There is a generation gap in Denver. Older residents like me are being pushed aside by the next generation.
I don’t object. We did the same to the generation that preceded us. What I object to is the lack of foresight that keeps arising out of city projects.
When the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board voted 11-6 to oppose the trade of a large piece of Hentzell Park in December 2012, Mayor Michael Hancock not only ignored the vote but also removed several members of the board who had voted against it. The lawsuit that followed kept several city attorneys busy for the next couple of years.
In planning to put a regional playground in City Park, the Department of Parks and Recreation instructed potential designers of the new project to ignore any additional parking requirement resulting from the new regional park use. Once the need for parking had arisen from the newly fabricated regional attraction, the city would have no alternative to removing green space from the park to protect nearby neighborhoods from losing their street parking. We were able to block this ill-considered project by an extensive public outcry coupled with a sensitive manager of the department — who was also fired.
The city is now cleaning up all the things it failed to mention when planning to dig a ditch for a new, bigger, smellier traffic jam where Interstate 70 and I-25 meet in Globeville. The city failed to notify neighbors in the Cole neighborhood and around City Park that the traffic jam ditch would require the demolition of 45 acres of the City Park Golf Course or 50 houses in Cole.
There are numerous meetings being conducted by the city now to sell the idea of digging up the golf course. The city describes these meetings as “outreach,” and they are uniform in their creation: The city decides that it is going to undertake a project, assembles a government-based committee to decide what to do, and then takes its solution to the public for approval. City managers don’t ask if we can improve their ideas or even point out any flaws in their planning.
The way “outreach” used to work was the city perceived a problem and took the problem public for a discussion of options. The public had enough time to think about, discuss and present concerns. With the local concerns forming a part of the soul of the project, the city assembled a committee to solve the problems. The committee would consider alternative solutions to technical, financial and neighborhood issues and present them to the public for discussions.
By the time the project assumed a form, the project was based on more than the technical and fiscal issues. The fix included the neighbors’ concerns in the core of the project, not with quick fixes, apologies or lies.
I have not been polite in raising these kind of issues. The city presenters now advise residents at the beginning of public meetings that the city will not be disrespected. I don’t remember ever hearing that start to a community meeting in my life.
Relationships are two-sided. Given the disrespect of the citizens implied by the current practices, I want to tell the city it is their turn to respect the people they serve in a timely way or the disrespect will increase.
This is local government. If citizens have no influence over their lives, their responses will unfortunately include disrespect as a motivator.
Tom Morris is a neighborhood activist and a retired Denver architect.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit or check out our for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
