Showing posts with label issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label issues. Show all posts

Monday, April 23, 2007

O'Malley in the hot seat

At 11:09 am today, Channel 7 became the first media outlet with enough cohones to investigate allegations of impropriety by an incumbent in the Denver municipal elections.

Stephanie O'Malley hasn't been elected before, but she is the appointed Clerk & Recorder, which means we can evaluate not only her statements, but also her performance on the job.

We invite all voters to read "Foreclosures Held Up Because Of Clerk's Failure To Follow Law" and decide whether the allegations represent a serious public failing.

Below is an excerpt:
Hundreds of mortgage foreclosures worth millions of dollars are being held up because the Denver Clerk and Public Trustee failed to follow state law.

The state law requires that homeowners be notified of the foreclosure within 20 days before proceedings can move forward, and a Notice of Election and Demand must also be recorded by the Denver Public Trustee. The law is in place so that a homeowner is given time to pay any back payments and fees.

Stephanie O'Malley was appointed Clerk and Public Trustee by Mayor John Hickenlooper in January, and is running for election as the permanent Denver Clerk and Recorder, which would make her responsible for fixing the city's troubled elections.

When O'Malley took the job of Clerk and Public Trustee, she inherited a backlog of hundreds of foreclosures.

The build up may mean some Denver residents get to stay in their homes for free.

"It takes time for me as an individual to get up to speed, to understand the nature of the business around here. You know, as much as I want to sit here and claim I've been a clerk and recorder before or a deputy public trustee, I have not," O'Malley said.

...There have now been almost 1,000 foreclosures withdrawn.

O'Malley's critics question her ability to run elections in light of the problems with the foreclosure issue, but she said she can do the job if she has enough people and resources to make it work.
Update 4/23: Dear Denver has offered a longer view of failures in the Clerk & Recorders office, trailing back to Rosemary Rodriguez's tenure in that office. She also notes that if all of these appointed leaders are failing, perhaps those placing them in the office (namely, John Hickenlooper over the last 4 years) are also failing us.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Divided Council District 7

Daniel Chacon of the Rocky Mountain News has written about the chasm between communities in City Council's District 7.

The article was entitled: "In divided District 7, there are two sides to everything: East, west zones split by wealth, development."
In some ways, [Councilwoman] MacKenzie said, District 7 is "like two different districts."

"On the east side of the river, I get constant complaints about scrape-offs and infill developments because there's so much private investment, and people want it to stop," she said.

"But on the west side of the district, they'd love to have pop tops and scrape-offs and that kind of investment that indicates that people want to stay in the community."
The candidates mainly offered platitudes about spreading the wealth, encouraging redevelopment in the western "areas of change" and supporting the eastern "areas of stability.

In terms of neighborhood character, three of the four were in agreement:
Connor, Watters and Nevitt said they support private investment but would work to preserve neighborhood character.

The fourth candidate, Dennis Smith, a teacher at South High School and the only Republican in the nonpartisan race, said the development in the east side is "a nice problem to have."
Watters was described as "supported by development interests," while "Nevitt and Connor have received campaign contributions from several labor interests" and "Smith is neither soliciting nor accepting campaign contributions."

Biographical sketches and forums below:
JULIE CONNOR
Age: 40
Occupation: Senior analyst for MacKenzie.
Family: Single, no children.
Etcetera: Speaks Spanish and served in the Peace Corps in Paraguay.

CHRIS NEVITT
Age: 45
Occupation: Political economist. Former executive director of the Front Range Economic Strategy Center.
Family: Married, no children.
Etcetera: Born in Thailand and has lived in Africa, Australia and Russia, among other places.

DENNIS SMITH:
Age: 48
Occupation: Teacher at South High School.
Family: Married, two sons, ages 12 and 8.
Etcetera: Serves on the Denver Parks and Recreation advisory board.

SHELLY WATTERS
Age: 61
Occupation: Former aide to at-large Denver City Councilwoman Carol Boigon and former Councilwoman Joyce Foster.
Family: Married, one adult daughter.
Etcetera: The New York native has lived in Denver for more than 30 years.

Wednesday, April 11, 2007

The battle for Denver Auditor - full profiles and issues

Some of the most informative pieces regarding Denver politics are not available on the Web. The Colorado Statesman has been around for more than 100 years, providing in-depth coverage of policy issues, elections, and political personalities at both the state and local level. Yet it's small, with monthly editions available only in the State Capitol Building and through online subscription.

In February 2007, reporter John Schroyer offered the following article entitled "Denver auditor faces 'candidate of destiny' in May election." Reprinted in its entirety with permission from the author, this article provides extensive profiles of each candidate along with the issues animating the campaign.

If you don't think this is the most thorough and engaging story of the 2007 Denver auditor's race, I'll eat my hat.
For Bill Wells, the job of Denver City Auditor isn’t just a job. It’s a calling.

“It’s just something I’ve got to do,” Wells explained. “It’s a dream.”

Wells, a retired automobile parts manufacturer who’s been filling his spare time working as an airport inspections officer for TSA, has already run for the auditor’s job, in 1979 and then again in 2003, when current Denver Auditor Dennis Gallagher won his first term. But Wells isn’t letting his past failures distract him from his goal.

“I started campaigning shortly before the November election. It’s been a very behind-the-scenes thing so far, but I’m not going to lose,” Wells said. “I knew, election night four years ago, that I was going to run again. It didn’t make any difference who else was running.”

Though he came in dead last of the five candidates listed on the ballot in the 2003 election, with only 5 percent of the vote, the 60-year-old Wells says this time will be different (Gallagher took first in the 2003 general election with 31 percent and then won a run-off a month later against second-place finisher Ed Thomas).

With a campaign slogan of “An auditor for auditor — what a novel idea,” Wells has been quietly shoring up support and canvassing neighborhoods. He’s been talking about the different ways he wants to cut out inefficiency from Denver’s daily operations, which he learned about firsthand between 1973 and 1980, when he served as Denver’s Budget and Management Analyst.

“I was bewildered to see the amount of government waste and the bureaucracy that prevented any improvements. I know what some of the problems are, and I know what some of the solutions are,” Wells said.

He said one of the biggest problems he noted at the time was the inefficient upkeep of municipal vehicles.

“I uncovered the city spending $10,000 to $15,000 thousand a year on vehicles that were only worth $5,000. The same amount of dollars could have purchased a new vehicle that would have lasted longer,” Wells recalled.

“That’s kind of a no-brainer,” he said with a chuckle.

Wells also cites his ingenuity and foresight in devising a method for calculating licenses and permit fees, a fifty-point plan that was adopted by the Denver City Council while he was working with the Budget Office. In 1999, Wells said, the Financial Accounting Standards Board adopted a similar plan and required it be implemented nationwide.

“I started that twenty years before it became the standard,” Wells said.
More than his qualifications, though, Wells says Denver voters are tired of Gallagher’s style.

“Dennis wasn’t cut out to be an auditor,” Wells said. “Dennis just doesn’t have the makeup to be an auditor. He’s a very good politician, no one will disagree with that. He’s probably one of the best. Meeting and greeting people and name recognition, he’s very good at that, but when it comes to running an office of professionals in a non-political way, I don’t think he knows how to do that.”

Wells said though Gallagher has made a number of mistakes over the years, one that stuck out for him was the “$9 billion mistake,” at the very beginning of his term, when Gallagher calculated the amount of debt Denver has. His office somehow misplaced a decimal point, and instead of the true amount of debt, Gallagher wound up proclaiming that Denver was $9 billion less in the hole than it actually was.

Wells has held office before — he ran for and won a seat on the city council of Smethport, Pennsylvania, a town of roughly 1,700 people, where he lived from 1983 to 2001. Wells said he moved to Smethport when his father, who was ailing, asked him to run the family business, Smethport Auto Parts, a now-defunct parts manufacturer. Simply moving from one state to another didn’t relieve Wells’ desire to serve in public office, though, and he wound up serving on Smethport’s city council, from 1988 to 1996, and was elected council president both terms.

So far, he’s hired no official campaign staff, and though he said his campaign will be “the typical deal,” he also said it would be much smaller and less of “a high-profile type thing.” His strategy was to keep his candidacy quiet until the last minute in the hopes that “no one else would jump on the bandwagon.”


Gallagher, by contrast, has been proudly extolling his campaign to voters for months, and was even able to kill two birds with one stone, thanks to the special election in January when Denver voters approved a measure to disband the Denver Election Commission in favor of an elected clerk and recorder. Gallagher, a longtime proponent of the switch, campaigned hard for the measure, and was delighted when it passed.

“The campaign is going very well,” Gallagher said. “I got a little bit of an early start because I was supporting the amendment for the elected clerk. That was a sort of prelude to the campaign. By supporting that, I reminded everybody that I’m up again in May.”

The 67-year-old Democrat has held public office without a break since 1970, when he was first elected to the state House of Representatives. He stayed there until 1974, when he moved over to the State Senate. Once term limits for public officials were approved by voters, though, Gallagher found himself term-limited after the 1994 election, and quit the senate for a Denver City Council campaign a year later. He served there until 2003, when he was again term-limited, and then was elected to city auditor. For this election cycle, he’s already turned in his petitions, weeks ahead of the deadline, and with 500 signatures as opposed to the requisite 300.

After this term, though, he says he’ll be done with politics, and plans to retire and write short stories “like James Joyce,” he said with a grin.

For now, however, he’s taking reelection quite seriously.

Gallagher laughed at Wells’ slogan, and retorted, “That’s a great motto. Mine is ‘audit the hell out of them, no matter what.’”

He also rejected Wells’ suggestion that he was unqualified for the post.

“I was sixteen years on the state audit committee. Do you think that’s long enough?” Gallagher asked rhetorically. He served on the state senate audit committee from 1978 to 1994.

He also scoffed at the insinuation that the so-called $9 billion mistake was a crucial slip-up, and said he even heard from his 7th grade math teacher about that snafu.

“She said, Dennis, I’m praying for you, and with a mistake like that, you should be working for the federal government,” he laughed.

His mission, he said, is bringing ever more accountability and efficiency to Denver city departments. Gallagher cited one example where his office had discovered an agency using 411 every time they needed to find a phone number, instead of simply using either the Internet or a phone book, at an estimated annual cost of $25,000. After they brought the matter to light, Gallagher said, the cost was reduced to just a few thousand.

“I’m looking forward to continuing to improve city government and making it more accountable to the taxpayers,” Gallagher said.

Another issue Gallagher says resonates with voters is performance audits, which his office was authorized to begin after Denver voters passed 1B last November.

“That is going to be our new thrust,” Gallagher said. “It’s through performance audits that you find out almost everything that’s going on.”

Gallagher said that tool is going to increase Denver’s bureaucratic effectiveness by allowing his office to “get in deep” and find out how to help city offices figure out the best and most effective ways to do their jobs.

Another aspect of 1B Gallagher’s pleased with is that from now on, the city audit committee will be comprised of financial experts from outside the city’s infrastructure, which he believes will increase the committee’s objectivity and integrity.

“If you remember Enron, that’s how they got in trouble,” Gallagher said, referring to the past structure, which allowed for two members of the committee to be appointed by the mayor. “I’ve always supported getting outside members on the audit committee. All along, in my years in office, we’ve been pushing for a totally independent audit committee, and I’m pleased to report that we’ll have that now.”

Gallagher said he will also be campaigning on his role with the prevailing wage law, which protects construction workers and other contract employees from being undercut by companies with which Denver contracts for projects. The law requires employers to pay a competitive wage, and Gallagher says his office has concentrated on enforcing those protections.

“We’ve made it very clear from the beginning with construction companies and companies that do business with the city what prevailing wage is,” Gallagher stated.

Gallagher’s also being supported by an enormous contingent of Colorado Democrats, including Denver lawmakers Sen. Paula Sandoval and Rep. Jerry Frangas, former legislators Regis Groff, Paul Sandoval, Rob Hernandez, Frank DiFillipo, Bill Thiebaut, Gloria Tanner, Wilma Webb, and Frana Mace. Gallagher has also been endorsed by the Colorado Building and Construction Trades Council, the Laborer’s local 720, the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees local 821, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers local 68, the Teamsters local 2004, the United Food and Commercial Workers local 7, the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades local 930, the Plumbers Union local 3, the Plumbers and Pipefitters local 208, and the Colorado State Electrical Workers. Gallagher has also been endorsed by U.S. Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-CD 7.

As of Feb. 5, Gallagher had $29,672 on hand. Wells has not filed campaign finance reports with the Denver Election Commission yet.

SAFER seeks answers from "Mayor Chickenlooper"

The marijuana legalization activists at SAFER (Safer Alternative for Enjoyable Recreation) are at it again, spicing up a dull political scene with an initiative that's both humorous and instructive.

Their press release is below:
The SAFER Chicken made its inaugural appearance this evening at the first of Mayor Hickenlooper's campaign forums (collectively titled "A Dialogue with Denver").

For some reason the dialogue included primarily the Mayor's talking points and rehearsed answers to "tough" questions (snow removal and immigration). He kicked things off by announcing the event was an open forum and they wanted people to ask questions, but alas the questions had to be written down and submitted to a moderator, who then picked which questions to ask (after consulting numerous times with campaign staff).

Of course, when it came to the recently revealed increase in Denver marijuana arrests, Hizzoner refused to answer any questions about it -- so much for the dialogue. According to reporters covering the story, the mayor's office also did not return any calls on this issue.

The SAFER Chicken will be appearing at tonight's (Wed.) installation of "A Dialogue with Denver," as well as all the remaining three, until he addresses this issue and explains why he is so scared of upholding the will of Denver voters and allowing adults to privately possess/use a drug less harmful than the one he sells.
They also provided the following flier:

Wednesday, April 4, 2007

Where's the money?

Things at Dear Denver are heating up, as they investigate the campaign contributions being made (especially in the Council District 7 race) and the source of the anonymous donations arranged by Mayor Hickenlooper's office (the Piton Foundation and Denver Police Foundation are discussed).

More on campaign finance details will be reported here after the March numbers are released. Stay tuned!

Tuesday, April 3, 2007

POLL: Funding governmental services through private donations


Official Disclaimer: Internet polls are NOT scientific and anyone who claims otherwise is a fool.

Funding Governmental Programs with Private Money, revisited

We recently published news of the philosophical conflict between the Mayor's office and several members of Denver City Council regarding the use of private funds to sustain governmental initiatives.

Colorado Confidential's Erin Rosa has now weighed in on the matter, suggesting that the Mayor's initiatives are irresponsible and unethical.

Review her concerns online at the post entitled "Funding Conflicts of Interest." And to witness some of the history of this concern in the Denver Police Department's "broken windows" campaign, visit "Police Group Paid For Crime Consultants In Denver."

Sunday, March 25, 2007

CD7: Candidates take on zoning issues

Kevin Dickson, chair of the Overland Neighborhood Association, sent all of the City Council District 7 candidates a set of question affecting his neighborhood. Among the questions were:
1. What is happening with zoning changes afoot in the District?
2. What do you think should be done?
3. How will the Zoning Code Update address the wishes of the neighborhoods?
4. What do you perceive are the wishes of the individual neighborhoods?
5. Do the wishes of the neighborhoods align with what's best for the city overall?

Each candidate provided a statement. The full statements from all District 8 City Council representatives has been posted online.

Below are excerpts from the candidates who are on the May 2007 ballot.

First, from Shelly Watters:
In 2001 the Denver City Council adopted Blue Print Denver as its land use and transportation plan. According to the Denver Regional Council of Governments, the Denver region is expected to grow over the next twenty years from 2.5 million to 4 million people. Blueprint Denver is an attempt to rationally plan for that growth. Blueprint Denver divides the City into areas of change and areas of stability. It calls for growth to be directed to areas of change and for tools to be developed to protect the character of our existing stable neighborhoods. Last year the Community Planning and Development Department convened a broad based task force to look at Denver’s outdated zoning code to eliminate barriers to implementing Blueprint Denver. I worked with my neighborhood, other neighborhoods and City Council members to successfully put pressure on the task force to make developing tools to preserve the character of our existing neighborhoods their first priority. I believe the task force which includes realtors, developers and neighborhood activists, among others, is the best place to deal with this issue. The Task Force seems to be headed in the right direction. It is currently looking at different neighborhood typologies to develop tools specific to that neighborhood rather than a generic one size fits all solution. I support Blueprint Denver and want to see it implemented.

I do not believe in freezing neighborhoods in time. Neighborhoods need to constantly change and regenerate in order to remain healthy. Families want larger houses than they did in the past. However, I do believe the diverse character of our neighborhoods is one of Denver’s greatest assets. We need to find ways to allow for growth and change while still maintaining the existing character and scale which attracted people to the neighborhood in the first place. Many of us do not want to see the same fake stone generic, suburban house throughout Denver.

Some neighborhoods are looking at rezoning from R2 to R1. R2 allows duplexes and triplexes and R1 only allows single family homes. These neighborhoods have had many single family homes scraped and replaced with duplexes that take up the whole lot. They see rezoning or historic preservation as the only tools available to them to protect their neighborhood’s character. Sloan’s Lake was directed by the Planning Department to submit an application for a defined area that included all properties in that area. West Washington Park is meeting with homeowners in a specific area (I don’t believe the area has totally been decided, it will be based on the amount of support.) The difference is West Washington Park will only include those homeowners who want to rezone. I believe this is the right approach, even if there are pockets of homes which do not have their zoning changed. I support the right of these homeowners to rezone their properties...

Second, from Chris Nevitt:
Zoning is one of the most important areas of responsibility for City Council. It lies at the heart of our aspirations for our city and our neighborhoods – how they look, how they feel, how they function. It’s wise, therefore, of the Overland Neighborhood to subject candidates for City Council to close scrutiny in this area.

... a good approach to “right” zoning is, I believe, an effort I am currently helping lead in my own neighborhood, West Washington Park. Ours is a grass-roots, entirely voluntary effort, pursued by individual home-owners, working together, to “right” zone their own properties in an effort to preserve the character of the neighborhood they love. Our effort respects individual property rights, and the inevitable disagreements among neighbors, while nonetheless moving forward to make the greatest possible impact on a widely-shared concern.

Here is the problem we face: much of the zoning in my neighborhood is R-2, which allows for multiplex units. For most of the last century, however, the neighborhood has maintained a stable single-family character more consistent with R-1 zoning. That character is now under serious pressure. The steady escalation in per-square-foot prices, combined with the much greater square-footage allowed by current zoning, has created a perverse incentive for developers to pursue a speculative scrape-and-flip business model.

Some of the new homes are welcome additions to the neighborhood; some of the homes we’ve lost won’t be particularly missed. More often, however, it is perfectly good old brick homes that are being knocked down, replaced by oversized, shoddily-built, poorly designed, multiplexes. This is neither good for the neighborhood nor sustainable as a longterm development pattern. We should be discouraging this kind of short-term land speculation, and encouraging, instead, long-term investments by residents in the value of both their property and their neighborhoods.

The problem faced by my neighborhood is not unique. With different local variations, it is a problem shared by many of our neighborhoods. I have always been a strong believer in the power and value of focused, intelligent, and determined local action. I am pursuing that action with my neighbors. I encourage others to follow suit, and I will help them every way I can. But such action also needs to be supported by the City. And the City needs to do more to make it easier for residents to improve their own properties, to make the kind of long-term investments that build stable, healthy, and attractive communities.

With some leadership, and some luck, we should be able to end up with both “good” zoning and “right” zoning – zoning that promotes the kind of quality, community-sustaining development we want to see, while preserving and protecting the unique character of the Denver neighborhoods we love. I look forward to working with all of you – and working constructively through the disputes and disagreements – to achieve those ends.

And finally, from Julie Connor:
1. What is happening with zoning changes afoot in the District?

...Zoning issues in Overland, Athmar Park, Godsman, Ruby Hill and College View have tended to revolve around out-of-date PUDs (i.e., Catholic Charities housing project in Ruby Hill), neglected opportunities (i.e., Evans light rail station area in Overland) and undesirable adjacency issues (i.e., RTD bus barn across the street from single-family homes in College View). Heretofore, these types of zoning issues have been dealt with on an ad hoc basis rather than by zoning language amendments or policy changes, and this is unlikely to change much in the near future. (Although problematic adjacencies are a citywide issue so it might be addressed in the zoning code update.)

All of these zoning issues require vigilance, creativity and persistence in trying to reconcile what’s permitted with what’s wanted so we can get to and encourage desirable investment in every neighborhood.

2. What do you think should be done?

One thing that needs to be recognized is that different neighborhoods have different needs and character. The current zoning code treats every R-2 in every neighborhood essentially the same. A common complaint of Quick Wins II is that it solved a problem for University Park and Hilltop neighborhoods, but created worse problems for others. Whether that is the general consensus or not, it is clear that zoning categories probably need to be differentiated in some way from neighborhood to neighborhood, in addition to having a transparent and predictable zoning code and maintaining private property rights.

Another measure requiring action is the creation of interim tools. The zoning code update is held up as a forthcoming panacea, but in the meantime, divisive battles are being fought with the paltry land use tools available. In neighborhoods concerned about the loss of neighborhood character, interim tools need to be employed or invented prior to the completion of the zoning code update. A couple possible intermediary steps between here and there might be conservation districts or pattern books.

As stated in the first question, industrial/residential and commercial/residential adjacency issues need to be addressed in the zoning code update. How they are addressed should be tackled by the consultants.

A final matter I think needs looking into is our public hearing process for rezonings. Although the City Planning department encourages public notification and input on rezonings prior to submitting an application, essentially the public hearing (and thus, the legal protest process) comes at the end of an arduous, expensive and time-consuming course. I would not support doing away with people’s right to protest at the last possible moment, but I think the process might be better organized with the aim being to reduce the number of contentious rezonings, which leave both sides battered and resentful.

3. How will the Zoning Code Update address the wishes of the neighborhoods?

There seems to be the intention to create more zoning categories, which would provide a wider range of options, and therefore, theoretically, provide better fits for various areas. For instance, there might be a residential zoning for narrow lots in the urban core (such as the Speer neighborhood) and a residential zoning for large lots in the suburban-like areas (such as College View). Additionally, as mentioned above, these various zoning categories could drill down to even more specificity to address the individual characteristics of a neighborhood while still providing the freedom to expand or scrape and rebuild.

4. What do you perceive are the wishes of the individual neighborhoods?

To protect their quality of life and maintain their property values seems to be what I hear most from residents. Typically, conversations revolving around what people want for their neighborhoods includes the desire to preserve trees, reduce vehicle traffic, maintain a residential character while having access to amenities nearby, diminish crime and graffiti, and support and improve our schools.

5. Do the wishes of the neighborhoods align with what's best for the city overall?

In the general sense that pretty much everybody’s looking for a good quality of life, yes. Where we diverge is when one person’s version of quality of life precludes another person’s version – and they’re both defining it for the same area. Those conflicts simply have to be dealt with as they arise, with respect for all perspectives.

Sometimes what's best for the city overall is a theoretical vision of what we would like to see 20 years from now. But implementing that vision can have impacts and consequences for residents living here today. Regardless how laudable the vision might be, the real-time, on-the-ground effects of implementation cannot be dismissed and need to be addressed. A council person should work to blend these sometimes disparate voices and visions into a coherent course of action that ideally is better than what was originally proposed because it achieves the vision while alleviating or mitigating the impacts. But if that synthesis cannot be achieved, at the end of the day, my job is to represent the concerns of District 7 residents.

Thursday, March 22, 2007

Issue: Private money to combat Denver's gang problem

It's an interesting idea to allow private citizens or entities to support the public prosecution of gangs in Denver. The question, however, is whether it's good idea.

Mayor Hickenlooper proposed it a while back, and city council appears skeptical. Read the entire article at the Rocky Mountain News, and let me know what you think.

Issue: No More Potholes

The best politicians connect with voters on emotional issues that affect their everyday lives. Such folks would do well to consider a new campaign launched earlier today.

No More Potholes may be an idea whose time has come. With oil prices rising and a long, cold winter coming to an end, it seems the perfect time to launch a campaign to change the way Denver's roads are constructed. And with the elections just around the corner, this issue will surely resonate with voters.

The full story of this launch is found at the Denver Business Journal, entitled "Campaign Begins For Concrete Roads."

Unsurprisingly, the campaign is led by concrete manufacturers, with a slick website and billboards around town to help stir the masses.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Candidate Questionnaire: Downzoning

Each campaign is invited to respond to the question below by adding a comment to this post. Answers may be submitted by candidates themselves or their direct representatives. This is not intended for an ongoing debate, so please: only one answer/response per campaign.
Downzoning is a major concern throughout Denver, with neighborhoods seeking to retain their residential character by limiting their own development opportunities. People wonder as to the efficacy and purpose of this tool, as well as the availability of other options. What is your position on downzoning efforts in Denver neighborhoods?

Candidate Questionnaire: Liquor in Denver's Parks

Each campaign is invited to respond to the question below by adding a comment to this post. Answers may be submitted by candidates themselves or their direct representatives. This is not intended for an ongoing debate, so please: only one answer/response per campaign.
Last year, Denver Parks & Recreation allowed race sponsors to provide alcohol to participants as part of their event. The department is now requesting a change which would both comply with state laws and expand to the sale of alcohol. What is your position on the expansion of alcohol policies in Denver city parks?

Candidate Questionnaire: Graffiti

Each campaign is invited to respond to the question below by adding a comment to this post. Answers may be submitted by candidates themselves or their direct representatives. This is not intended for an ongoing debate, so please: only one answer/response per campaign.
Graffiti is proliferating in Denver, with private homes and businesses increasingly tagged by city gang members. In 2006, the city's public works department erased 3 million square feet of graffiti, nearly twice as much as in 2004. How do you propose to solve the graffiti problem, and how much do you think this will cost?

Thursday, March 15, 2007

CD7: Dennis Smith questionnaire

In advance of last night's forum for City Council District 7 hosted by the West Washington Park Neighborhood Association (WWPNA) (of which I am Vice President and History chair), the candidates were provided a list of questions. Dennis Smith could not attend, but answered all of the questions in writing.

Visit the WWPNA site online for the complete questionnaire. A sampling of answers is provided below:
How would you vote when presented with a petition from homeowners in our neighborhood who would like to change their zoning from R-2 to R1?
Assuming every homeowner on a block signed the petition in favor of downsizing, I would support downsizing. Otherwise I am opposed to downsizing.

What have you done for your community?
I teach illiterate refugee immigrants (and there are many in Denver) fundamental English. I get them jobs, advocate for them across the community (health care, legal problems, sports, etc.) and I nurture them to embrace American ideals: equality, freedom of religion, civic duty. I was instrumental in getting Denver outdoor pool hours extended last summer. And I was an early and persistent advocate of Denver getting a disc golf course. Denver’s 1st course opened last summer in Paco Sanchez Park.

Where are the majority of your campaign contributions coming from?
I don’t solicit nor accept monetary campaign contributions.

What is your position on allowing liquor to be served in the parks and in particular the recent proposal to allow the sale of alcohol in the parks?
I am opposed to both alcohol-in-the-park proposals. I voted against the first proposal, allowing liquor to be served in the park (my side lost) when the issue came before the Denver Parks & Recreation Advisory Board, and I will vote against the recent proposal to allow for the sale of alcohol in the park when it comes before the board later this spring.

Would you support neighborhood traffic calming measures as requested by neighborhoods in your district? For example, will you support returning one-way to two way streets interior to neighborhoods in your district, lowering speed limits from 30 to 25 mph on interior streets, and/or measures (e.g., cul-de-sacs) to reduce cut-through traffic?
Yes!! On all counts. In addition, an issue that is high on my agenda is calibrating pedestrian cross walk lights to be responsive to users. My goal: when a pedestrian pushes a cross walk button in district 7 it will respond within 90 seconds.

We love old homes as well as the rights of their property owners. In the case of both “adverse” historical designations and demolition of civic structures, however, these interests clash. If compromise was impossible and you had to make a hard decision, how would you weigh the inherent rights of property owners against the historical legacy of the city? OR How would you have voted on the DeBoer historic
designation issue?
I would have voted against the DeBoer historical designation.

Is District 7 a neighborhood or is it a group of neighborhoods? What is your vision for these neighborhoods and the relationships between them?
District 7 is a group of neighborhoods. I advocate the further maturation of these neighborhoods through the power of the market economy and free enterprise.

What is it that you want to do if you are elected to City Council?
Maintain the positive momentum that Kathleen MacKenzie has generated. I’d like to help the Gates site developers get their proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge built connecting the east side of Santa Fe Drive to the Platte River Bike Trail.

What does it mean to "preserve the character of the neighborhood" in WWP? Would we want to preserve the character of every neighborhood in District 7? How does this fit these neighborhoods into the Greenprint Denver plan? What needs to be preserved and what needs to change over the next 50 years? What would you do to start work in this area?
It’s a trite expression meaning “maintain the charm.” I would defer to private enterprise and our market economy to continue enhancing district 7.

If election to City Council can be seen as a first step in a public elected career, what are your aspirations, and what sort of political agenda do you have? What party affiliations or attractions do you have?
I’m a registered Republican, but I don’t vote a straight party line. I have no political ambition beyond city council. I enjoy teaching and I’ll probably keep my hand in it.

What are the city-wide issues you care most about? What approaches to working on those issues do you favor?
1. It’s no surprise, but I see a connection between our high drop out rate and the increasing popularity of gangs, and thus the ensuing graffiti. Getting kids to care about their education is a tough nut to crack. But the city as a whole, not just DPS, should take a vested interest in selling kids on the benefits of literacy.
2. Dedicated funding for Denver Parks & Recreation. I’d take a hard look at a RETT (real estate transfer tax). This would be unpopular with most realtors, but a case can be made that well-funded and maintained parks raise the value of adjacent land, thus the property tax as well. Denver has a lot of parks that are neglected due to funding shortages.
Maintain the parks, improve the neighborhood, increase the property values, and increase the property taxes.