By Vince Phillips
In the previous three parts of this series, I reviewed City Attorney Ben Kahn’s 61-page internal memorandum of December 31, 2016, the governance issues it documented, and the outcomes that followed the City’s divestiture resolutions.
One final dimension of the NRCDC story merits attention: the dramatic shift in public narrative between 2016–2017 and December 2018.In 2016, Mayor Jim LiVecchi and City Attorney Ben Kahn urged the City to fully divest its control over the Salida Natural Resource Center Development Corporation (NRCDC / SNRCDC). Their goal was clear: declare the entity truly independent, eliminate the TABOR debt exposure for Salida taxpayers, allow the nonprofit to retire its obligations, and ultimately return the land to the City free and clear.
To achieve that, they supported Resolutions 2016-81, 2016-88, and especially 2016-97. The effort drew intense public criticism. It was portrayed by some as overreach and an attempt to “dump” the Vandaveer Ranch property. A petition drive, strong opposition led by Alison Brown and P.T. Wood, heated public comments, letters, emails, and media coverage followed.
Widespread claims circulated at the time that Kahn had a friend in real estate who was willing to buy the property for $750,000. This fueled accusations of a “fire sale.” However, there is no record in the public meetings, the Kahn memorandum, or any other documented statement that Kahn ever made such a comment or proposal. The narrative nonetheless contributed to the intense backlash against the divestiture resolutions.
Yet two years later, in December 2018, the NRCDC board did precisely what LiVecchi and Kahn had advocated. It voted unanimously (Resolution 2018-01) to return the entity, along with its remaining assets and liabilities, to the City of Salida. City Council accepted the return via Resolution 2018-53.
The same local voices and media outlets that had sharply criticized LiVecchi and Kahn now celebrated the outcome. Ark Valley Voice published multiple articles headlined “Promise Kept,” describing the transfer as “a gift in time for Christmas” and “nearly 100 acres of city land, now owned free and clear” for the benefit of Salida residents. The board was praised for “saving the land” and protecting it from those who supposedly wanted to sell it off. Outgoing board members received public thanks and plaques. The irony is clear.
The very plan LiVecchi and Kahn were attacked for pursuing, full divestiture so the NRCDC could retire the debt and return the land debt-free, was executed by the board and then celebrated by the same critics.
Whether the 2018 board realized it or not, they fulfilled the core objectives outlined by LiVecchi and Kahn in 2016.
The very plan LiVecchi and Kahn were attacked for pursuing, full divestiture so the NRCDC could retire the debt and return the land debt-free, was executed by the board and then celebrated by the same critics.
Whether the 2018 board realized it or not, they fulfilled the core objectives outlined by LiVecchi and Kahn in 2016. The public record strongly suggests that without the 2016 divestiture, the TABOR risks and excessive City control would have persisted. The NRCDC could not have operated with genuine independence, the debt would likely have remained entangled with the City, and the clean “free and clear” return of nearly 100 acres in 2018 would almost certainly not have happened.
This is not about revisiting personal disputes. It is about recognizing documented public service. Kahn’s memorandum was a thorough, citation-rich legal analysis designed to protect Salida taxpayers from constitutional and financial risks.
LiVecchi, as mayor, supported that analysis and pushed for corrective action. Both men absorbed significant personal and political criticism for doing what they believed was right.
Today’s City Council and staff — most of whom were not involved in the 2009–2018 period — are now guiding development at South Ark on the same former Vandaveer Ranch property. The NRCDC saga offers a clear lesson: the right governance decisions are often the ones that attract the loudest short-term opposition.
Ben Kahn and Jim LiVecchi took that heat. The public record now shows that the outcome their critics fiercely opposed in 2016 is the same outcome those critics hailed as a victory in 2018. That is vindication.
Support Independent Local Journalism — High Country Advocate was created as a real alternative to regional media that too often silences dissenting voices while taking sides in the political struggle. Producing in-depth, unflinching reporting like this series and others is expensive: servers, editing, research time, and legal review all add up quickly. If these articles have informed you or given you new perspective, please consider supporting HCA with a paid subscription — every subscriber helps keep this reporting strong and independent. 