It’s disturbing and depressing that, other than the three open City Council seats receiving some neighborhood interest, there is no noise surrounding Denver’s election.
Denver seems to be going through a period where dissent and disagreement are viewed as disloyal, and get-along-go-along (as long as it’s on time and within budget) rules the day. The climate reflects too much groupthink leading to a faux election where important issues (and there are several) aren’t debated.
In other words, everything is hunky dory and there’s little public accountability – it’s Denver 2007.
On some levels, things are pretty good in the Mile High City. The real estate market is strong – unless you own a home in one of the neighborhoods beset with rampant foreclosures. Denver’s spring greening is beautiful as the trees bud and the bulbs flower – unless you look closely at substantial private encroachments into the public rights-of-way: bus kiosks planted next to street trees, private fences walling front lawns that often include the public right-of-way.
And there are big issues that merit the broad public dialogue that should accompany a citywide election:
The gradual privatization of government, most recently illustrated by Mayor John Hickenlooper’s refusal to disclose donors to the district attorney’s gang prosecution unit.
Three and a half years after voters approved FasTracks, increased costs, station development and political obstacles are stifling this most important public infrastructure project. Shouldn’t civic leaders be pressing for responses more creative than what we’ve been hearing from RTD? Dumbing down a project so critical to the future of this place is not a 21st century solution.
A citizen task force has been working for more than two years to update Denver’s archaic zoning code. How can we maintain the character of mature neighborhoods without changing current density rules in parts of the city? How can we ensure lively streets and public spaces without encouraging mixed use and greater density? The mayor and council members should be talking about the appropriate balance between neighborhood character and individual property rights.
Perhaps most disturbing is city hall’s deafening silence about the work of the Mayor’s Infrastructure Priorities Task Force. Subcommittees armed with ample data made informed recommendations in January. Denver’s capital maintenance budget is short $25 million every year. The list of deferred maintenance is $390 million and growing. Should Denver raise taxes, increase revenues by charging for services like trash pick-up and recycling, abolish city departments or reduce services?
The mayor has just delayed the process (with council’s approval) by hiring Public Strategies Group, consultants who describe themselves as “architects of results-based government.” The mayor charged them with probing “a representative slice of Denver’s population, ordinary folks as opposed to organized interests that show up at traditional town-hall sessions.”
What about the viewpoint of informed citizens? Or the perspective of the task force that spent all that time and energy?
Setting the city’s priorities, raising taxes, reducing services or ignoring the condition of the public’s investments require informed citizens, enlightened leaders and thorough debate. It should be the stuff of lively elections. Too bad it’s not.
Susan Barnes-Gelt (bs13@qwest.net) served eight years on the Denver City Council and was an aide to former Denver Mayor Federico Peña.
