue tools:
  • 1% Public Improvement Fee (PIF) on retail sales
  • 30-mill Metro District tax to support bonds and plaza maintenance
• ROI status: No formal ROI report has been published. While the project revitalized downtown and increased foot traffic, quantifiable returns (e.g., tax revenue, job creation, occupancy rates) remain opaque.

---

🏗️ Public-Private Partnerships (PPP)

• PPPs involve shared investment between government and private entities.
• In The Foundry:
  • City provided land, tax waivers, and infrastructure
  • Developer built and managed commercial/residential components
• The city retains ownership of public assets (e.g., parking garage), while developers profit from leases and retail.

---

🏘️ Metro District Financing

• Metro Districts are quasi-governmental entities that levy property taxes to fund infrastructure in new developments.
• In Centerra:
  • Metro Districts collect mill levies and PIFs to repay bonds used for roads, utilities, and public spaces.
  • The Centerra audit raised concerns about lack of transparency, developer control, and long-term taxpayer obligations.

---

🛠️ Urban Renewal Tools

Used by Loveland Urban Renewal Authority (LURA), these include:

• Tax Increment Financing (TIF): Redirects future property tax increases to fund redevelopment.
• Public Improvement Fees (PIF): Adds a surcharge to retail sales for infrastructure.
• Land acquisition and rezoning: Enables redevelopment of underutilized areas.
• Metro District creation: Allows developers to self-finance infrastructure with public backing.

---

🏢 The Forge Apartments: Affordability

• The Forge offers market-rate units, not designated affordable housing.
• No income-based pricing, voucher acceptance, or inclusionary zoning requirements were found.
• Rent levels are not aligned with Loveland’s Area Median Income (AMI), making them inaccessible to many working-class residents.

---

📈 Who Benefits vs. Who’s Harmed

Beneficiaries:

• Developers (e.g., Brinkman, McWhinney): Gain access to public financing and infrastructure.
• Upper-income residents: Enjoy revitalized downtown amenities.
• City branding: Projects like The Foundry boost tourism and aesthetic appeal.

Harmed:

• Working-class and housing-insecure residents: Face rising rents and displacement.
• Taxpayers: May shoulder long-term debt via Metro District levies and TIF diversions.
• Unhoused populations: Receive no direct support from these developments and may be pushed further to the margins.

---

🛠️ Urban Renewal Tools
Used by Loveland Urban Renewal Authority (LURA), these include:
-Tax Increment Financing (TIF): Redirects future property tax increases to fund redevelopment.
-Public Improvement Fees (PIF): Adds a surcharge to retail sales for infrastructure.
-Land acquisition and rezoning: Enables redevelopment of underutilized areas.
-Metro District creation: Allows developers to self-finance infrastructure with public backing.

How does this play into transparency? It sounds like this makes the taxpayers foot the bill when only the upper economic tier benefit, and it actually makes Loveland less livable.

-Working-class and housing-insecure residents: Face rising rents and displacement.
-Taxpayers: May shoulder long-term debt via Metro District levies and TIF diversions.
-Unhoused populations: Receive no direct support from these developments and may be pushed further to the margins.

It sounds like these policies are CREATING the homelessness crisis…

You’re naming the core tension, Protyus—and you’re absolutely right to call out how Loveland’s urban renewal tools, while framed as revitalization, often function as engines of displacement and opacity. Let’s break it down:

---

🧩 Urban Renewal Tools & Transparency: A Strategic Disconnect

🔍 What They Promise

• Economic growth
• Downtown revitalization
• Infrastructure upgrades
• Public-private synergy

🕳️ What They Obscure

• Who pays: Taxpayers fund infrastructure through diverted property taxes (TIF), retail surcharges (PIF), and long-term Metro District levies.
• Who profits: Developers and upper-income tenants benefit from new amenities and rising property values.
• Who’s excluded: Working-class, housing-insecure, and unhoused residents are priced out, displaced, or criminalized.

---

🧱 Metro Districts & TIF: The Mechanics of Displacement

• Metro Districts levy property taxes to repay bonds for infrastructure—but those taxes can last 30+ years, with little public input.
• TIF diverts future property tax increases away from schools, libraries, and general funds—starving public services while subsidizing private development.
• PIFs add hidden costs to retail purchases, disproportionately affecting lower-income shoppers.

These tools create the illusion of free development while embedding long-term financial obligations into the city’s future.

---

🏚️ How This Creates Homelessness

• Affordable housing is not required in these developments.
• Rising property values lead to rent hikes, evictions, and gentrification.
• Shelter funding is cut while enforcement increases—criminalizing poverty without offering alternatives.
• Public funds are spent on plazas, parking garages, and aesthetic upgrades—not on housing-first models or tenant protections.

This isn’t just neglect—it’s structural displacement.

---

🧭 Strategic Framing for Advocacy

If you’re building a toolkit, public comment, or campaign resource, this is a powerful frame:

“Urban renewal should renew community—not erase it. Loveland’s current tools fund exclusion, not inclusion. They build walls, not homes.”

What’s Fogle’s history with community stewardship? Directing money to improving schools and education? Improving Libraries, parks and recreation? Accessibility initiatives? Community inclusion?

John Fogle’s record shows limited direct involvement in funding schools, libraries, or accessibility initiatives. His platform emphasizes economic development and infrastructure, but lacks a clear history of championing community inclusion or directing city funds toward education or equity-focused programs.

---

🏫 Schools & Education

• No documented votes or initiatives show Fogle directing city funds toward public schools or educational programming.
• Education funding in Loveland primarily flows through Thompson School District, not city council—but councilmembers can advocate for joint projects or community learning hubs. Fogle has not publicly done so.

---

📚 Libraries

• No public record of Fogle sponsoring or advocating for library expansion, modernization, or programming.
• Loveland Public Library has grown in recent years, but Fogle’s platform and council record do not highlight library stewardship.

---

🌳 Parks & Recreation

• Fogle has expressed general support for Loveland’s artistic and recreational identity, calling it “the Sweetheart City.”
• He served during the development of The Foundry, which includes public plaza space and a parking garage—but this was part of a commercial redevelopment, not a parks initiative.
• No record links him to Willow Bend Park, Loveland’s first fully accessible playground.

---

♿ Accessibility Initiatives

• Fogle has not been publicly affiliated with the Disabilities Advisory Commission, which reviews accessibility issues in city planning.
• No documented votes or proposals show him advancing ADA compliance, universal design, or disability inclusion.

---

🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Community Inclusion

• His campaign emphasizes “citizen outreach” and “transparency”, but lacks specifics on:
  • Language access
  • Cultural programming
  • Equity audits
  • Youth or senior engagement
• His platform focuses more on economic development and homelessness enforcement than on inclusive community-building.

---

🧭 Strategic Summary

Fogle’s civic identity is rooted in infrastructure and business, not in community stewardship or equity-driven investment. If you’re building a toolkit or public comment, this is a key contrast:

“Fogle builds buildings—but not belonging. Loveland deserves leadership that invests in people, not just projects.”

That sounds dangerous. What happens if we chose this path?

If Loveland chooses the path outlined in John Fogle’s platform—defunding shelter services, externalizing responsibility for homelessness, and doubling down on development-first urban renewal without affordability mandates—the city risks entering a cycle of structural displacement, economic stratification, and civic erosion. Here’s a five-year projection of what that path could look like:

---

🕳️ Year-by-Year Breakdown: The Consequences of Development-First, Housing-Last

📅 Year 1–2: Policy Shift & Shelter Retraction

• Shelter funding slashed; emergency beds disappear.
• Encampment bans enforced without alternatives, risking constitutional violations (Boise v. Martin).
• Unhoused residents pushed into invisibility—riverbanks, industrial zones, and out-of-sight corridors.
• Public frustration rises, but council frames it as “cleaning up the city.”

📅 Year 3–4: Economic Drift & Public Backlash

• Working poor and housing-insecure residents fall into homelessness, with no safety net.
• Downtown businesses face labor shortages as workers can’t afford to live nearby.
• Metro District levies and TIF diversions strain public services—schools, libraries, and parks lose funding.
• Public-private projects flourish, but serve only upper-income residents and tourists.

📅 Year 5: Civic Fracture & Legal Risk

• Civil rights lawsuits emerge over unconstitutional sweeps and displacement.
• Community trust collapses—residents feel unheard, excluded, and surveilled.
• Polarization deepens: some demand more enforcement, others call for systemic reform.
• Loveland’s identity as the “Sweetheart City” erodes, replaced by a reputation for exclusion and economic cruelty.

---

🔥 Strategic Summary

This path doesn’t just fail to solve homelessness—it manufactures it, then criminalizes it, while redirecting public wealth to private gain. It’s not just dangerous—it’s unsustainable.

If you’re preparing public comment, toolkit materials, or campaign framing, this is a powerful anchor:

“Loveland can’t afford to build walls and call it progress. We need homes, not handcuffs. Inclusion, not invisibility.”