The Greeley Tribune reports that the fight over the $1.1 billion Catalyst project has entered another round of lawfare. The group Greeley Deserves Better has been cleared by the city clerk to circulate a new petition – this time targeting the rezoning approval that opened the door for the entertainment district. Their last petition was thrown out because it tried to overturn an administrative act of the city council, something voters can’t touch by referendum. But zoning is quasi-judicial, which makes this attempt legally viable. If they collect the required 4,586 valid signatures by October 16, the ordinance is suspended until voters decide.
At the same time, another group – With Many Hands – is floating a so-called “community benefits agreement” with developers. They’re backed by national progressive money, including ties to George Soros’s Tides Foundation. The idea is to extract promises on housing, childcare, and other activist wish lists before Catalyst can move forward.
The Bullet Point Brief
- Greeley Deserves Better is back with a new petition – this one against Catalyst zoning. Unlike their first flop, this one has legal merit.
- The group needs 4,586 signatures by October 16 to put the issue on the ballot. Until then, zoning approval is suspended.
- Their earlier petition failed because you can’t overturn an administrative action of the city council. Lesson learned.
- Meanwhile, With Many Hands (Soros-linked) is proposing a “community benefits agreement” that would tie Catalyst to progressive pet projects.
- These “agreements” sound like civic virtue but often function as legalized shakedowns: pay up or face endless resistance.
My Bottom Line
The lawfare continues. Attorneys don’t work for free, so Greeley Deserves Better must be sitting on some serious cash. This new petition may actually have teeth, since zoning is a different legal animal than their last failed attempt. We’ll see if they can get the signatures and then what the courts say.
But the part of this story that bothers me most is the “community benefits agreement” push. I’ve said it before: these aren’t partnerships, they’re shakedowns. Activists (often funded by NGOs and 501C3s) show up, demand concessions for their pet causes, and call it “community input.” It’s extortion dressed up as civic virtue.
Catalyst is already in a mess of lawsuits, petitions, and political football. Now we’re talking about forcing developers to fork over goodies to activist groups just to build? That’s not economic development – it’s mob tactics with better PR.
