The Aurarians’ Struggle: Responding to Urban Renewal History 4839 sec 1. Instructors: Agee and Gustin 3/10/12Aye Dios, those meetings were like wars, The neighbors fought to maintain their homes. They fought to save as many homes as possible. They organized. In the end they lost. Anthony J. Garcia's "The Vecinos [Neighbors] Rise Up" (2011)! As today’s students at the Auraria Higher Education Center stroll across campus, they may note the quaint row of houses on 9'* Street Park. They may even know that the area, and indeed the whole campus, was once a neighborhood dotted with small businesses. Few students, though, are aware of the struggle that took place in the late 1960s and early 1970s when the fate of the former Auraria residents was being decided. For those people who were displaced to make way for the campus, the memory of that fight and of the residents’ efforts to maintain their neighborhood are still fresh. Their sentiments still resonate in works such as Anthony J, Garcia's “The Vecinos [Neighbors] Rise Up" decades after the fact. During the contentious battle over the development of the Auraria area, most of Denver's population was concerned primarily with what the future could hold; not nearly as many considered the struggles and consequences for the people who lived in the area first. The decision-making and implementation of the area's transformation brought a " Anthony J. Garcia, “The Vecinos Rise Up,” in Anthony J. Garcia and Daniel Valdez, ed, Where the Rivers Meet: The Story of Auraria, Colorado: Through our Eyes (Denver, CO: Su Teatto, Ine., 2011),number of concerns and conflicts to the Auraria residents, The process of approving, planning, and building the Auraria Higher Education Center took place in many stages. Each point of the process had to be addressed differently by the residents of Auraria. They worked individually and collectively and took both legal and public routes to resist relocation and to address their concerns. These responses met differing levels of success. Auraria and Relocation Auraria was one of the first settlements in the area that eventually became Denver. Early in its existence it was ethnically heterogeneous, with many German and Irish immigrants occupying the area. In the mid-1910s a largely Hispanic population began moving into the region. Many of the new residents, like the parents of Maria Gonzalez- Zimmerman, moved to Auraria when they escaped the turmoil of the Mexican Revolution 2 Centered socially and religiously around the new St. Cajetan’s Church, which was built in 1926, they established a cohesive Hispanic community in Auraria? By the late 1960s, the Auraria neighborhood in the West Side of Denver was predominantly Mexican-American, Memories of the neighborhood before it became Auraria Campus have been recorded in Auraria Remembered. In this compilation of seventeen transcribed resident interviews, almost every one mentions the connected, family-like, carefree spirit of the community. They recount neighborhood dances, festivals at St. Cajetan’s, and stories about their friends and neighbors. Many of the interviewees mention that they were poor, but iagdalena Gallegos, Auraria Remembered (Denver, CO: Community College of Denver, 1991), p. 73. > Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. |“happy poor;” when asked about any problems or conflicts in the neighborhood, they say there were a few, but nothing major.+ This romantic image of a tight-knit, cohesive community stands in sharp contrast to the political and newspaper descriptions of the same neighborhood. According to one Denver Post article, “the Auraria area is a generally blighted mish-mash of small homes, salvage yards, railroad tracks, small businesses, junk cars, showing clear signs of old age." ‘The area was portrayed as a deserted collection of all things undesirable. This conflict in descriptions must be qualified on both sides. Politicians wanted the area to be designated as an urban renewal project and so they had to portray it as a decaying object in need of renovation. In contrast, most of those residents interviewed lived in the area as children and young adults, They remember local businessmen giving them free ice cream and their neighbors playing kick the can with them, not the burdens of rent or labor. A more adult picture of the neighborhood's hardships can be glimpsed in Juanita Lopez's recollection that her parents moved the family out of the Auraria neighborhood from 1963 to 1969 because they were worried when “the neighborhood start[ed] having trouble with this drug thing," Other glimpses of trouble can be found in reports of incidents like a September, 1969, confrontation between the police and the local Black Berets, a Chicano activist group, which sent seventeen people to the hospital.” * Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. 1-73. * Denver Post, October 20, 1969, p, 56, * Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. 34-37. ” Rocky Mountain News, September 29, 1969, p. 62.Despite these negative aspects, itis apparent in the interviews of residents that the Auraria neighborhood was very dear to them. In some eases parents, grown siblings, aunts and uncles, and other relatives all lived in the same neighborhood, and many families had lived there for generations. The Torres family lived in their Auraria house for thirty: eight years.® Gloria Rodriguez recalled that her grandfather helped build St. Cajetan’s, that her mother and father grew up in the neighborhood, and that, “I think, had the community stayed a community, a lot of my generation would have married people from the community and we would have grown the same way as our mothers and fathers did."® Ida Sigala lived in Aurairia for twenty-seven years; she remembers the neighborhood as “your home and your only home.""° There were certainly troubles and hardships in Auraria, but the longevity of the people's residency and their evident loyalty to the community made for a fondly-remembered neighborhood. ‘That was why it was such a shock when the relocation notices arrived. The decision to demolish and disperse a minority-dominated neighborhood like Auraria was not singular. As Thomas J. Sugrue pointed out in Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Struggle for Civil Rights in the North, racially-charged housing conflicts were prevalent throughout the country in the 1960s and early 1970s. Many African American communities composed of residents and small businesses—similar to Auraria—were relocated to make way for urban renewal and redevelopment. Redevelopment projects seemed to target minority areas to the point that “blacks derisively termed urban renewal * Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. 55-63, ° Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. 41-47, "" Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. 50-51‘Negro removal.’ Sugrue focused on the plight of blacks in Chicago. They suffered from lack of affordable housing, segregation, and removal. The African Americans who were relocated to make way for urban renewal experienced the same kinds of problems as the Aurarians. Many of them were renters in white-owned buildings, and as such, they received minimal relocation assistance and benefits. The small businesses relied upon local patronage to keep afloat; when they were removed, businesses lost their clientele and their source of income.!? To counter their housing woes, black communities organized. The 1960s were a time of intense civil rights struggles, so there were already many large and national organizations fighting for African American rights. Sugrue explained that a number of these groups, such as the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and the National Committee Against Discrimination in Housing (NCDH), used local branches to fight for housing rights. Other smaller organizations formed to address the issues, too. Community development corporations were formed at more local levels and CORE formed a more specialized Community Housing and Planning Review Board to promote the building of low-income housing. Along with these collective movements, a number of individuals stepped up to fight for housing rights. Many of the more influential leaders, both nationally and locally, were affiliated with churches. People like Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., Minister Jesse L. Jackson, and Reverend Albert Cleage used their positions and speaking skills to draw attention and publicity to their causes and to garner support within religious circles,13 Thomas I. Sugrue, Sweet Land of Liberty: The Forgotten Siruggle for Civil Rights inthe North (New York Random House, 2008), p. 432. ” Sugrue, Sweet Land of Liberty, p. 432. Sugrue, Sweet Land of Liberty, p.407, 415, 417, 422, 430, and 433,The relocation problems of the African American community mirrored those of the Hispanics in Auraria; the responses from both groups were also similar. Unlike what happened in Chicago, though, no national Hispanic rights organizations stepped in to fight for the people of Auraria. Prior to the Auraria Higher Education Center conflict, the Denver neighborhood was held together through social and religious ties. After the threat of relocation, the Aurarians formed effective collective action groups. Similar to the African American movements, several individuals stepped forward as leaders. Here again, arguably the most influential and outspoken of the advocates for Auraria residents was a religious figure: Father Peter Garcia. Garcia was raised on the West Side and served as the parish priest of St. Cajetan’s Church, the heart of the Auraria Hispanic community. In 1969 he started to become very active in politics, predominantly in the fight of the Auraria residents. His position within the church helped him maintain a prominence in the papers that served as a platform for him to voice his opinions. He declared, “I am not afraid to put my career on the chopping block for my people,” and he was as good as his word."* For his efforts, the St. Cajetan’s priest won many fans among the Auraria community, His strong political activism brought enemies, too. He often found himself at odds with representatives of urban renewal proponents who were frustrated by his constant vigilance, and several Denver groups thought he should step out of the political arena and “stick to the pulpit.”"5 Although he lost his job as priest when he married Vera Silva in December of 1972, he did not stop fighting “ The Paper, “A Special Supplement to The Paper: The Auraria Dream,” January 12, 1972, p.7. '* The Paper, “A Special Supplement to The Paper: The Auraria Dream,” January 12, 1972, p.7,for his people. Through the efforts of Father Garcia and resident organizations, the people of Auraria made their voices heard. Plans for the renewal of Auraria had been in the works since the area was flooded by the South Platte River in June of 1965.2” The need to “rehabilitate” the flood-damaged area made it the chosen site for one of Denver's South Platte Valley Redevelopment Program projects: the Auraria Higher Education Center. The Auraria Center concept design met a growing need for permanent space for the downtown Denver colleges and. universities. The Metropolitan State College of Denver and the Denver Community College rented space and were looking for permanent facilities. The space would also be used by the University of Colorado Denver Center (and possibly the Emily Griffith Opportunity School). After surveying several locations, Auraria was selected because it was “the only site” that could house all these institutions and give students the opportunity to commute and be close to the business district, the “best possible site for developing an urban- oriented higher education center,” and the site that would require the fewest relocations.1® The Colorado Commission on Higher Education, the Board of Trustees for State Colleges, the Denver Chamber of Commerce, the Downtown Denver Improvement Association, and Mayor Bill McNichols all endorsed the project. When the area was declared an urban renewal project, the Denver Urban Renewal Authority (DURA) was placed in charge of relocation and land clearing, DURA was the entity in charge of executing and overseeing “The Paper, “A Special Supplement to The Paper: The Auraria Dream,” January 12, 1972, p.7. "’ Denver Post, September 2, 1969, p. 4 '* Vote For Auraria Nov. 4, in Denver Public Library, Western History and Genealogy, Clipping file “Colleges and Universities, Colorado, Auraria Higher Education Center.”many Denver urban renewal projects, such as Skyline and the improvement of highways. The state would then buy the land from DURA and build the education complex. 9 The residents did not receive forewarning about the plans for their neighborhood Louise Vigil recalled, “The relocation plans hit the residents like a ton of bricks. Most people had lived there all their lives and they were heartbroken."20 When Eulalia Archuleta did not understand why her house was being measured, Father Garcia had to explain that her home was located in an urban renewal area.*? According to Magdelena Gallegos, "[T]he first time the residents heard anything about the relocation was when leaflets were passed out to every house.”?? One such notice the residents received was the “Informational Notice to All Families and Individuals Living In Model Cities Target Areas #1 and #2." It said: This notice is to inform you that the dwelling unit in which you now live is located within the Model Cities Target Areas #1 and #2. Relocation activities in connection with this project will be handled by the Denver Urban Renewal Authority through the Relocation Department. If it will be necessary for you to move from your present home you will be notified well in advance as to just when you must vacate your dwelling unit and you will be given ample time to find another satisfactory dwelling unit.22 It then went on to outline the financial assistance available to relocated residents and the conditions which must be met in order to qualify for that assistance. If they met the " See for instance Denver Post, August 28, 1969, p. 1; Vote For Auraria Nov. 4, in Denver Public Library, Western History and Genealogy, Clipping file “Colleges and Universities. Colorado. Auraria Higher Education Center.” ® Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. 64-72. * The Paper, “A Special Supplement to The Paper: The Auraria Dream,” January 12, 1972, p.7. ® Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. | ® Denver Urban Renewal Authority, “Information Notice to All Families and Individuals Living In Model Cities Target Areas #1 and #2,” in Auraria Library Archives, Auraria Campus Documents.requirements, “owner-occupants” could be eligible for up to $5,000 in Replacement Housing Payments. Residents were warned not to move “before you see us, You may risk losing your eligibility for a relocation payment if you do.” The rest of the notice broke down the quality assurances for the replacement housing and the manner in which housing and number of bedroom requirements would be determined. This notice, signed at the bottom by DURA’s Executive Director J. Robert Cameron, was six-pages long2+ According to Gallegos, the leaflets caused shock and fear, For residents, many of whom had not moved in decades, the future of their homes was uncertain and see! aly out of their hands.?5 The decision, though, was not yet final, and the residents prepared for the hard fight that was to come. The Residents Respond The first major challenge facing the Auraria residents was the bond vote. To procure funding for the project, the city issued a special vote to take place on November 4, 1969. The bond to be approved by the voters would issue city general obligation bonds of $5.3 million to purchase and develop the Auraria site—on the condition that the state raised an additional $5.6 million, In essence, the bond vote determined whether or not Auraria would become a campus.2¢ * Denver Urban Renewal Authority, “Information Notice to All Families and Individuals Living In Model C: ‘Target Areas #1 and #2," in Auraria Library Archives, Auraria Campus Documents. * Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. | % Denver Post, August 28, 1969, p. |10 The bond issue was voted onto the ballot at the Public Hearing on Auraria Urban Renewal on September 29, 1969. A pro-urban renewal oral statement made before the City Council of Denver at this hearing assured those present that housing would be found for the displaced Aurarians and that “all persons and agencies involved in developing the Auraria Project have recognized the human and economic problems involved."?” The residents did not think the agencies had fully considered these problems. Their dissent was voiced by St. Cajetan’s Reverend Peter Garcia; Louis Marinez, a Black Berets spokesman; and Waldo Benevidez, chairman of the Committee to Preserve the West Denver Community. Over their protests, the bond issue was placed on the ballot to be decided five weeks later.28 Since the decision was being made by the public, residents took their concerns to the people of Denver. The community formed the Auraria Residents Organization, Inc. (ARO) to organize itself against the bond. Father Garcia was instrumental in forming this organization and served for a time as its president. Many of the ARO’s meetings were held at St. Cajetan’s? The minutes from these meetings convey the urgency, uncertainty, and even anger felt by the residents. Brief notes draw attention to racial concerns, survey results, and promised relocation benefits. The last note on one of the pages told of the * “The Denver Urban Renewal’s Participation in the Auraria Center City College Complex Site: An oral Statement Before the City Council of Denver, Colorado Public Hearing on Auraria Urban Renewal, September 29, 1969," in ‘Auraria Library Archives, Auraria Campus Documents % Frank C. Abbott, The Auraria Higher Education Center: How it Came to Be (Denver, CO: Auraria Higher Education Center, 1999), p. 63 ® Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. |residents’ frustration: “Why does it have to be Auraria Site??? Why?? Would gov't [sic] do ‘that?"30 One of the biggest concerns for the residents was that of relocation housing, No one said where this housing would be, largely because it hadn't been built yet. Many were concerned that they would not be moved to housing big enough to comfortably fit their families." Others saw the selection of the Auraria site as a deliberate attempt to break up the Mexican-American community and to dilute it with the campus community. Waldo Benavides charged that racism blocked the building of low-income housing into which the displaced residents could move. These housing and racial concerns were spread though articles in the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News along with a rallying cry to vote "No" on November 4.32 Opponents of the bond issue worked hard to make their voices heard. Benavidez collected two thousand signatures in opposition to the project which he presented to Lt. Governor Mark Hogan.’ The ARO visited Catholic churches, sent out leaflets, and did all they could to protest the bond issue.'* Additional support was given by a non-profit group called Resident Participation of Denver, Inc, a representative of which said the residents were being slighted by the planners.35 Another source of help came from the students of Metropolitan State College and the University of Colorado Denver Center. Both schools’ mutes, Auraria Library Archives, Auraria Campus Documents. ™ Denver Post, October 28, 1969, p. 13. ® Rocky Mountain News, September 29, 1969, p. 62. » Denver Past, October 29, 1969, p. 3. Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. | % Denver Post, October 29, 1969, p. 3.United Mexican-American Students organizations and a number of other students voiced opposition to the bond. The students adopted a resolution that cited the ruin of Denver's largest Hispanic neighborhood and the fact that “the interest and desires of the residents of Auraria have not been given consideration in planning the college” as their reasons for opposing the bill.3¢ This public campaign, carried out largely in the newspapers, made an impression on voters. The impact is evident in responses from the pro-bond camp. In both the Denver Post and the Rocky Mountain News, articles assured readers that housing would be available for displaced residents. L. Edward Lashman, a “housing specialist” of Urban Housing Associates Ltd,, said over two thousand units would be available by the time Aurarians had to move. These units were not built yet, but were in planning stages.” DURA also responded to the evident concern for relocated Aurarians. Executive Director Cameron declared that the project would not be approved by the federal government “until the Denver community can prove that the families in the area will be rehoused in safe, decent and adequate housing, and in a manner which will not be detrimental to any of the families involved."39 ‘The most telling evidence that voters were concerned with the fate of the Aurarians was illustrated in a "Vote For Auraria Nov. 4” pamphlet. Over one-third of the brochure was dedicated to rationalizing the site choice and need for relocation and to outlining the aid available for residents and the fact that “every consideration [would be given] to the * Rocky Mountain News, October 20, 1969, p. 38. * Rocky Mountain News, October 27, 1969, p. 5 and Denver Past October 29, 1969, p. 3 * Rocky Mountain News, September 30, 1969, p. 513 displaced people."’? The residents had clearly drawn attention and sympathy to their situation, and, according to Gallegos, were confident they could win the vote.‘ The tide turned a few days before the election when hundreds of Metro State students made a publicized push in favor of the bond. On the Sunday before the election, Archbishop James V. Casey also showed support for the issue and sent a pro-bond letter to be read at all the Catholic churches in Denver. This “betrayal” by Archbishop Casey left many Catholic Mexican-Americans bitter, but it was enough to push the public in favor of the bond.!t After the bond issue passed, Father Garcia apologized to his congregation for ‘Archbishop Casey's actions, stating that he had asked Casey not to publicly endorse the bond.4? The passing of the bond issue did not end the Auraria residents’ struggle, but it shifted their focus to the next stage in the process: relocation and compensation. Now that relocation was inevitable, residents strove to receive just compensation for their trouble. The battle was no longer a fight for public opinion, and so the methods of resistance and negotiation changed. Anumber of residents, particularly the Auraria businessmen, chose the legal road. One hundred fifty-five families filed lawsuits before the election, but these cases were not widely followed in the papers. When a number of Auraria business groups started filing suits, though, the newspapers covered them. First, in February, 1970, co-chairmen of the » Vote For Auraria Nov, 4, in Denyer Public Library, Westem History and Genealogy, Clipping file “Colleges and Universities. Colorado. Auraria Higher Education Center.” Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. 1. See for instance Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. 1; Abbott, The Auraria Higher Education Center, p. 66. © The Paper, “A Special Supplement to The Paper: The Auraria Dream,” January 12, 1972, p.7.14 anti-Auraria committee Frank Karsh and Ivan L. Goldstein claimed that the bond vote had been illegal because letting the whole population vote, not just property tax payers, was subterfuge. The vote was finally declared legal and the case dismissed in early March of 1971 by Judge George McNamara.‘ That decision was upheld in November when the case was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court.4 Auraria businessmen still did not feel that they were being treated justly. For them, moving meant a loss of clientele and possible closure. They continued to meet and discuss the benefits being offered. In 1973 over fifty businessmen renewed their protests. Now organized as Auraria Businessmen Against Confiscation Inc, the group filed a complaint with DURA about its methods. They charged that DURA engaged in coercive action to acquire properties, refused to negotiate in good faith, misrepresented the law to property owners, restricted the exchange of information between business owners, and did not offer just compensation. They made it clear that they did not object to the college complex, but to the methods employed by DURA. Executive Director Cameron dismissed these complaints as unfounded.** The group continued to apply pressure, and in late April a Denver District Court judge ordered that DURA “show cause why it shouldn't grant a hearing” to the businessmen. The case resulted in a temporary restraint against DURA obtaining more Auraria property, but the restraint order was rescinded by early May.** The coalition of Auraria businessmen filed a number of other suits, but they did not score © Denver Post, February 27, 1970, p.3 and Rocky Mountain News, March 3, 1971, p.8, * Denver Post, November 22, 1971, p. 22. * Rocky Mountain News, April 26, 1973, p. 10. * Rocky Mountain News, April 26, 1973, p.10 and Denver Post, May 6, 1973, p. 47.15 any significant victories. The concerns they voiced and the publicity they brought did contribute to the overall neighborhood efforts, though. Most residents chose a path of negotiation outside the courtroom. They attended meetings where they could voice their concern, and they tried to work with DURA and other involved groups to ensure just treatment. By this time, relocation benefits had been outlined for the residents (the benefit plan was not solidified until 1972). DURA served as the agency in charge of purchasing the properties from residents, relocating those displaced, demolishing unwanted structures, and selling the land to the state for development.*” A special relocation division of DURA, headed by director Paul Cormier, would ensure that all residents were relocated satisfactorily; one hundred fifty-five families, seventy individuals, and two hundred thirty-seven businesses occupied the area and required relocation. DURA’s actions were monitored by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).‘? The relocation process called for each property to be appraised twice by independent parties. DURA retained Justin Haynes and Company, Donald L. Trigg Appraisal Company, and E.B, Horton, Jr. to perform the Auraria appraisals? Then DURA sent offers to the residents. If residents refused the offer, a price would be decided in court. Those who owned their homes could receive up to $15,000 with which they could purchase anew home of their choosing. A $200 dislocation grant and $300 moving allowance were © Article, April 20,1972 in Denver Public Library, Western History and Genealogy, Clipping file “Colleges and Universities. Colorado. Auraria Higher Education Center.” “ Denver Post, July 11, 1971, p.3 © Brooks Towers News, “Urban Renewal” in Denver Public Library, Western History and Genealogy, Clipping file “Denver. Urban Renewal. Denver Urban Renewal Authority. Auratia Project.”16 also available to those who qualified. Renters could receive $2,000 towards a down payment and $1,000 annually in rent charges for four years if they chose to continue to rent. Ifrenters wanted to buy a home instead, they could receive the $2,000 down payment money and up to $2,000 more in matching federal funds. Business relocation benefits were originally limited to $25,000, but were amended so that the full price of relocation had to be paid. The process was all explained clearly. The details residents received about where they would be moving, though, remained elusive. In the early 1970s, it was becoming evident that finding replacement housing was going to bea problem. The organizations that had promised to provide almost 2,000 housing units by the time Aurarians had to move could now only promise 1,400 units. One paper claimed “Denver is faced with one of the most serious low-cost housing shortages in the nation." DURA officials worried that lack of housing would halt or delay their Auraria timeline. Residents worried that they would have nowhere to go.5? Father Garcia spoke up and “urged legislators to consider not the dollars but the people of Auraria.” He voiced his neighbors’ fears and called for assurance from DURA.®? ‘The uncertainty regarding housing caught the eye of the media, After the bond election, a large number of articles concerning Auraria neglected or barely mentioned the residents to be displaced. Budget changes, the composition of the campus, and the determination of roles and relations! 's among the three college-university institutions * Denver Past, March 26, 1972, p. $2. *\ The Paper, “A Special Supplement to The Paper: The Auraria Dream,” January 12, 1972, p. 10. * Denver Post, November 8, 1970, p. 43 * Rocky Mountain News, January 14, 1970, p. 5.7 stole much of the spotlight. Housing uncertainty served as a compelling human interest story, though, and articles sprinkled the pages of newspapers with titles such as “When, Where?’: Auraria Uncertainty Remains” and “Relocation Pinch: Housing May Snag Auraria."** The Paper even ran a special supplement called “The Auraria Dream” in which it devoted two pages to the housing issue and plight of the residents. One page titled “Where Can I Go?" addressed the clashes residents experienced with DURA officials when demanding housing and compensation. ‘The Auraria Residents Organization felt they were not being sufficiently considered in the housing process. DURA’s frustration with the residents resounded in one official's statement: “Community meetings are a bunch of crap. Even if you get the people to attend, they still won't tell you what they want.”*5 Another page in The Paper addressed the “human side of Auraria.” This story about Eulalia Archuleta, one of the residents to be relocated, revealed that “the aura of uncertainty, the not knowing when she has to move or who is going to help her, that frightens her most." This fear of uncertainty drove residents to keep negotiating with DURA and attending community meetings. In one meeting with the City Council, Father Garcia announced that the people of Auraria, “aren’t going to move from that land until we have land...For a year and a half we've had meetings. Now we need action.’s? The sentiments he expressed before numerous legislative, professional groups, and media outlets resounded with the residents. Such meetings * Denver Post, March 8, 1971, p. 21 and Denver Post, November 8, 1970, p. 43. “The Paper, “A Special Supplement to The Paper: The Auraria Dream,” January 12, 1972, p. 9. * The Paper, “A Special Supplement to The Paper: The Auraria Dream,” January 12, 1972, p.7 * Rocky Mountain News, May 4, 1971, p8.18 couldn't have been complete “crap” because the residents secured a voice in the process. In mid-February, 1971, the Interim Policy Board for the Auraria Higher Education Center created a task force to bridge communication gaps concerning the housing issue. The task force consisted of ten members, seven of whom represented involved groups such as DURA. The other three were residents and members of the Auraria Residents Organization: Father Peter Garcia of St. Cajetan’s, Joe Baca, and Phil Torres.5° did not create The task force helped determine the needs of the residents, bu enough housing, As the search for adequate dwellings continued, new problems arose for the residents. According to a survey done by Metro students in 1969, over two-thirds of the residents were renters.‘ As such, they were subject to eviction by their landlords. This became a problem in February of 1972. Inspections from Denver's Health and Hospitals Department found a number of houses in violation of building codes; instead of fixing the properties, which would shortly be demolished for the Auraria Complex, a few landlords simply evicted their tenants. “Moving early” like this disqualified the evicted residents from receiving the relocation aid they had been promised. In some cases, the landlords demolished their property and made it into a parking lot so that they could collect the relocation benefits owed them as a small business owner, which was potentially much more than residents received. This profit-making scheme left residents out of their benefits and out of a home. * Rocky Mountain News, February 11, 1971 and Denver Post, March 8, 1971, p. 21. * Denver Urban Renewal Authority, “Relocation Survey of Residents in the Proposed Auratia Urban Renewal Project Area,” in Denver Public Library. Digital Collections, Auraria Neighborhood, “ Rocky Mountain News, February 10, 1972, p. 8 and Denver Post, February 10, 1972, p. 35 and February 15, 1972, p.3 and February 23, 1972, p. 32.19 When the residents joined together to take action, ten families had been either evicted or threatened with eviction. This time the problem was urgent and demanded more radical action from the Aurarians, On February 9® the Auraria Residents Organization called a meeting that was attended by seventy-five residents and representatives of Legal Aid and Denver Housing. During the two-hour meeting, residents threatened to create a tent city in protest. ARO President Toni Taylor announced to the gathering that if another resident was evicted, “tents will go up Thursday." Father Garcia helped the effort when he wrote to HUD representatives in Washington D.C. to pressure a revision in DURA’s relocation timelines? ‘These actions got quick results. Five days later Mayor McNichols asked that all demolition permits be refused for the Auraria area. By halting demolition for six weeks he hoped to prevent landlords from evicting residents to build parking lots.®° The Denver City Council also reacted to the tent city threat. They revised their agreement with DURA and allowed the Auraria contract to be submitted to the federal Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Department early. HUD had to approve the contract before residents could start the process of receiving relocation benefits, Although the approval process was expected to take three to five weeks, the early submission meant that the process could begin sooner and resident: could more quickly escape the vulnerable position they occupied. *' Rocky Mountain News, February 10, 1972, p. 8 and Denver Post, February 10, 1972, p. 35 and February 15, 1972, p. 3 and February 23, 1972, p. 32. The Paper, “A Special Supplement to The Paper: The Auraria Dream,” January 12, 1972, p.7. © Denver Post, February 13, 1972, p.3. Denver Post, February 23, 1972, p.32.20 Approximately a month later, the relocation process was finally under way. As Paul Cormier of DURA explained, families would be moved in phases. The Phase One “priority” area to be cleared included about seventy-nine families, twenty-three individuals, and fifty- one businesses. Phase Two required the relocation of two individuals and forty-eight businesses, and Phase Three would move sixty-five families, twenty individuals, and twenty businesses, The remaining residents would be relocated three to four years down the line in a final phase. After DURA made its offers, residents were given a number of months to move, For example, many “priority area” residents received offers in January of 1973 and had to vacate their homes by August.6* DURA’s contract required that they clear all the land and sell itto the state by 1976; however, the newspapers largely stopped covering the relocation process after 1973 when controversy faded away and the process followed due course. In 1974, the last newspaper-covered resident concern took center stage. This time the worry came not from the residents being moved, but from those remaining. People living on the south side of Colfax Avenue voiced concerns about student influx, One resident complained that “we're already a parking lot.” They worried that the arrival of thousands of students would overrun their neighborhood. Not only would their streets be overrun with commuting students’ cars, many residents feared that their absentee landlords would rather rent to students who could pay more for the space. They felt that Denver Post, January 16, 1972. Rocky Mountain News, January 20, 1973, p. 27.21 they would be driven from their homes because they could not compete with student tenants.°7 ‘The worried neighbors dealt with the problem by attending a meeting in November of 1974 with the governing board of the Auraria Higher Education Center. Resident Manuel Martinez told the group, “All we're asking for is for some [of] our people to sit on the board to take care of the absentee landlord (problem)."6® The residents’ fears did not go unaddressed. In December the West Side Action Center created a committee of residents to represent the neighborhood in the Auraria board proceedings. The committee was nominated and elected by the residents. As one journalist said, “There is no better way to ease problems between bureaucracy and people than to allow representatives of the people to participate in formulating the conditions that will affect their lives.” In the end, the Auraria board selected thirteen resident representatives to help tackle neighborhood concerns. This strategy seemed like the best way to handle the problem; however, the same concerns resurfaced about a year later. In February, 1976, residents once again drew attention to student influx problems. The head of the Westside-Auraria Citizens Committee that had been formed to deal with the issues said that the Auraria board was ignoring them, When the committee submitted eleven demands to the governing board, Chairman Philip Milstein said the matter would be looked into further.” There are no further records to indicate that the demands were ever addressed. © Denver Post, November 8, 1974, p.3. * Denver Post, November 8, 1974, p.3. © articles, December 16, 1974 and December 18, 1974 in Denver Public Library, Western History and Genealogy, Clipping file “Colleges and Universities. Colorado. Auraria Higher Education Center, 1974.” ” Denver Post, February 6, 1976, p. 16.22 The Aftermath Even though they are now dispersed, the former neighbors hold occasional reunions. Some are still bitter about their neighborhood's fate. Louise and Don Vigil told an interviewer, “Why didn’t they leave us alone so we could still live there? Oh, we belong to it!””! Others have come to terms with the change. Martha Gonzalez-Alcaro, for example, said, “I'm very happy the campusis there. I don’t feel hostile, but | fee! that people who are placed in the position such as we were should do their homework very, very carefully so that it doesn’t happen again."”® Many residents interviewed felt the same way, but none of them wanted to move. It was especially hard on older people who had lived in the neighborhood for decades. The late 1960s and early 1970s saw drastic changes in Auraria. The residents fought a variety of legal, policy, and public opinion battles, addressing each differently. They took their complaints to court, attended meetings and formed committees, spread leaflets and threatened “tent city” protests. They acted as a collective unit, as organizations, and as individuals. Their responses met with varied success; some prompted immediate redress while others were simply dismissed. The overall success of their efforts is difficult to measure, but one thing is certain: the residents of Auraria put their hearts into their community. ™ Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. 67-72. ” Gallegos, Auraria Remembered, p. 3-5.Once again, the river of people packed their bags, packed their memories, and assembled their hopes, and moved.” Anthony J. Garcia, “Otro Vez, Otro Rio (Another River, Once Again)” (2011) ® Anthony J. Garcia, “Otro Vez, Otro Rio (Another River, Once Again),” p. 114 in Anthony J. Garcia and Daniel Valdez, ed. Where the Rivers Meet: The Story of Auraria, Colorado: Through our Eyes (Denver, CO: Su Teatro, Ine., 2011).