It’s been a strange contest for Denver mayor — so strange, in fact, that the most powerful ad of the entire campaign seems to have been shot for a different office.
“I love my son,” Michael Hancock declares as he gets into his car at daybreak. “Every morning we drive 18 miles across town to East High School, because our neighborhood school is one of the many across Denver that are failing. Not every parent can do this. They love their children no less than I love mine. I’m Michael Hancock, and I’m running for mayor because this is wrong. High quality schools should never be a luxury. . . . “
I’d vote for that guy in a second if he were running for school board. Trouble is, that’s an independent jurisdiction that can thumb its nose at the mayor all day long if it likes.
Hancock is hardly the only candidate trumpeting his views on education, of course. To varying degrees, all of them are.
In another ad, for example, Chris Romer declares that “to go to the next level, we really need to make sure there’s a great teacher in every classroom.” I suppose he’s right, but what about potholes, pensions, pay scales, police disciplinary reform and a gaping structural budget deficit — which are the issues that truly count in this contest, and on which Romer, as it happens, has a number of useful things to say.
Admittedly, as the most visible figure in Denver, the mayor is uniquely placed to highlight educational issues — and to orchestrate support for board candidates who share his agenda.
But voters — the ingrates — are unpredictable. If they ignore the mayor’s sage advice and elect a board hostile to his reformist vision, tough luck. City hall will have no choice but to stand by helplessly as the district changes course.
Hence the need to keep the campaign focused on matters a mayor controls.
John Hickenlooper was a good steward for Denver, but it’s time for someone with a fresh perspective to rethink how services are provided, benefit packages are written and whether some programs need to continue at all. That’s what mayors actually do, and a lot of that work still needs to be started.
As I pointed out a few weeks ago (following the advice of a former council chief of staff), Denver might save millions just by adjusting its health coverage so it didn’t offer bigger subsidies for more costly insurance. There are plenty of other ideas out there as well that could begin to address the city’s deficit, such as eliminating the public safety cadet program, moving city elections to November, and cracking down on overtime in some agencies.
It’s only a matter of time before Denver officials go to voters with hat in hand pleading for a tax hike to help close the long-term structural deficit. Every one of the leading mayoral candidates is likely to participate in such an effort in the next four years. So the question becomes, how hard would they work in the meantime to close the gap from the spending side? And would they be willing to take on any sacred cows?
Three of the four leading candidates — Romer, James Mejia and Doug Linkhart — have mentioned a few specific programs and spending areas ripe for attention. (Hancock is the exception on his website and in his interview with this newspaper, where he resorted to bromides to deflect the issue.) Of the three, however, Romer clearly seems the most willing to peer beneath the rocks.
Why, he’s even suggested that Denver Water and firefighters might have to be brought into discussions involving shared sacrifice and evolving functions.
It’s not that the status quo in Denver is so bad. It’s simply untenable. Economic growth will help fill the deficit, but not close it.
Those who want a mayor to defend the status quo will be voting for a course that consists of one heaping serving of eroding services, and another of taxes.
If there’s a better way to slowly suffocate a city, I can’t think of it.
E-mail Vincent Carroll at vcarroll@denverpost.com.
