by Mark Smiley | Aug 29, 2016 | Feature Story Bottom Left
As I get older more mature I am finding different things becoming important to me when dating than I did say 10 years ago. Let me explain… When I was a young, optimistic, single guy I wanted the moon, the stars and the sun when I was prospecting single ladies. Everything was based on wants. I want a woman who is smoking hot with a great body. I want a gal who is sharp as a tack and can handle herself in social situations. I want a lady who has no kids and has never been married. I want to find a chick that is happy and healthy within her. I want a babe who is baggage free and only has eyes for me. Heck I even wanted a girl that had stacks of cash. I think you get the point. I wanted the world in a woman and when it became apparent to me that she deviated away from my grand vision I would label her as “not right for me” and move on to the next.
Then I lived some life. It’s not that my standards have dropped, they have just changed. Sure the qualities I was looking for as a young dater would be nice to find today in one perfect woman who is crazy about me, but like I said, I now have some life experience behind me and that is just not reasonable. Back then the importance was WANT and now the emphasis is on what I DON’T WANT. Sometimes in life making sure that you understand what is toxic for your constitution is much more important than searching for someone who fits a certain idea in your mind.
Now when I date I put my shallow “wants” on the back burner and focus on the “don’t wants.” Here’s an example. I don’t want someone who constantly has a problem and if she doesn’t have one she is sure to manifest one. I don’t want a woman who is an attention whore more concerned with making sure every man finds her attractive instead of feeling good just knowing that I think she’s beautiful. I don’t want a gal who is always broke financially and can’t take care of herself. I don’t want a chick that has issues with being content with who she is. I don’t want a chick who thinks getting the perfect selfie is more important that striving to be the best self she can be. I could go on, and I will… I don’t want a babe, just kidding, I am done. You get what I am laying out here.
Again, I love all of the “wants” that I listed earlier and I am very open to having all of those qualities in a woman but those wants don’t cloud my brain anymore making it possible for the “don’t wants” to sneak into my life. I wish you would try this. Some people call it settling but I call it growing up and being aware. Being aware that how you are perceived by the Jones’ is less important than finding what makes you happy, healthy and prosperous.
What sounds better to you? A woman who turns every head in the room and is a flight risk, or a lady who turns your head because you know she’s loving and loyal? I’m not going to lie, and guys you know this, men want to have the most attractive chick in the room. We are just wired that way. There is nothing wrong with that but more times than not that visually pleasing, delicious looking, jaw dropping chick has more issues than Time magazine. Problems you don’t need.
Instead of judging a book by the cover and being the pot that calls the kettle black, try reading the books that will inspire you and you just might find that black kettle is just like you. Imperfectly, perfect.
See you next month!
Your pal, Sheik.
by Mark Smiley | Aug 29, 2016 | Editorials
The Denver City Attorney’s Office is an enormous operation employing over 100 attorneys and hundreds of paralegals and staff personnel. It not only advises the Mayor and all City Department agencies as well as the City Council but also the City Auditor. It also represents and defends the City in all legal matters including initiating and defending lawsuits.
In recent years the job of City Attorney, which is considered a great political plum, has attracted the good, the bad and the ugly. Cole Finegan broke the record for hutzpah in office by claiming that the City Attorney position was not really a full-time job and so he became City Attorney and Chief of Staff simultaneously for then Mayor John Hickenlooper. His successor Larry Manzanares committed suicide after being charged with stealing a government computer and putting pornography on it.
In 2014 Mayor Hancock appointed 34-year-old Scott Martinez to the position. We noted that he had little or no qualifications for the job and the people who knew him called him a “legal lightweight” and “a political hack.” His appointment was apparently due to political pressure put on the Mayor by the Colorado Latino Forum which claimed, probably validly, that Hancock had appointed very few Hispanics to important positions in his administration.
For pointing out Martinez’s lack of qualifications we received a scalding, if not unintentionally hilarious letter, from the Board of Directors of the Colorado Latino Forum Denver Chapter accusing the Chronicle of all types of political incorrectness including racism, ageism and anti-nativism.
Since our story wherein we criticized Mr. Martinez concerned Hentzell Park, the Board of the Colorado Latino Forum Denver Chapter for good measure also severely castigated those individuals and neighborhood groups opposing the park being traded away for development. The Board specifically excoriated the everyday citizens for failing “to ask permission of those tribes that have historical claim to the land, the C
heyenne and Arapaho Nations, and explain how their homeland will be used for the good of the people.” Ostensibly any person challenging any land use decision or rezoning in the City and County Denver would be subject to the same criticism. Wow, as if opposing the entire city bureaucracy and the all-powerful real estate developers isn’t bad enough.
The Board then went on to declare that they were standing up for Mr. Martinez and others like him who they knew have “earned their leadership positions” and that they would take their “rightful places in history.” The Board extensively publicized its letter throughout the Internet.
Well Mr. Martinez has taken his “rightful place in history” after being forced to resign in disgrace after two and half disastrous years as City Attorney. He is under criminal investigation by the District Attorney for destroying his letter terminating Assistant City Attorney Stuart Shapiro that was being sought by investigative reporter Brian Maass of Channel 4 News pursuant to a Colorado Open Records Act request.
Related thereto the Denver City Council has just approved paying Mr. Shapiro a $660,000 settlement of claims that he was “scapegoated by higher ups” (read Scott Martinez and his deputies) regarding his suspension for his apparent unethical actions during the investigation of the Sheriff’s Deputies abuse of Jamal Hunter, who the city paid $3.25 million. No one appears to doubt that Shapiro engaged in unethical conduct as highlighted by Federal Judge John Kane, but instead it appears he did so so on the instructions of Scott Martinez and his deputies.
Why that entitles Shapiro to $660,000 of the taxpayers’ money is a little unclear, but as the headline to the lead Denver Post editorial declared, “Something stinks about Denver’s Shapiro settlement.” Thanks to an obsequious and secretive Denver City Council we will, in fact, probably never find out what really happened.
We, along with neighborhood groups like Friends of Hentzell Park, are anxiously awaiting the heartfelt apology to us from the entire Board of the Colorado Latino Forum Denver Chapter acknowledging that we were correct and they were wrong about Mr. Martinez’s fitness to be City Attorney, but somehow we get the feeling it will never come.
So out with the incompetent and apparently ethically challenged City Attorney Scott Martinez and in with the new one Kristin M. Bronson from the national law firm Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie, LLP. She too is a virtually unknown and by all appearances is not much more than a mediocre attorney stuck in a huge firm with little or no qualifications for municipal legal work, but her predecessor had a similar background.
How did our esteemed mayor find her? That is easy — he didn’t. She was found by Pat Hamill and/or his real estate development buddies who knew her from the fact that a significant part of her legal work, according to her law firm’s website, was representing “lender, developer and property management clients in all facets of real estate, construction, and banking law.” No reason for the mayor to kowtow to the Colorado Latino Forum any longer when the real estate developers can have their gal put in place who will undoubtedly “do as instructed.”
Will she be as inept, incompetent and ethically challenged as Scott Martinez? We doubt it, but that is a very low bar to hurdle. Will she represent the interests and concerns of the citizens of the City and County of Denver? You have got to be kidding. She knows who got her appointed — real estate developers — and that is who will give the necessary marching orders.
So, the beat goes on in Mayor Michael Hancock’s Mile High City.
— Editorial Board
by Peter Boyles | Aug 29, 2016 | Blasting with Boyles
The Butcher, The Baker and the Stooges ruin any notion of justice or political correctness in Colorado (you thought I was going to say the Candlestick Maker).
I have written many times and talked endless hours on radio shows about what happened to a very religious baker named Jack Phillips. Jack, if you recall, owns a very small bakery that goes by the name of “Masterpiece Bakery.” He was adjudged by the politically correct police, a borderline criminal Nazi, because he refused to make a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins who I believed stalked him and set him up for their civil rights lawsuit. Last August an administrative law judge from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled his business would be shut down and/or fined out of existence if he did not start designing gay wedding cakes and that ruling has been upheld in the courts.
As I do on the radio show, I 100 percent disagree with Jack Phillips’ beliefs concerning gay marriage. I am 100 percent for gay marriage, gay adoption, or any so-called right, as an old straight white guy like me should be for the rights for all of us. But, Lady Justice takes another turn. Which brings me to what I believe is a suicide pact this country has signed with itself — political correctness. Let me take you back in time again, this time to Fort Morgan. The evil incarnate this time is Cargill, the giant multinational meat packer and agri-business employer.
Muslims who worked at Cargill, walked off the job for reasons of their faith. The Somalis claimed that on December the 18th of last year they didn’t get a chance to leave the production line to pray. Cargill, the Somalis say, put restrictions on their prayer breaks. The council on American Islamic Relations and Denver’s Rathod Mohammedbahi Law firm, told us that the Muslim employees are hardworking and should be allowed to pray at work in accordance with their “deeply held religious beliefs” (remember those words). Cargill, after allowing this practice, put a halt to it. Again, I ask you to remember that Jack Phillips had never changed his policies, but was relying on his deeply held religious beliefs. From a statement from the Somalis’ law firm, “fear and prejudice cannot be allowed to violate a nation’s founding principles that all may practice their religions free from prosecution.” Again like a broken record, remember those words.
On August 4, the State of Colorado, this time the Department of Labor, ruled that the 150 Somalis who actually quit their jobs and walked off, were now eligible for unemployment benefits from Cargill. The State said, “a company cannot force workers to choose between their religion and their jobs.” Further on in the court order, these words are written, “No person should be expected to choose between fidelity to their religion and their job. And it is important for you to know, that you, as the taxpayers of Colorado, are going to pay their claims. According to The Denver Post, this decision will cost Colorado’s unemployment fund nearly $1 million. Unemployment funds are funded by the state’s employers, i,e., you and your boss.
Now, let’s return to Jack Phillips and the case of Masterpiece Bakery. I have spoken with Jack many times. Jack, like the Somalis, has deep spiritual beliefs. And unlike the Somalis, never walked off the job.
Jack believes that God granted him creative abilities and that his Christian beliefs are opposed to gay marriage. Subsequently he will not use those abilities to create a wedding cake for gay men and women. Hold that thought. Jack will make, create and bake cakes, other than wedding, for gay people. Breads, cookies, brownies, cupcakes, any bakery product you can imagine. Jack is more than willing to sell to anyone, obviously including gay men and women. So, as they used to say in your intro college courses — let’s compare and contrast how Jack was treated by the State of Colorado and how Colorado treated the Somalis working at Cargill. Those words I asked you not to forget, such as, a company cannot force workers to choose between religion or their jobs, but the State can. And remember no person should be expected to choose between fidelity to their religion and their jobs. The workers claim they were denied prayer to their God and won their case. Jack Phillips claimed allegiance to his and was called a Nazi.
Conclusion; what have you learned? Cargill violated the greatest of all politically correct crimes, Islamophobia. Along with the fact that Somalis are sub-Saharan Africans, subsequently black. That’s the next worse political crime, racism. On the other hand, Jack is a white, male Christian and political correctness deems he has no rights other than being the perpetrator.
Give this insanity another five to 10 years. There will be more and more people charged with politically correct crimes. Eventually, the witch hunters will come for you. Do you recall Martin Niemoller? If you don’t, look him up. Have a nice day!
— Peter
by Mark Smiley | Jul 22, 2016 | Main Articles
Former Denver City Council President Cathy Donohue:
by Cathy Donohue
I have witnessed or was a part of Denver’s political scene, especially the Denver City Council, for over 40 years. Along the way many neighbors, friends and curiosity seekers have asked me how long zoning decisions in the City and County of Denver have been less than above board and whether it is worse today than in the past.
For the past several months the Glendale Cherry Creek Chronicle has been publishing in-depth articles about the manner in which land use decisions are made by some members of council.
The articles have prompted me to tell the citizens what “really” happens before and after the final votes are taken. I believe that Denver citizens need to know the truth from someone who was present when the decision was made and is still able to tell this story.
First it should be acknowledged that the Denver government has a long history of shady characters. By way of example Denver’s 20th mayor, Wolfe Londoner, won the office by 77 votes in 1889, thanks to friends stuffing the ballot box and having operatives, including legendary lawman Bat Masterson and con man “Soapy” Smith, exchanging votes at bars for drinks. In turn Londoner, with the help of the City Council, rewarded saloon owners by ignoring the local zoning laws and residential ordinances on where new drinking establishments could be located as well as reducing fees and cost of licenses for saloon owners. There is still a tunnel under Bannock street that allows people to cross over to the Carnegie Library. It was used to take money to city politicians before the rules of campaign contribution disclosure were established.
Londoner’s level of corruption was so extreme that the courts removed him from office. He later became the President of the Colorado State Press Association. If you substitute today’s “real estate developers” for “saloon owners” and “campaign contributions” for “drinks” you can see that over the years not much has really changed regarding zoning decisio
ns in Denver.
The Rise Of “Courtesy Zoning”
When I was elected to City Council in 1975, I was joined by two other new councilmembers, Sal Carpio and Sam Sandos (think new Denver City Council members Rafael Espinoza, Paul Kashmann and Wayne New from the 2015 Denver municipal election). The three newcomers did not come from the ranks of “party” politics or any other of the usual paths into elective office. We were “unknown” to the Denver political establishment and we did not receive the normal campaign contributions from Denver’s development community. The entire cost of my 1975 election was $3,000. My opponent spent $4,000 — quite a change from today’s campaigns where office seekers spend $100,000 to be elected to the Denver City Council.
In 1975, Sal, Sam and I were shocked to find out after several months in office that we were powerless to represent those who elected us to office regarding rezoning of private property and parkland. Seven council members (out of a total of 13) had formed a cabal and agreed to vote in lockstep with each other and as their developer co
ntributors wanted.
Elvin Caldwell, the leader of the 7-vote cabal that worked for the development community, resigned from council because Mayor McNichols appointed him to be the Manager of Safety. His replacement, King Trimble, was not cut from the same cloth as Mr. Caldwell, and voted with the newcomers. As the Caldwell-led coalition shrunk, we devised a new system to challenge the cabal.
The new system allowed each councilmember to decide what would be appropriate in his or her district and the other councilmembers would respect that decision and “not mess in another councilperson’s district.” (These were the words used at the time).
For more than 20 years beginning in 1975, this system worke
d. We did not have developer-controlled zoning. Land use in parks and private property was under the control of the council person of each district. After 2003, the development community gradually found seven politicians who would accept their contributions. There are now seven Council votes that will put the developers back into their old position of power over council members. They have reverted back to the pre-1975 system.
Long after Sam, Sal and I left council, someone decided to give a name to the phenomenon. They called it “Courtesy Zoning.” Sal Carpio, Sam Sandos or I never heard the words “Courtesy Zoning” until long after we left elective office. In those districts in which the developers gave lots of campaign contributions, they controlled the city council person in question. The voters in each district know which councilmember is responsible for any questionable rezoning or “Parks” decisions. The voters can put pressure on their representatives if they vote irresponsibly, or they can find a replacement.
The Effect Of Term Limits
In 2003, 12-year term limits were imposed by the voters on all of 
Colorado’s elected officials. While term limits can have salubrious effects, in Denver the law of unintended consequences occurred.
It was an opening that developers and elected officials could exploit. Anyone considering running for Denver City Council simply waits until an existing member becomes term limited instead of going through the hassle of challenging an incumbent. Once elected, a councilmember, barring extraordinary circumstances, does not have to worry about being re-elected until the term limit has been served. Thus, maximum density developers only have to invest heavily in the first term-limited campaign and keep the contributions flowing for the two remaining terms. It usually takes only one election cycle (and quite a few campaign dollars) for developers to regain control of a councilmember.
After 2003, a dramatic and unfortunate reversal began. Slowly, but surely, Councilmembers began to vote against their constituents’ wishes and ultimately the 20-year hiatus from the developers’ hold on councilmembers ended.
Councilwoman Marcia Johnson was the first member to reverse the historical purpose of Courtesy Zoning by voting “yes” on a controversial zoning in her District called Lowry Vista.
Councilwoman Johnson represents District 5. She ignored 87 percent of the residents who opposed the rezoning from open space to high density mixed use. The land had once been used as a waste dump for all the toxic materials generated at Lowry Air Force Base. Quite naturally, Johnson’s constituents worried about contamination, but Johnson simply paid no attention to their pleas. Fortunately, the rezoning is being re-heard in the courts and no one has shown an interest in buying this highly toxic piece of land.
The City Council hearing on the Lowry Vista matter lasted until 2 a.m. Windsor Gardens, whose residents had previously supported the rezoning application, sent a representative to the hearing at midnight to tell Johnson they had rescinded their support from “yes” to a unanimous “no.”
Instead of voting as her constituents requested, Johnson voted with the developers and their lobbyists. In doing so she betrayed the voters. Repercussions followed. When she attended meetings in her district, she was met by angry voters. She decided to hold an “Ice Cream Social” to re-establish herself. Her constituents stayed away. A short time later she announced she would not seek her third term so that she could spend time with her family. Johnson is the only City Council member that has abandoned the 12-year term which began in 2003. Johnson was succeeded as the council member from District 5 by Mary Beth Susman, who promised she would listen to and respect the opinions of her constituents.
Parks In The Crosshairs
Several years ago Denver City Council gave up its right to control Denver parks to the Mayor’s office. It was a strange decision, since under Denver’s “strong mayor” form of government the City Council historically has been envious of the powers of the Administration. Soon, the mayor and his developer friends began looking to Denver’s parks as a source of revenue and development.
The Administration began looking for parkland and open space that had perhaps, by accident, not been designated as a park by an ordinance passed by Council. They found a portion of Hentzell Park that had inadvertently failed to be officially designated as a park. Mayor Hancock quickly prepared to exchange the land for a downtown office building owned by Denver Public Schools. Despite adamant neighborhood opposition Councilwoman Peggy Lehman, who was also term limited, voted “Yes” on removing this land from the parks system. The rest of the Council supported her as if it were a “Courtesy” matter. It should be noted that zoning matters concern “privately owned” land and are requested by the owner. Parks belong to the citizens of Denver. Peggy Lehman’s duties did not include the removal of any parks from the citizens who own them without their approval. She should not have been the “decider” in the matter of publicly owned parkland.
We should also question the wisdom of any public body that believes it is good government policy to put a public school in that part of Hentzell Park that is in a flood plain. Council members then extended the “Courtesy” vote to parkland — a new addition that clearly violates Denver’s charter.
The Death Of “Courtesy Zoning”
By the time the 2015 municipal election took place, neighborhood groups and private citizens throughout the city demanded that all candidates for City Council pledge to abandon “courtesy zoning.” The “Johnson” reversal of Courtesy Zoning left a very bad taste in the mouths of the citizens. Most politicians took the pledge. Voters did not want “courtesy” to ever be used as Johnson had done at Lowry Vista, or as Lehman did with Hentzell Park.
Little did we know that maximum density developers and their minions had figured out a way to pervert the vote of council. When a maximum density developer wanted to rezone the Mt. Gilead Church property on Crestmoor Park he assumed he knew just how to accomplish his mission. Although Susman thought the matter was settled, this rezoning also had to be settled by the courts.
Johnson’s replacement on City Council, Mary Beth Susman, had seen what happened to her predecessor when the vast number of her constituents opposed her vote on the Lowry Vista rezoning. The Mt. Gilead Church property on Crestmoor Park had an equal if not more fierce neighborhood opposition. Susman in fact voted “No” on the rezoning but she let her colleagues know it was just a phony “show” vote. The Council as a whole voted “Yes” to the rezoning. “Courtesy voting” was not honored. Several Denver councilmembers even mocked neighborhood groups at the hearing telling them that, “You wanted us to get rid of ‘courtesy zoning’ and you have been granted your wish.” The councilmembers knew that “courtesy zoning” was a great gift to the citizens, not to the maximum density developers.
Call To Action
Today, voting patterns have come full circle. We have returned to the place we were prior to 1975 — seven votes solidly in the pockets of the Mayor Michael Hancock and the maximum density crowd. Fortunately, the voters elected four new councilmembers last spring that are not controlled by the pro-maximum density crowd –- Rafael Espinoza, Kevin Flynn, Paul Kashmann and Wayne New. They vote their consciences. Two veterans, Debbie Ortega and Paul Lopez, often join them.
Seven other councilmembers, the Denver Community Planning Development Agency under Brad Buchanan, and Mayor Hancock promote bad land use decisions. As demonstrated by the revolting conduct of the infamous “Pro Corruption” Denver District Court Judge Shelly I. Gilman in the Crestmoor Park case, the local court system in Denver may well be as venal as the majority of the members of the Denver City Council. The Denver courts apparently refuse to pretend to be neutral arbiters of disputes between the citizenry and their municipal government and cannot be trusted, based on the judges’ rulings on Crestmoor and Hentzell Park.
Thus, as Denver continues to grow, we need to shine a bright light on the voting of our city’s politicians. We need a “performance audit” to track the land use voting records of Council. The Auditor, the Mayor and the City Council should not be forced to use the same attorneys, as is the rule according to Denver’s Charter. It is morally reprehensible to use the same attorney to represent opposing sides of an issue. At least the Council and the Auditor should have separate legal representation. In the city of Denver, the Mayor is the only elected official with proper legal representation. A number of times in the past, Council has hired its own legal representation.
Applications for rezoning property are believed to make land more valuable — at least that is the common understanding. Private property bordering a city park is even more valuable. Denver citizens need to be made fully aware of the outcome of all “Courtesy” voting, whether it is for zoning changes or loss of land in city parks. If the way in which our city politicians perform their duties does not pass the smell test, we need to replace them and those parts of the city’s constitution that permit this behavior.
Neither do we have to wait 12 years to replace a politician who has sold his or her vote to the highest bidder. Even replacing one council member at a time will cause the others to shiver and quake. They may even begin to care about Denver. We owe it to our children and grandchildren to try to keep our city safe and livable for the future. Council is currently approving highly questionable decisions.
