by Mark Smiley | May 22, 2015 | Editorials
If there is any group of individuals who feels under siege in this country it is police officers. They are under attack from the mayors of cities from Denver to Baltimore. The President of the United States appears actively hostile to them at times while the U.S. Department of Justice appears ever ready to take over local police departments. When a local Baltimore City State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby declared that she will do justice for Freddie Gray by prosecuting, if not persecuting, every police officer who came in contact with him the day he died, no police officer can feel safe from a vengeful city hall.
Part of the problem police officers have is more and more videos cropping up showing what appears to be police brutality, or even worse, in some cases murder. Moreover, police trying to arrest individuals legitimately, filming their activities is both illegal and dumb. Mandatory body cameras will help diminish the filing of false charges against police officers and hopefully change the attitude and actions of the small percentage of officers who believe they are above the law.
The police across the country need to undertake a sustained public relations campaign or the hostility and animus leveled at them by many in the public will only get worse. At one time the police could count on strong support from middle class individuals, but that is all going away as the Greatest Generation dies off and the Baby Boomer Generation and those that have come after feel no such connectedness to law enforcement.
The vast number of citizens’ only contact with police is a result of traffic enforcement. If a town’s traffic enforcement is corrupt, as it is in Denver, Campo, Mountain View, Morrison, Nunn and Manzanola, then the residents of those towns and people traveling through lose respect for law enforcement. Towns with crooked traffic enforcement tend also to have crooked or at least highly suspect police and sheriff activities.
The Denver Post recently had an illuminating editorial in which it urged the state to limit the amount a town’s budget can come from traffic enforcement to 20 percent. Each of the towns listed above would be drastically affected by the proposed law with of course the exception of Denver whose corrupt traffic enforcement was not addressed or noted in the editorial.
The city of Glendale was once the town in Colorado most noted for its corrupt traffic enforcement. When the town was formally incorporated in 1952 it had little town revenues. To bring in money the mayor would get into his Cadillac with some members of the city council and head out to Colorado Boulevard and Leetsdale Drive in search of innocent motorists. When the mayor spotted what he considered a traffic violation he would put a light on top of the roof and hunt down and ticket the motorist.
Over the years Glendale became rich with the coming of Target and other big boxes as well as many bars and restaurants along East Virginia Avenue. Its police force grew and grew but exploiting motorists along Colorado Boulevard and Leetsdale Drive continued on unabated. The police force also became known for its brutality, as a cross look to a police officer on Saturday night on East Virginia could end up in a beating.
When the Glendale Tea Party took over City Hall in 1998 they tried to put a stop to the corrupt traffic enforcement and excessive police brutality but it was not easy. They undertook a study that showed the traffic enforcement regimen actually cost money after the price of police time and administrative overhead, including the salary of the municipal judge, were factored in. The police chief balked, along with the municipal judge, at any changes. Eventually the city canned the police chief when he was overheard saying that a beating of a suspect was good for police morale and the municipal judge quit as his salary was cut. Today, you have to almost try to get a ticket in Glendale as most normal traffic violators are given just a warning unless the vehicular conduct is truly egregious. Colorado Boulevard and Leetsdale Drive are safer places to travel because of it and the police brutality has disappeared.
But don’t tell Denver. Its police officers routinely set up speed traps all over the city including along University Boulevard and Leetsdale Drive where the posted limit is far slower than a motorist would expect. Moreover, as the Denver City Auditor declared in his comprehensive report on photo radar, the only real purpose for the program appeared to be to generate money for the city. The corrupt traffic enforcement accompanies, as it did in Glendale, excessive brutality cases at the Denver jail and on the streets costing millions in lawsuits by Denver residents. When police officers see that their job is not simply to “Serve and Protect” but “Abuse and Exploit” it affects their attitude in all aspects of their job.
The Denver Mayor and City Council under the absolute control of real estate developers don’t make any money off the police so they by and large don’t care what is happening. But the rest of the state is getting sick of it. In this last legislative session, best remembered for partisan gridlock with a divided legislature, two competing bills passed in a year aimed at Denver.
H.B. 1098 bans photo radar enforcement and red light cameras altogether while S.B. 276 requires a citizens’ vote and strips federal highway funds from local governments that do not hold an election before 2017. Both bills are now on Governor Hickelooper’s desk who has stated that he “hate[s] those things [photo radar and red light cameras], everybody hates them” but he believed they saved lives. Of course he did not say why he had such a belief only that he so believed. Every study, including an independent study commissioned by the Chicago Tribune, determined the exact opposite.
The governor also declared that he believed photo radar and red light cameras should be a matter local governments should decide. By that statement he was not saying the citizens should get to decide as provided in S.B. 276, but rather the decision should be left to that elected and/or appointed official who can be bribed and bought as was the case in Chicago.
If he vetoes both bills his tepid popularity would take another substantial hit, but some say that he doesn’t really care as he is now term limited. In the end, perhaps the suggestion of Senate President Bill Cadman should prevail. He called for a statewide vote. It could be coupled in a companion vote on The Denver Post recommendation that limits revenues from traffic tickets to a percentage of a town’s budget. Imagine a state in which no city has the type of corrupt traffic enforcement policies which pollutes police agencies and the public perception of police officers. Apparently the governor can’t.
— Editorial Board
by Mark Smiley | Apr 24, 2015 | Editorials
The City of Glendale’s recent announcement of an entertainment district along Cherry Creek brings to fore a vision that has been in the making for almost 20 years. Who first envisioned the concept is a matter of minor dispute with the Publisher of this paper Chuck Bonniwell and the present Mayor of Glendale Mike Dunafon both claiming paternity. But as a practical matter, the far harder task is bringing the concept to reality. There is no question that without Mayor Dunafon’s persistent and forceful leadership the vision would never have happened.
The challenges to the project were enormous, including but not limited to, the necessity of providing ample parking which will make or break the project. The city is willing to spend approximately $75 million for parking and other improvements which is no small feat for a city whose total annual budget is less than $20 million.
The city is able to do that through the miracle of tax increment financing and the state tax provisions for urban renewal districts. The taxing provisions allow the city to pledge not only its own municipal sales and property taxes but any increase from a base year of property and sales tax revenue from other applicable entities, including Arapahoe County and Cherry Creek School District. That allows the sale of tens of millions in bonds with the bondholders knowing that the city will have more than sufficient revenues available to repay the bonds.
Glendale throughout much of its history has been a booming town by adopting whatever Denver rejects. At the beginning of the 20th century Denver regulated out of business many of its dairy operations which Glendale welcomed with such open arms that the city became known as Cow Town. Denver rejected fireworks and Glendale had various fireworks stores up and down Colorado Boulevard, including one run by then Glendale Mayor Fred Repp.
In the early 1970s just when the baby boomer generation was reaching adulthood and the legal drinking age was being dropped to 18, Denver decided to massively restrict new liquor licenses. Glendale therefore gave them out to any qualified person who sought one. It resulted in Glendale becoming a bar, restaurant and youth mecca. Along East Virginia, Colorado Boulevard, Leetsdale Drive and South Cherry Street there were the Colorado Mine Company, Cork ’N Cleaver, The Lift, Mr. Lucky’s, etc. etc. etc. The sales taxes to Glendale flourished.
In the 1990s, in a return gift to Denver, Mayors Steve Ward and Joe Rice began terminating as many liquor licenses as they could until only five were left, turning East Virginia into a wasteland. Mayor Ward was infamous for having a small toy cannon at his spot on the podium which he would playfully shoot off every time a liquor license was revoked. The recipient of this revenue largess was Denver’s LODO, which thanks to Coors Field, was experiencing an extraordinary renaissance.
But just as Glendale seeks to perform a back to the future miracle with Glendale 180, Denver once again appears to want to create a potential partial act of economic hari kari. Denver Councilman Albus Brooks, whose council district includes downtown, has declared that the city wants individuals to have to think twice about bringing an automobile downtown. The so-called Denver Planning Board and the city planners say that they are not allowed to consider the traffic and parking impacts on new projects it approves in Cherry Creek and elsewhere in Denver.
The net effect of this deliberate head in the sand approach will make it increasingly costly and time consuming to drive an automobile in the City and County of Denver and particularly unpleasant in the areas where bars, restaurants and entertainment venues are concentrated. One of two things will happen. One possibility is that people will continue to pour into Denver by alternative means of transportation including walking, bicycles, light rail, cabs or short-term car rentals like Uber and Car To Go. This is the prediction of the city planners who are in cahoots with real estate developers who in turn are happy to provide as little parking as they can get away with.
Alternatively, the lumpenproletariat from the suburbs may decide not to do what the central planners of Denver decree and instead simply in part stop coming to LODO and Cherry Creek North bars, restaurants and entertainment venues. They will instead take their cars and money to places like Glendale 180 which welcomes them by providing ample and inexpensive parking, guaranteeing Glendale’s latest success.
By 2017 when Glendale 180 is scheduled to be open for business, the effect of Denver’s deliberate decision to create parking and traffic nightmares for automobile users will truly become ever more evident. Glendale is betting that it will just have to say, once again, thank you to Denver as it has been happy to do for most of its storied history.
— Editorial Board
by Mark Smiley | Mar 27, 2015 | Editorials
An election for the mayor of Denver and the entire City Council will be held on May 5, 2015, much to the surprise of many Denver residents. Part of the reason for the lack of publicity of the election is the strange form of democracy we have going on here in Denver. Our municipality has informally adopted what they call the “one and done” rule sometimes seen in third world kleptocracies, i.e., once you are elected you never face another competitive election ever again. Unfortunately for city officeholders there are term limits in the municipality or they would never have to leave office except feet first as they go on to their heavenly reward.
By way of illustrative example, Mayor Michael Hancock has been incredibly inept in everything he has handled from the Sheriff’s Department scandals to the police protest debacle to the disastrous development policies. Succeeding two very strong mayors in Wellington Webb and John Hickenlooper, Hancock is an incredibly feckless and weak character, although highly personable.
Our mayor was at one time a mascot for the Denver Broncos football team and in office he has continued that role as the official team mascot for the greediest of real estate developers and most corrupt of union bosses. Yet he runs for a second term virtually unopposed.
Turning to the City Council, we are still attempting to determine when the last time was that an incumbent Denver City Council member lost in an election. Most incumbents never even have an opponent after their first election.
Timothy O’Brien
The reason, of course, is not that we love our incumbents so much here in Denver, but rather money — the mother’s milk of politics. To attempt to beat an incumbent in a city council district race costs at least $100,000; $500,000 for a city-wide position other than mayor; and for mayor at least $1,000,000. The only people who will provide you such sums to run for city office are real estate developers and labor unions, but they already own the incumbents and so why would anyone provide money for any putative challengers. Of course, if you are very wealthy you could self fund, but you may have noticed wealthy people do not want to run for municipal office in Denver other than perhaps mayor. The rich will consider running for governor, or senator or even congressman, but not a spot on the Denver City Council. This is why Denver City Council members are always voting themselves never-ending raises, i.e., they need the money.
As a result there is no real race for the mayor’s position or a majority of the council seats which is why the public is paying little or no attention to the election. You never saw the Russian public get real excited either about essentially non-elections in the old Soviet Union.
But that does leave elections for six open council seats as well as city auditor. These competitive races include Council Districts 4, 6 and 10 which the Glendale Cherry Creek Chronicle serves in whole or in part.
Wayne New
But who should one vote for in these races? It’s actually pretty easy. Go to www.den vergov.org/elections and download the financial disclosure statements of the candidates. In each race there will be one candidate that has raised an incredible amount of money. In their disclosure statements you will see the lawyer lobbyists from CRL Associates and Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP as well as endless developers and real estate investors. You well also see a smattering of unions such the Teamsters Local 17 PAC. These candidates have already been acquired by those who control and own Mayor Michael Hancock.
Sadly, but understandably, another name you should be on the lookout for is the Greater Glendale Chamber of Commerce. Our publisher, Chuck Bonniwell, is a co-founder of that organization and sits on its Board of Directors but, of course, only has but one vote. Glendale since its founding in 1859, and particularly after its incorporation in 1952, has had to fight Denver tooth and nail for its very existence. Starting in the 1990s, thanks to mayors Wellington Webb and John Hickenlooper and the Glendale powers that be, there has been a rapprochement. As a result there has been the fire department merger, the beautification of Cherry Creek South and the building of the Infinity Park complex among other positive projects that have benefited both cities.
Glendale, as well as its business chamber therefore, seeks to have a positive relationship with the powers that be in Denver, which today is Mayor Michael Hancock and the people who control him. On page 24 you will locate the Glendale Chamber’s endorsements and you can judge for yourself how convincing you find its logic and rationale.
The unions, the developers and the Glendale Chamber suggest you support Kendra Black in Council District 4; Liz Adams in Council District 6; Anna Jones in Council District 10; as well as Chris Nevitt for City Auditor.
If you want more 30-story Broe Towers eliminating the view of the mountains for all of Cherry Creek and the Country Club area, along with more massive apartment buildings blocking sunlight from ever reaching certain streets in Cherry Creek North, these are your candidates. If you think that the endless traffic jams along Colorado Boulevard and 1st Avenue and the rest of the city are not long enough and can be made even worse, these are your candidates. If you want to see a corrupt and unethical Planning Board with no consideration ever for the parking and traffic concerns continue, these are your candidates. These candidates will religiously follow the political Golden Rule, i.e., he who has the gold rules, and that is not the average everyday citizen or voter.
Paul Kashmann
That is not to say Black, Adams and Jones are not pleasant people, but so is Hancock. On a personal basis, we particularly like Anna Jones who has an infectious laugh and wonderful wit. But she served on the mayor’s Planning Board for several years and that is a disqualifier for us.
Concerning the auditor’s race Chris Nevitt is their choice. He is the councilman from District 7 who brought you the hideous twin 30-story Broe Towers. Unlike their other candidates, Chris Nevitt is most definitely not a nice person. He is best known, by most, for his screaming rants at citizens who came to City Council to oppose projects Nevitt’s money men backed. One longtime Denver resident and politico, whose opinion we respect, said of Nevitt, “He is the worst human being I have ever met on the Denver City Council and that is saying something as there have been some real doozies.” Nevitt at one time was simply a union shill on City Council but in recent years he has expanded to prostituting himself out to every developer in Denver he could find. He has no background in, or experience, auditing and wants to use the office as a stepping stone, God forbid, for a run for mayor after Hancock is term limited. He is the weakest and least qualified candidate for any office in Denver in many a year, which no doubt explains why he is undoubtedly the favorite in the race.
So who should you vote for? Well, in the auditor and in District 6 races there are only single opponents. Luckily Timothy O’Brien in the auditor’s race and Paul Kashmann in District 6 are wonderful candidates who need no introduction to many voters. O’Brien, in fact, is a C.P.A. who is qualified and experienced in auditing, having served as the Colorado State Auditor. He is a resident of southeast Denver, and he and his wife are proud parents of three daughters. He is also truly independent and not beholden to anyone. While an argument can be made for endorsing an Anna Jones for City Council, no one with a straight face can claim that the morally repugnant Chris Nevitt deserves to be elected over the qualified, decent and honorable Timothy O’Brien. But this is politics in Denver and the normal rules of minimum decency simply do not apply.
Halisi Vinson
Kashmann is the longtime publisher of the Washington Park Profile who just recently sold his interest in that well-respected and beloved publication. A gentle and convivial soul, he prides himself in seeing an issue from many different sides. He even has a Colorado State Senate Commendation for 20 years of community service. He is not a believer in the political Golden Rule, but rather the original one of treating people as he would like to be treated himself. Kashmann would actually listen to citizens who would come before the City Council to make their case. Any municipal council, but in particular the Denver City Council, would benefit from having a Paul Kashmann.
In the other two races there are a myriad of candidates. In Council District 10 the person who has the greatest prospect of beating the money boys behind the mayor is Wayne New, the past long-term president of the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association, who has been fighting the good fight for decades. For our tastes we would prefer if New would have battled the greediest of the developers in Cherry Creek North even more fiercely, but that is not his personality. He wants to make things work for all involved.
Wayne New apparently has the money boys a little worried as they sent out the dirty tricks guys to gin up a phony ethics violation by the contemptible Colorado Ethics Watch. A neophyte at campaign financing, he forgot to add to some of his campaign literature the standard “Paid for by Wayne New for City Council” in microscopic print. Oh, No! The crooks behind the mayor are really, truly desperate to defeat Wayne New which in our book is all the more reason to vote for him.
Finally in District 4 the person putting up the best fight is Halisi Vinson who has the backing of major park advocates as well as Wellington Webb. Webb, like many Denverites, is desperate to have at least one park advocate on the City Council. When he wrote to the Friends of Denver Parks, “First they took our park and now they want to buy a council seat,” he was directly referring to Mayor Michael Hancock and his despicable developer friends. Webb’s daughter Stephanie O’Malley is Hancock’s Manager of Safety and his support for Vinson could cost his daughter that highly coveted job. We at the Chronicle agree with former Mayor Webb in this instance, that the only honorable thing to do is to stand with Ms. Vinson.
We ask you to consider the candidates in your District and vote for the ones who might actually make a difference at the City and County Building. In our mind the choices are clear.
— Editorial Board
by Mark Smiley | Feb 27, 2015 | Editorials
February 6, 2015
Dear Friends,
First they took our park, now they want to buy a council seat.
I joined the Friends of Denver Parks with an undying belief that no matter whom the foe that we as “citizens” — the most important title an American can hold — gives us the right to stand up against the rich and powerful. During my entire 12 years as mayor, I always looked for ways to maintain and acquire new park space. The parks we have are a contract we take out between us and the citizenry, and the legacy we leave for future generations.
I joined your effort publicly and financially because it is my belief that what happens in one part of the city will then be repeated in another part of the city. My message is a resounding: “Leave our park land alone.” Do your business deals on non-parkland. If they get away with this, the rich and powerful will try to take other parks and buy our council seats.
I believe this is already happening in Council District 4. The reason I so strongly support candidate Halisi Vinson for the Council District 4 seat is that the group who took the park are now supporting one of her opponents, a nice woman whose main interests really has been school issues.
What residents of District 4 need to be aware of is that Halisi’s opponent is taking thousands of dollars for her campaign from the people who took the park. They even rejected your signatures calling for a public vote on taking the park land, which has been officially called a park since 1955.
First they take your park, now they think they can buy your council seat.
Halisi Vinson supports District 4 residents and the city’s parks. I urge you and your friends to support Vinson because she is the candidate whose only interest is District 4.
I am engaged is this race because I don’t like any business deal that takes our parks. I will never forget in 1991 you stood up against big money to support a man in tennis shoes for your mayor.
Let’s do it again, and donate today. Remember they first took our park now they want to buy a council seat.
To learn more about Halisi and how you can help her campaign visit: http://halisivinson.com/
Or contact her at: halisi@halisivinson.com
303-550-1247 (cell)
Donate Today
Wellington E. Webb
by Mark Smiley | Feb 2, 2015 | Editorials
That Is Always The Question For A Newspaper
The international dispute on whether to publish one or more of the Charlie Hebdo cartoons that lampoon Islam is a question that faces publications from the “newspaper of record” The New York Times down to local papers such as the Glendale Cherry Creek Chronicle. We at the Chronicle are fiercely proud of being a local paper covering local news in the Cherry Creek Valley. We, as a matter of general editorial policy, do not cover state, national or international events except where the event directly affects the Cherry Creek Valley.
But the Charlie Hebdo cartoons and their censorship does directly affect us in the Cherry Creek Valley. Charlie Hebdo is a French publication out of Paris, that until the controversy and butchering of 12 people in the offices of that publication by two French jihadists, had a circulation that was significantly smaller than the Chronicle. As an editorial board we are saddened by the decision of The New York Times and certain other national publications not to publish the cartoons. The reason given by the Times executive editor Dean Baquet was, “Out of respect to our readers we have avoided those we felt were offensive.”
The rationale rings hollow. The Times relishes printing materials offensive to some of its Jewish and Christian readers including artwork from a Holocaust-denying Iranian cartoonist Maziar Bijani, and Andres Serrano whose most famous work of “art” is titled “Piss Christ.” When a University of Southern California journalism professor challenged Baquet calling his decision “absolute cowardice,” Baquet went on Facebook to call the professor an “A**hole.” It is said that if you’re taking flak, you’re over the target.
The New York Times is not just any paper. Most of the members of this editorial board grew up venerating that publication. The failure to publish the cartoons reveals far deeper problems at that institution. It was reported that one of the killers in Paris stated to a woman, “I’m not going to kill you because you’re a woman, we don’t kill women, but you must convert to Islam, read the Quran and cover yourself” before shouting “Allah Akbar.” The Times bizarrely changed the quote to “Don’t be afraid, calm down, I won’t kill you. You are a woman. But think about what you are doing. It’s not right.”
Why would the publication falsely change a quote except that the editor understands that the Times fears offending the sensibilities of some of its Muslim readers that it will falsify quotes. What a fall from grace by what was once America’s most respected and courageous newspaper.
We print here five Charlie Hebdo cartoon covers including the edition printed after the massacre, at right, which has sold over a million copies. What is surprising is how relatively bland the cartoons are. France does not have a particularly strong tradition of free speech, notwithstanding the parade of the notables in Paris and the holding up of pens and pencils. In 1990 under the Gayssot Act, it became illegal to question crimes against humanity under the London Charter of 1945 which would cover the Holocaust but potentially much more.
French laws also make any communication deemed hate or discriminatory speech criminal which are so broadly defined that it conceivably covers virtually any type of statement that a governmental official may deem offensive. Under this very broad law septuagenarian actress Bridget Bardot was convicted of hate speech in 2008 and fined $11,920 for alluding to Muslims as leading “us around by the nose, which destroys our country.”
Following the Charlie Hebdo massacre French comedian Dieudonné was arrested for simply saying on a Facebook entry, “Tonight, as far as I’m concerned, I feel like Charlie Coulibaly” mixing the last name of the killer who held hostages at a Jewish deli and the first name of the magazine. In France, as is the case of The New York Times, what is highly offensive is very much subjective.
We do not think it is of any great act of courage for us to print the Charlie Hebdo cartoons although, as noted above, the French magazine had a circulation significantly less than this publication at the time of the massacre. When we printed a story on “How Powerful Is Islam in the Valley — Could Rioting and Bombing in Europe Come Here Some Day (Local Islamic Center Asserts It Is The Victim of Discrimination)” on the front page of the December 2005 issue of the Chronicle, we certainly received our share of irate calls that suggested acts of violence against the paper. But that goes with the territory.
The Editorial Board has to consider whether to print or not to print what may be considered controversial stories virtually every edition. We view as part of our job to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. We have printed stories that have offended, among others, the mayor of Denver, the Denver D.A ., the executive director of the Denver Department of Planning and Development, well connected real estate developers in the Cherry Creek Valley, powerful union officials, and certain powers that be in Glendale.
As a result we have lost our fair share of advertising along with access to various public officials. But what is the point of publishing a newspaper if it is not to print the truth, at least as we see it? We understand we do not have a monopoly on the truth as readers are happy to point out in the letters and emails to the paper. Occasionally a reader will write that this paper is certainly “not” The New York Times. Sadly that statement is no longer the insult that it once was intended to be.
— Editorial Board
by Mark Smiley | Dec 22, 2014 | Editorials
— A Modest Proposal
There has probably never been a time as difficult as the present to be a Denver municipal peace officer whether in the police or sheriff’s departments. Everyone is more than happy to tell you exactly why you suck and there does not appear to be anyone who seeks to back you up from the President of the United States, the U.S. attorney general, the mayor of Denver and even the police chief of Denver. Across the country protesters are screaming “What do we want — Dead Cops. When do we want it — Now.”
In Denver they almost got what they wanted during the Ferguson protests outside East High School. A driver, who was cheering the students on, ran into four police officers on bicycles, dragging Officer John Adsit under his car, almost killing him. A police union official indicated that the protesters cheered and chanted “hit him again.” So deep is the suspicion of Mayor Michael Hancock and Police Chief Robert White that when they declared the incident to be an accident caused by the driver’s medical condition, many people simply assumed that they were lying. Believe it or not there was a time when most of the Denver public assumed the opposite — that most police officers told the truth most of the time. Now police officers in Denver will be required to wear body cameras because the public does not believe much of what they are told by the Denver Police Department.
The police have traditionally counted on support from older citizens. The Greatest Generation had a high level of respect for law enforcement. But that generation is quickly disappearing and is replaced by Baby Boomers, some of whom grew up calling police officers “pigs.” President Obama has demonstrated that he does not support police whether in Cambridge, New York City or Ferguson. Attorney General Holder clearly views many police departments as “racist” even if in places like New York City where the police force demographics mirror the racial composition of the city.
In Denver the sorry spectacle at the Denver City Jail has not helped with embarrassing videos coming out seemingly daily. Denver citizens do not regularly distinguish between Denver police officers and Denver deputy sheriffs and perhaps there is no reason why they should. Denver law enforcement is Denver law enforcement. The six millio
n dollar verdict handed out in the Marvin Booker wrongful death case in United States District Court in October certainly indicates that the city is in a great deal of trouble if a case of excessive force by a Denver law enforcement officer reaches a Denver jury.
Mayor Hancock is definitely not a fan of the rank and file of the Denver Police Department. He has worked hard to be sure that the firing of Denver cops, which are almost all rank and file and never the brass, is made easier and more expeditious. When he went to look for a new police chief it was clear he was not going to promote from within the Denver Police Department. Chief Robert White has taken a number of meritorious actions in shoring up the department including making sure that more officers are walking a beat and not sitting behind a desk.
But White has no history with the Denver police force and he owes his job and allegiance to Michael Hancock, even to the point of lying straight into television cameras in declaring that the sole purpose of photo radar cameras was public safety while refusing the demands of the City Auditor and others to conduct any studies to back up his claims. While Hancock may not be a fan of rank and file police officers he does strongly support photo radar cameras and apparently is adamant that no studies occur lest they threaten a growing revenue bonanza.
So where do law enforcement officers in Denver go to get support? It is not the police union which was long ago discredited by its actions in supporting police officers no matter how heinous the purported misconduct.
No it is going to have to be from average everyday citizens whom the officers are sworn to serve and protect. Earning that support, which has been by and large lost, will not be easy. The bigwigs in Denver have cast the average police officer into the wind. The only port in this storm for everyday Denver cops is the common man and woman. An alliance of everyday people and the rank and file police could be in its own way revolutionary. No longer would there be one set of rules for the elite and another for the rest of us. No more John TV while the mayor has been and maybe still is an important patron of prostitutes. No more special license plates for politicians which evade the ever present Denver photo radar cameras while citizens literally pay millions in fines every year. A citizens’ police force and not the politicians’ police force. It’s worth giving it a try. Ultimately it will take changes to the Denver City Charter to get the police out from the politicians’ grasp, but it can be done and should be done.
— Editorial Board
