by Mark Smiley | Jun 24, 2016 | Main Articles
This Time Regarding Park Hill Golf Course
by Glen Richardson
Notwithstanding the fact that Denver District Court judges appear to many to view themselves as little more than employees of Mayor Michael Hancock’s administration, former Colorado Attorney General J.D. McFarlane has filed suit to attempt to prevent the Hancock administration from turning a significant portion of Park Hill Golf Club into a stormwater detention facility. McFarlane is represented by attorney Aaron Goldhamer of the law firm of Jones & Keller P.C. Goldhamer is a candidate for the position of representative for State House District 8. He is a Yale undergraduate and obtained his law degree from Georgetown University.
The lawsuit is brought against the city, Denver Mayor Michael Hancock, Parks Executive Director “Happy Haynes” and Jose Cornejo, the manager of Public Works. The lawsuit charges that the city engaged in a corrupt scheme to place an industrial-level stormwater detention facility on the Park Hill golf course in furtherance of the I-70 expansion which violates the Denver City Charter and common law governing municipal use of the public parkland.
The 14-page “Complaint” lays out in plain and stark language a fraudulent scheme by the City of Denver and its offi-
cers and officials to aid private developers and landowners adjoining the proposed I-70 expansion and undergrounding at the expense of Denver neighborhoods and Park Hill Golf Club.
The Complaint exposes that the City lied to the public and the neighborhoods in its assertion that it was attempting to protect the Cole and Montclair neighborhoods from potential stormwater and drainage harm due to severe flooding. The complaint notes that it suddenly changed from the normal five-year protection to 100-year protection which only applies to federal highway projects and which is cost prohibitive and unneeded for cities like Denver which are located in a semi-arid environment.
The Complaint reveals the city attempted to fool the public by showing pictures of Katrina-type flooding in areas unrelated to the drainage. Denver further failed to make clear that significant flooding in northeast Denver will still occur according to the Complaint even after tens of millions are spent.
The Complaint also asserts that the funding for the project also appears to violate Article X Sec. 20 of the Colorado Constitution (the Tabor Amendment) and while no claims regarding the same were asserted in the Complaint, McFarlane “reserves the right to amend this Complaint to assert such a claim.”
The Complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief preventing the partial destruction of City Park Golf Course.
The Denver District Court Judge hearing the case is Michael J. Vallejos, a University of Colorado graduate for both his undergraduate and legal degrees, who before coming to the bench, served as a Deputy State Public Defender. His qualifications to some seem in part to mirror those of Denver District Court Judge Shelley I. Gilman, known as the so-called “Pro Corruption Judge,” whose alleged disgraceful behavior at the hearing on April 22 caused many attendees to give up all hope that a Denver District Court judge could be a fair and impartial arbiter of any dispute regarding the Hancock Administration which appears to some to wholly control what is supposed to be an independent judiciary within the City and County of Denver.
by Mark Smiley | Jun 24, 2016 | Main Articles
by Charles C. Bonniwell
The CitySet hotel/dining development in Glendale at the southeast corner of Colorado Boulevard and Cherry Creek Drive South has been an extraordinary success. An open plaza anchored by two major hotels (Residence Inn Cherry Creek and the Hilton Garden Inn Cherry Creek) and features eight different dining options ranging from Jax Fish House and Silvi’s Kitchen to Platform T and Big Smoke Burger.
The development has but one major drawback — lack of sufficient parking. According to documents obtained though the Colorado Open Records Act, Stonebridge Companies headed by Navin Dimond, convinced the City of Glendale and its head of planning, Deputy City Manager Chuck Line, into reducing the parking requirements by 20 percent from 663 spaces to 553. The project was heavily promoted by then mayor Larry Harte according to Line. But the city and CitySet were fortunate that Line refused to lower the number of spaces down even more to 482 as originally demanded by Dimond and his experts in his filings with the city.
Why Damage Your Own Project?
Why would a developer want to hurt his own project with insufficient parking? First of all because the type of needed underground parking costs approximately
$40,000 per space. In CitySet’s case the reduction saved the developer Dimond over $4,000,000. Secondly, and most importantly, savvy developers like Dimond know after bamboozling a city they can later come back and force the public to pay for all the parking they need and that is exactly what happened in Glendale.
Once the project was started, Dimond, through his affiliated companies, howled that CitySet did not, in fact, have adequate parking for all of its customers. How much additional parking was needed? It was almost exactly the 112 spaces Dimond convinced Glendale not to require in the first place.
Once a city like Glendale has approved a project with an under supply of parking it has little choice but to later provide a solution at the expense of the taxpayer. CitySet is a major producer of municipal revenue for Glendale, not only providing sales and property taxes but also the considerable hotel room tax. Moreover, if a major development like CitySet should fail due to lack of sufficient parking it would cast a pall on development throughout the city and threaten the viability of future developments, like the proposed Glendale 180 development across Cherry Creek on East Virginia Avenue.
Glendale also does not wish to hurt valuable tenants who had no idea Dimond purposely demanded that the city parking requirements be reduced for his own financial benefit. Cameron Tune, owner of Big Smoke Burger at CitySet, makes it clear that for his business “making sure parking is convenient is a top priority,” and he strongly urged Glendale to find additional parking for customers. He notes customers to CitySet can also take advantage of the existing free valet parking, between the two hotels, offered Tuesdays through Saturdays.
New City Ordinance
So rather than limit the viability of the CitySet project, the City of Glendale passed an ordinance taking the adjoining streets of South Exposition Avenue and South Ash Street and converting them from broad boulevards without on-street parking into much narrower driving lanes and parallel parking on both sides of the street.
The ordinance did not establish just ordinary street parking but the spaces that are restricted to only customers of CitySet. This was accomplished by util
izing a purported competitive bidding process with the successful bidder being a charged a small monthly maintenance fee of $20 to $30. While anyone could have theoretically bid on the special parking, the only realistic likely bidder was, of course, Navin Dimond through his affiliated companies. Line did refuse to give CitySet a long term commitment as wanted by Dimond and limited the reserved on street parking to a yearly term.
The special parking ordinance does not solve all of CitySet’s parking problems as it provides about half of the 112 parking space shortfall, but everyone expects Dimond to return in the not too distant future and expect the city’s taxpayers to pay for rest of his parking needs.
Mistake Conceded
Deputy City Manager Chuck Line concedes, “Yes, I made a major error. I never should have recommended to the Planning Commission and the City Council a major reduction in parking for CitySet. Every time you let a developer and their experts convince you that they do not need the required parking I have regretted it, and I do regret it in the case of CitySet. But now we do need to make it work for everyone’s sake.”
One would have thought Glendale had learned the hard way, that not providing adequate parking always creates 
major problems in the future.
North Glendale adjoining Leetsdale Drive and anchored by Mir Park is going through a residential renaissance. The apartment buildings built there in the 1960s are becoming highly sought after when renovated to modern standards. But when the buildings were constructed the city had little or no required on-site parking believing that on-street parking would be sufficient. But with development in the area the applicable on-street parking is now woefully inadequate. The city is now desperately trying to find a solution to allow the area to prosper.
Similarly Glendale did not require sufficient parking at the Skyline retail development on Colorado Boulevard featuring Chili’s, AFC Urgent Care, Noodles Fresh,World Market, Mile High Comics, and other successful stores and eating establishments. Parking wars consistently break out with those controlling the parking, hiring towing companies to take away cars of individuals shopping at stores without adequate parking for their customers.
Developers Need And Want Municipal Concessions
The key to the success of any developer is obtaining monetary and other concessions from the applicable jurisdiction. For example, Dimond for his CitySet project got Glendale to pay almost $16 million of his development costs through tax rebates, covering everything from his cost of acquiring land to paying for landscaping and even public art. The modification to the Glendale Zoning Code regarding parking made him an additional $4,000,000 that comes out of the pocket of every man, woman, and child in Glendale.
This is why real estate experts shake their heads when watching Mohammad Ali Kheirkhahi and Authentic Persian and Oriental Rugs demand Glendale never even consider acquiring their land and forcing Glendale to exclude their property from the Glendale 180 project and the applicable special districts. But forcing the city to do so, through threats and lawsuits, they made monetary concessions legally impossible to grant for their property, thereby greatly devaluing any project on their land. As one expert noted (who did not want to be quoted by name for fear of possible retaliation from Kheirkhahi): “It is a truism in real estate development that ‘pigs get fat while hogs get slaughtered.’ By being the most brutal, vicious hogs possible they have monetarily slaughtered themselves. Not exactly terribly bright.”
by Mark Smiley | Jun 24, 2016 | Feature Story Bottom Left
First let me start out by saying I NEVER write my column about a specific person or situation. Until now, well kind of. I am going to tell you a story about a date but I’m not going to use any names. I feel a lot of people will relate to this story, so I feel it’s important to talk about.
Background about my dating preferences is important here before I get to this particular date story. Just like the title says, “I Keep Getting Older and the Girls Keep Getting Younger,” seems to be a theme in my life. Let me explain….
I want to keep it real here and trust me I understand this is a touchy subject, for whatever reason. As a dating adult I prefer women from the ages of 28 to 34. I find the women in that age range have a lot of the qualities I am looking for. I am speaking from my experience and in generalities here so allow me to speak from my point of view. Coming from a guy who has no children and who has never been married I take both of those things very seriously and I believe they should be shared with someone I am in love with. With that said, I have always wanted to share getting married and having children with a lady who could experience those first-time events with me. I find my chance of finding that situation is more likely with a woman in that age group.
Now, when I was 30, dating a 28-34 year old woman was no big deal, but now that I am 43 some eyebrows get raised. People Women love to judge. I have no problem dating women my age but finding a lady who is 43 who doesn’t have an ex-husband or children is like finding a needle in a haystack. Luckily for me most women like dating guys older than themselves, and here’s a newsflash, guys don’t mind. Now let me get to my date story…
So the opportunity presented itself for me to go on date with a woman my age, well she’s one year older than I. She is a lady I found very attractive and she has no children, she does have an ex-husband but I figured hey, go for it, it’s just a date.
Now when I decide to ask a woman out I take it seriously and I try to find out her likes and dislikes as far as what she is comfortable doing on a first date and her preferences on food and beverages. I think it’s a polite thing for a man to do. So I did. We both decided since we had been talking and texting for a while that it might be nice to spend some time talking and getting to know each other while I cooked us dinner at my condo in Cherry Creek.
Most of you who have read my column for any length of time would know I am adamantly against doing such a thing on a first date in case the chemistry isn’t there and you need to graciously call it good and escape exit. I felt I was safe with this situation, but man was I wrong.
Let me set the mood. I have a large bar/ counter connecting my kitchen to my living room. I am in the kitchen cooking and making drinks while she is on the other side of the counter sitting on a bar stool in the living room. So far so good right?
Here’s where it gets good. Of course, the conversation of dating and relationships comes up and I am put on the spot. She asks, “Have you ever been married?” I quickly reply “no, but I was in an eight-year relationship in my 20s that kinda felt like I was.” That then leads into her failed marriage and how it took (still is taking) her time to fully get over it. I was thinking to myself, oh lord, here we go, I am on a date with a woman who is emotionally unavailable.
Regardless, the conversation progressed. Now I feel like I am being interrogated interviewed by this woman who is trying to figure out why I am still single and why I’ve never been married. Keep in mind this would not be my first choice in conversation but she wanted to get “to know each other” and I guess this is her idea of how to do so.
The next question was along the lines of, “what type of women do you generally date?” Me being who I am and liking to keep it real and be transparent, I told her that I tend to date women younger than myself for the reasons aforementioned. Then I said, “I feel like I raised three or four women in their late 20s and early 30s when I was in relationships with them.”
You would think I just kicked her in the stomach by the look on her face. Rather than asking me, why is that? Or, please explain… She busts out this beauty of a response. “You sound like a pedophile!” You could have knocked me over with a feather. I was shocked; those are some pretty serious words to throw around. If I would have been in a public place I would have asked for the check and gotten up and excused myself.
Unfortunately, I can only use so many words in each column, so I am going to have to continue this beauty next month in Part 2. There I will explain why I said, “I feel like raised three or four women in their late 20s and early 30s when I was in relationships with them.” I will also tell you how this date ended. It might not be how you expect. Until next time, happy dating and be safe out there.
Your pal, Sheik
by Mark Smiley | May 27, 2016 | Feature Story Middle Left
On June 28 there is a critical Democratic primary for residents of the Cherry Creek Valley. As a practical matter Republicans are irrelevant in local races in Denver as there is not a single Republican who holds a state Senate or House seat from Denver.
While most municipal offices are filled through non-partisan elections in Denver the office of Denver District Attorney is a partisan election where the Republican Party often does not even run a candidate and they are not this year. While there are various races on the ballot which are of interest the two critical ones for us are the matchup for District Attorney and that for Beth McCann’s State House seat. The mail-in ballots should already be out and an extraordinary few number who bother to vote will determine who is ultimately elected this fall. Our endorsements in this election are as follows:
Michael Carrigan for Denver D.A.
There is no office in Denver, save mayor, that is more powerful than that of district attorney, although not too many in the public or the press appear to recognize that fact. The failure of the present district attorney, the person in charge of the office, can do great good for or great ill to Denver. Mitch Morrissey, by refusing to bring charges against virtually anyone in law enforcement in Denver has caused the bad apples in Denver law enforcement to believe they can get away with almost anything. Thus citizens of Denver are all too frequently brutalized by the Police Department or the Sheriff’s Department and the taxpayers hand out millions in settlement because of Morrissey.
Under the egis (1983-1993) of Dale Tooley the Denver District Attorney’s Office was recognized as being one of the best in the country and capable lawyers flocked to it. However subsequent D.A.s slowly frittered away that reputation with a low point reached under politically ambitious Bill Ritter who would go on to be a one-term governor of Colorado. Under a cloud of controversy Ritter chose not to run for a second term in order to “spend more time with his family.”
There are three candidates in the primary for the position — Michael Carrigan, Beth McCann and Kenneth Boyd. Of the three Boyd is quite simply not qualified for the position. He is the nephew of the tainted former D.A. Bill Ritter and at 37 has no real qualifications other than he is “Mitch Morrissey’s man.” One of the more distressing trends in recent years is term limited district attorneys desperate not to have to leave the government bosom, arrange for an underling to run who promises to hire the old district attorney back. This same pitiful game of musical chairs for lawyers was attempted by former Arapahoe County District Attorney Carol Chambers with her subordinate Leslie Hansen. The Republican primary voters wisely voted instead for George Brauchler who has been an outstanding District Attorney.
Boyd even announced to a flabbergasted audience that there was no excessive force problem in Denver. We cannot fathom why anyone in Denver, other than Mitch Morrissey, would vote for Boyd.
Conversely Beth McCann certainly has the resume and experience to be District Attorney but has spent an entire adult life going from one government job to the next. She is running again for District Attorney having lost to Morrissey 12 years ago because she is term limited as the state representative for District 8. She has not tried a criminal case since 1983 and she would be 80 years old if she served all three terms. Denver can do better.
Luckily the voters in the primary have a wonderful choice in Michael Carrigan, a senior litigation attorney with the much respected Holland and Hart law firm. He served as a Deputy District Attorney in Arapahoe County for over a half decade before going into private practice in Denver. At age 49 he has the energy and experience to be an outstanding District Attorney for Denver. The Denver D.A.’s office badly needs new blood as every District Attorney since Dale Tooley has come from in-house. The office has way too much dead wood that needs to be cleaned out, which is exactly what Boulder D.A. Stan Garnett and Arapahoe County George Brauchler did when they came into office.
Carrigan speaks fluent Spanish and like Garnett and Brauchler he would not be afraid to try some of the most difficult and high visibility cases that may arise in his jurisdiction. He has been candid that he opposes the death penalty and is concerned about the rate of incarceration of African Americans in the Denver judicial system.
The only hesitancy regarding his candidacy for us is the fact that, as The Denver Post was thrilled to point out, his endorsements include a veritable “who’s who of Denver politics” which translated means every crook in town including the infamous Steve Farber of the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP. But Carrigan also has the endorsement of leading reform Denver City Councilman Rafael Espinoza and he has convinced us that he is beholden to no one and plans to be a reform District Attorney that shakes up a system that badly needs to be shaken up.
Denver is lucky to have such a highly qualified attorney willing to run for District Attorney making the choice an easy one for us and we think for the voters.
Goldhamer for House District 8
House District 8 which is located in north central Denver has been ably served by Beth McCann for the last eight years and being term limited she is running for Denver District Attorney (see above). Squaring off in the Democratic primary are two good candidates Aaron Goldhamer and Leslie Herod.
Herod worked as an administrative assistant down at the Capitol and was a Senior Policy Advisor to then Governor Bill Ritter. She has served as Program Officer with the Gill Foundation and more recently started up her own consulting business.
Aaron Goldhamer is a litigator with the substantial law firm of Jones & Keller with a bachelor’s degree cum laude from Yale University, and J.D. from Georgetown University Law School. He has a strong pro bono component to his law practice.
Both candidates are strong progressives as befits House District 8 and they do not appear to substantially disagree on the relevant issues.
What we find particularly appealing about Goldhamer is that he is willing to take his own time and money to fight some of the important fights in Denver today. He is representing former Colorado Attorney J.D. McFarland in battling against the disreputable “Platte to Park Hill” flood control project that will raise every Denver resident’s drainage fees for costs which should be borne by CDOT as they directly relate to CDOT’s I-70 expansion. The drainage project also effectively destroys a significant portion of one more Denver gem, Park Hill Golf Course.
You make no friends with the Denver political establishment by opposing this project which has the endorsement of Mayor Michael Hancock and all of his friends and controllers. Anybody who has the smarts and the toughness to take on the most powerful and corrupt elements in Denver we believe will make a great State Representative for the City and County of Denver and we strongly endorse his candidacy.
— Editorial Board
by Mark Smiley | May 27, 2016 | Feature Story Bottom Left
Guest Editorial
Truth, Lies And Coverups
by Nasrin Kholghy
There’s been a lot of talk about our family in the Chronicle and on radio recently — most of it false and ignoring the facts. So here’s the truth.
Glendale is our home. Twenty-seven years ago, we moved our business from the old Cherry Creek Mall to Colorado Boulevard. Our kids played basketball on Birch Street. We enjoy Glendale’s spectacular annual fireworks from the rooftop of our rug store. You’ve driven by our rug store’s distinctive blue awnings many times.
Since our kids had their first birthday parties at Celebrity Fun Center, we’ve been deeply invested in Glendale and its surroundings. Over the decades, we have become good friends with many people in the community; our clients know us on a first-name basis. They’re part of our family. It was no surprise that so many people came to our support when we were threatened with eminent domain abuse and possible condemnation last year. For that, we wholeheartedly thank the people of Glendale and Denver, and everyone that stood up to defend our rights as landowners guaranteed under the Constitution.
We opened our rug store out of necessity then expanded it by choice. Although my husband and I hold UCD electrical engineering degrees, the political environment in 1979 made it impossible to find jobs. Authentic Persian & Oriental Rugs was born out of our need to sell the only thing our father could send from Iran and support family still attending the University of Colorado,
This is a true family business. We all work six or seven days a week. Even friends pitch in. My brother travels abroad frequently to find the best quality rugs and latest designs. My sister and I make certain that every rug sold is the perfect fit for each home — even if we have to drive hundreds of miles to do so.
We would never propose a project that would be an eyesore or detrimental to our community in any way because we live and work here.
In 2007, we first drafted plans for a mixed-use development on our land. That proposal includ-ed cascading terraces overlooking the creek, retail, restaurants and eleven high-end residential units. We understood the plans complied with all Glendale zoning laws, yet we received discouraging feedback. At that time, the Master Plan (page 35) said of our property: “This is the preeminent development site in the City. It contains 6.5 acres. It has frontage along Colorado Boulevard and the Cherry Creek channel and possesses spectacular mountain views. The concept of mixed use along with community amenities can be captured on this site. Ground floor uses would include eating, entertainment and specialty retail. Upper floor use could include office or residential.”
The zoning laws were changed five months later to further restrict residential use. Glendale has steadfastly opposed a residential component despite the fact that it is proven to work.
Homes are essential to building true communities. They help make places safer; people are more concerned about the neighborhood’s appearance and actually take pride in where they live. Residential properties would have the least impact on traffic — we know how bad the traffic can get around Colorado Blvd. and Alameda — easing congestion in general. That was the finding of a 2010 City-financed traffic study and why, in part, we want residential as part of our plan.
Glendale 180 envisions a downtown full of bars with 24-hour alcohol co
nsumption and huge profits. The City also investigated adding gambling to their plans. We suspect they don’t want our rug store here because our kind of business isn’t as profitable. They only desired our land.
City officials now say they don’t need our land. Yet they say we’re holding up Glendale 180 when, in truth, they’re holding up progress! Furthermore, it’s not just our family that’s at odds with the City, although we’re slammed in the media most. Glendale has similar issues with the Staybridge Hotel, the property adjoining ours.
These are just examples of the allegations and defamatory remarks tossed around in this publication, but to their credit, they finally invited us to tell our side. We welcome this opportunity.
We also invite anyone to visit our store and talk about these issues. You’ll be warmly welcomed regardless of your views. We have many docum
ents available that support the facts and we’re open seven days a week to discuss the truth. We want everyone to read and verify the facts themselves.
In March, Glendale’s Chamber of Commerce voted to “repudiate and denounce” us claiming we recruited hate groups to support our plan. That is false. We’ve never hired any groups to support us. We don’t employ private investigators. We’ve never proposed an ugly skyscraper as the Chronicle claims. The mayor and his wife (primary owner of Shotgun Willie’s and The Smoking Gun) along with the Chronicle’s publisher, and its executive editor sit on the Chamber board. At least three of them voted for this resolution that wasn’t based on facts.
Don’t you wonder why the Chronicle and the City are so passionate and persistent in slamming us each month? We suggest following the money. Glendale’s Downtown Development Authority plans to raise $200M in bonds and scrape a popular public park so a private developer can build more bars. Who will pay this $200,000,000 back? How long must we pay? Who reaps the benefits?
