by Peter Boyles | May 27, 2014 | Blasting with Boyles
I can’t think of a time in my life that I didn’t want to have a gun. When I was a little boy I thought toy guns, real guns and guns in general were the coolest thing in the world.
The only benefit I ever had in life is that I could read. I started reading quite early and the other gift was a wonderful mom who knew we were dead broke, but always took me to the library. (Thank you Andrew Carnegie. You did a lot of rotten things to really decent people but you made it up by giving me a library card in 1950.) I read James Fenimore Cooper. Thanks to my Uncle Barnie I read Zane Grey. I read books about the American Civil War, the American Revolution, the Second World War, taming the Old West and gangsters.
Pretty simple trivia question, what do all of those books have in common? Simple answer, guns.
I have a theory the only reason the First Amendment stays where it is, is because of the Second. And of course both of those cornerstones of our liberty are under attack. And that same group of intellectual nincompoops wants to feminize and take away from little boys in this country their constitutional, God-given right to have a toy gun.
Hunting became part of my life when I was about 12-years-old. I always wanted to hunt, but my father was not a hunter. So by saving my money from paper routes, working in pool rooms and bowling alleys and a stint in a delicatessen, I raised enough money to buy a BB gun and eventually my first .22.
I bought a .22 single shot JC Higgins rifle. It had a little stinger on the back of the barrel that you had to cock to enable it to fire. Thanks to my friends and me there probably wasn’t a wren or a songbird that was safe from our hunting expeditions (Yes I know Atticus Finch — never shoot a mocking bird).
Guns and boys are an intrinsic part of life, but with the advent of what’s happening to young boys in America today, toy guns are becoming a thing of the past.
The picture we have used to illustrate this column relates to a 1961 Ideal Toy ad starring Roy Rogers. It’s a sneaky little ad that every guy I’ve ever shown it to loves. The Derringer is hidden in the hat so you can easily shoot another kid when he approaches you. Who among us didn’t play army or guns or cowboys and Indians (or the politically correct cow persons and Native Americans) and really love it?
I can’t imagine myself at 10 years of age learning to play cooperative games and how to play well with others. Toy guns, pretend swords and rubber knives are the arsenal of a childhood democracy.
Why do you suspect that the progressive educators throw first graders out of school for turning their hands into little pistols? I’m a great believer in Lenin’s saying, “the purpose of terror is terror.” When you throw that little boy out you’re setting fear in the hearts of other little boys. The word comes down. Don’t be that kid. These people believe that these boys are influenced, predisposed, if you would, to violent behavior simply by possessing a toy.
Kids can make almost anything into a gun. I watched my son make a banana a gun once. Oftentimes as a kid we didn’t have any money for real toy guns. But that didn’t matter. A stick made a good rifle. Two fingers extended from the fist made a perfectly fine pistol. And you know what? The good guys always won.
There were lots of guns in my neighborhood when I was a kid. It didn’t turn anyone aggressive and of course there were no school shootings. Banning toy guns — do you really think it’s the same as putting armed guards in a school to protect children against people with real guns? Do you think throwing a little boy out of school for drawing a gun will prevent a sick and deranged individual from committing those acts of violence?
And how about squirt guns? My God, when spring hit it was baseball and squirt gun season. Rather than avoid the subject and pretend there’s not guns all around us, let your kids play guns and when they become old enough, do as my dad did. Find one of his drunken buddies to take me hunting. One of the greatest days of my life.
Keeping guns from kids doesn’t mean they’re never going to shoot someone else. It’s the forbidden fruit. My mother’s warnings during summer vacation to all of us was “Don’t go near the river. “ When I was a boy the Allegheny River was a lure. I was in my period of reading Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn and no power on earth was going to keep me from the river. My mother’s warning, “don’t go near the river” — first place we went.
Kids who play with toy guns use them to fight bad guys. How’s that a bad thing? I actually think it can help a kid feel safe and make sense of the world around them.
So if you’re teaching your children all of these nonviolent, politically correct new speak thoughts, remember this. In the words of Mike Tyson, “Everybody’s got a plan till they get punched in the nose.” And then maybe it would have been better to teach your son to fight back.
Happy trails.
— Peter
by Mark Smiley | May 27, 2014 | Editorials
Notwithstanding the general popularity of the Cherry Creek area, the reasons some people give for not wanting to visit Cherry Creek North include the lack of off-street parking and, more recently, traffic jams. Luckily a Cherry Creek Zoning Technical Task Force was put together to look at the problems in the area. The Task Force is composed of residents, city planning officials, a Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association representative, landowners, business owners, developers and, of course, City Councilwoman Jeanne Robb, whose district includes Cherry Creek North. After months and months of study what did the Task Force come with?
Yep, you guessed it. Parking problems can be solved by providing even less parking while approving even higher buildings than the six behemoths that are already being built. Brilliant!
Currently zoning mandates 3.3 parking places per 1,000 square feet of commercial area which has created severe parking problems in Cherry Creek North in the first place. Adjoining Glendale in line with recommendations from the Urban Land Institute mandates four parking places per thousand feet which Deputy City Manager Chuck Line calls “anemic” at times, noting that major retailers in Glendale often require five to six parking spaces per thousand feet of commercial space. The Cherry Creek Mall has 5,000 parking spaces or five parking spaces per thousand feet of commercial space as major retailers demand adequate parking before they will consider leasing in a commercial mall.
So what does the Task Force suggest? Cut the 3.3 to 2.5. Even better the Task Force also recommends cutting the parking in half for residential units from two per unit down to just one. Where in the world are all these people going to park? The business district has a grand total of 555 on-street metered parking spaces. The single family home areas of Cherry Creek North will soon be flooded with overflow parking from the commercial area regardless of whatever signs are posted or how many parking tickets are handed out.
At the Cherry Creek Chamber of Commerce luncheon held on May 8, the keynote speaker Ajay Menon, Dean of the CSU Business School, noted that in urban areas one-third of the traffic backups are created by motorists looking for parking places. With the Task Force’s recommendations in place a shopper finding parking in Cherry Creek North will be like the Kingston Trio song “M.T.A.” where the commuter “couldn’t get off” and “never returned.”
Of course, the pro developer members of the Task Force were giddy. Even Wayne New, the representative from the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association, is quoted as declaring, “We studied parking backwards and forwards and the (proposed) parking ratios fit very well.” If these parking ratios fit “very well” perhaps eliminating any and all parking spaces would work even better.
Wayne New is a veteran of many wars with developers in Cherry Creek North and we have, in the past, praised his efforts, but perhaps they have finally beaten him into submission. He recently announced his candidacy for City Council to replace the term limited Jeanne Robb. The whole point of his candidacy for many was that he would not sell himself out to developers as has Ms. Robb.
But this sad, if not pathetic, effort of the Task Force does away with any reason to vote for him. His opponent Roger Sherman is a CRL lobbyist and that firm represents its fair share of Denver real estate developers. Of course, once elected, he will sell the residents out in favor of real estate developers, but he doesn’t pretend otherwise. He is already bought and paid for and he doesn’t try to kid you about it.
One wonders when the Task Force’s recommendations are adopted what will there be left to destroy in Cherry Creek North? Councilwoman Robb helped developers to build a road destroying the only open space in Cherry Creek North, Fillmore Plaza.
The Task Force is also recommending that developers get even extra density and height if they are kind enough to provide open spaces like plazas, accessible to the public at street level. Gee, sounds a lot like Fillmore Plaza. We are sure the developers are savvy enough to figure out what has gone on in the past. They will get the extra density and height and then later come back and get the duly elected representative to roll over and allow the developer to destroy it.
The recommendations face public hearings and must go before, and be approved by, the Denver Planning Commission and the Denver City Council. You know, the public hearings where the commissioners and councilmembers utterly ignore anything the public has to say while surfing the Internet on their cell phones. In the case of the City Council, as recently confessed by former City Councilwoman Marcia Johnson, the process is a matter of simply paying “due deference” to the elected representative where the land is located (Ms. Robb) and voting whatever way she tells them. This rigged process even has a nice name, “courtesy zoning.”
Now that she has helped to destroy the Cherry Creek North neighborhood, Councilwoman Robb still has almost a year left in her position representing the 10th District. What to do with her time?
There is, in fact, plenty of time for her to do a Hentzell Park on Cheesman Park or other open spaces in her District. Just declare them “urban blight” as Mayor Hancock did with Hentzell Park. We are sure Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell can direct her on how to get the open space areas done away with notwithstanding what would appear to be very difficult legal constraints. He has done it before and he can do it again. Just ask the folks living over in the Hampden Heights area.
— Editorial Board
by Mark Smiley | May 27, 2014 | Main Articles
May 19 Denver District Court Trial Vacated
by Charles C. Bonniwell
For over two years Denver park advocates who formed the entity Friends of Denver Parks have attempted to assert the rights of citizens of Denver as guaranteed by the Denver City Charter and the Colorado State Constitution to vote on matters critical to them and in particular on whether Mayor Michael Hancock could simply trade away 11 acres of open space land for development at Hentzell Park for a rundown office building in downtown Denver.
The city, led by Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell, has blocked all efforts for citizens to have that say. First he claimed that Denver City Charter Sec. 2.4.5., that requires “approval of a majority of registered voters” for the sale or lease of any park or any portion of any park, does not apply since it had not officially been designated a park not withstanding all appearances to the contrary, and even prior statements by the Mayor of Denver in 1979 that the property was “dedicated park land.”
When parks advocates sufficiently gathered signatures under their right of referendum and initiative as seemingly guaranteed by of the City Charter Sec. 8.3.1 and the State Constitution, Broadwell instructed the City Clerk and Recorder Debra Johnson to reject the petitions. He claimed that the swap was an administrative not a legislative action and that vitiated any right of the citizens on the matter.
Municipal law experts noted that the City Clerk and Recorder position was deliberately made by the City Charter as a separately elected officer so not to be under the control of the Mayor of Denver directly or indirectly through the City Attorney. Nonetheless, Johnson took the instructions from Broadwell and rejected the petitions.
The Friends of Denver Parks then sought to have a jury trial on whether the Hentzell Park land was a park prior to 1955 or a dedicated park after that date. Broadwell fought the plaintiffs having the right to argue before a jury of ordinary citizens and demanded a summary judgment from the Denver District Court. If the Friends of Denver could have ever gotten before a jury it appeared to have a strong case, including the proffered testimony of former Denver City Councilwoman Susan Barnes-Gelt who stated that the official City Map designated the land in question as a park.
But all to no avail. On May 2, 2014, District Court Judge Herbert L. Stern III vacated the May 19 trial and awarded Broadwell and the city a Summary Judgment. Friends of Denver Parks attorney John Case has indicated he will appeal the decision but Broadwell’s record in excluding citizens from having a say in the actions of their government appears impressive.
The Real City Attorney
Few Denver citizens have ever heard of David Broadwell but many city watchers consider him for many matters the de facto Denver City Attorney and one of the most powerful people in Denver city government, even though he works very much behind the scenes.
The ostensible City Attorney is 34-year-old Scott Martinez who was appointed to the top spot in January. He is considered by many to be very much a legal lightweight. He was originally appointed by Hancock as deputy city attorney in 2011, and according to The Denver Post he got the job after the Colorado Latino Forum gave the mayor a very hard time about his lack of Latino appointments. A student at a second rate law school, University of San Diego, he apparently graduated without honors or distinction.
His prior appointment even as a deputy city attorney was greeted in some quarters with less than high praise. Then Speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives Frank McNulty declared at the time: “Mayor Hancock should hope that Scott Martinez brings a higher level of professionalism as a member of the city attorney’s office than he displayed as a Democratic hack in the reapportionment process.”
The City Attorney’s office has over 90 attorneys, with the bulk of the staff serving under a myriad of appointed City Attorneys who come and go on a fairly regular basis and not always under the best of circumstances. Then Mayor John Hickenlooper’s City Attorney appointee Larry Manzanares committed suicide while in office after being caught stealing a government laptop and allegedly placing child pornography on it.
While many attorneys in Denver have a very low opinion of Scott Martinez, both personally and professionally, the opposite is true of Broadwell. A graduate of a highly regarded law school, University of North Carolina, he also holds a Master’s Degree in Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina and he has worked exclusively for municipal governments since 1980 including being the lead attorney of the Colorado Municipal League. He has lectured and written articles relating to municipal law and has received various awards for his work.
At the City Attorney’s office, Broadwell, keeps a very low profile including not even being listed as part of the so-called Senior Management Team of 11 lawyers. One Denver City Councilmember who did not want to be quoted for attribution stated, “When David Broadwell gives you a legal opinion you pay attention. When Scott Martinez opines people simply roll their eyes and hope he checked first with Broadwell or someone else who actually knows what they are talking about.”
Ignoble Ends
If there is a criticism of Broadwell, it is that he utilizes his considerable talents and skills for ignoble ends. He has been the lead attorney in ensuring that Denver’s civil forfeiture laws whereby the city seizes the property and assets of sometimes innocent citizens never gets to the courts for review. “Asset Forfeiture Reform Long Overdue,” David Kopel, Independence Institute.
Parks advocate Mary David noted, “Broadwell has managed to manipulate the system so the everyday citizens have no role in important decisions that affect them regarding parks in Denver. That allows Mayor Hancock to get away with his various sleazy development deals. Does he think that the hundreds if not thousands of people that have been involved in the Hentzell Park fiasco think better of their government or the court system after this?”
Another parks advocate Susan Johnson added, “We have had our eyes open about how corrupt our government and legal system really is. At the start of the 20th century when the Denver city government and the courts were controlled by crooked cops and saloon owners the right of the people to vote on key matters was fought for and won. Mayor Hancock, his disgraceful developer buddies and Broadwell have begun to destroy those rights. Maybe David Broadwell ought to look in the mirror some time and see what he has become with all of his many skills. Maybe if he stood for something he wouldn’t be stuck for his legal career in the middle of bureaucratic jungles having to ostensibly report to sad sack city attorneys almost half his age like Scott Martinez.”
