Wednesday Open Thread

“You can’t break what’s broken already.”

–LeAnn Rimes


33 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. davebarnesdavebarnes says:

    Received ballot yesterday.
    Voted for Handcock.
    Never saw any advertising for either candidate.
    Voted for Jamie in the first round, but what I read here convinced me to vote for the better of two not-so-great people.
    ColoradoPols was my only source of info post first round.

    • DavieDavie says:

      I got one flyer from each for the runoff.  I'm an optimist, so think Jamie will follow through on her agenda with the "team of rivals" collaborating together. 

      I already know what to expect from Hancock, and I'm not willing to settle for that.

      Dropping off our ballots today 🙂

      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        I got an e-mail today from Chris Romer endorsing the non- voting lady for mayor.

        I might have been more impressed if he hadn't spelled her name as "Gillis."

         MJ, maybe you should offer your proofreading services to the mayoral candidates.  It's clear that Gardner doesn't want them.

    • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

      To me, it’s six of one, half-dozen of the other. They're both pretty crummy. I've never undervoted a mayoral race, but this time around I'm sorely tempted. Someone convince me otherwise.


      • MADCO says:

        It's your civic duty… obligation to cast your preferance no matter how dumb or disinterested you are. It says so in the Declaration of Independence or something.

        • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

          I'm neither dumb nor disinterested,(thanks for the compliment cheeky). I'm just thoroughly unimpressed by either of them.

          • harrydobyharrydoby says:

            I have a (literally) concrete example that separates Giellis from Hancock.  Hancock, with help from CRL Associates and Brownstein Hyatt (the Man behind the Man), has been trying to steamroll a huge development project on Park Hill Golf Course open space land in spite of strong neighborhood resistance for the last 3 years.  Two lawsuits filed by the operator are the only thing standing in his way (that and getting re-elected).

            This issue came up in both The Denver Post and 9News mayoral debates.  If Giellis wins, if and when  this land becomes available, will turn the 155 acres into a park about the same size as Wash Park (Calderon and Tate agree).  Hancock, if re-elected, will proceed with the destruction of this open space in the heart of Park Hill.

            Elections have consequences.

            • notaskinnycooknotaskinnycook says:

              Thanks,harrydoby. That helps. I'm still not thrilled by her, but the last thing we need is more concrete in the city.

              • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                Well, a lot of people complain about a shortage of affordable housing in the city.  They then join NIMBY groups to oppose construction of affordable housing!

                Unless the law of supply and demand was repealed while I was at lunch, it's Hancock's approach that will bring more affordable housing.

                • harrydobyharrydoby says:

                  Well, the problem with Hancock is that his out of state developer supporters want to take virgin soil and build on it, ignoring the surrounding vacant and underutilized industrial properties that would benefit the neighborhood by being developed for mixed-use commercial, retail and housing.

                  The Hancock Administration has made it easy for developers to ignore affordable housing, the loopholes are big enough to drive a Mack truck through.  Giellis, Tate and Calderon all have proposed making the rules stricter and increasing the development fees to actually help build more affordable housing.  An unleashed Hancock (no pressure for another re-election) won't have much incentive to cross his developer buddies.

                  FYI — we already have shelters and affordable apartments within walking distance of my home. I have no problem with more being built — just leave the trees and grass for the current and future families, how about?

                  • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                    Stricter rules and higher development fees will produce less housing, not more.  And that drives up rents.  Setting aside a few bucks to subsidize low-income housing can't offset the costs of NIMBYidm, Harry.  I used to own a home at 16th and Albion.  The Park Hill golf course is close to city park .  Just how much open space does one neighborhood need?

                    Supply and demand is the most basic law of economics.  Restrict the supply of housing and you raise the price of housing.

                    If that's what you want, vote for the non-voting lady.  Just recognize that her policies will worsen the shortage of affordable housing.


                    • harrydobyharrydoby says:

                      The fact remains Hancock is the one whose mismanagment and neglect has allow hundreds of deed-restricted homes to leave the pool of affordable homes.  His mismanagement and neglect allowed over a thousand acres of city land to be at risk of loss, only now belatedly being declared as protected park land.

                      His policies have allowed the shortage of affordable housing to fester and grow.  As the market becomes saturated with high-end apartments, economics will likely finally force a market correction, and developers may abandon him.  Hancock's policies have exacerbated the affordable housing crunch, not helped them.

                      As for how much open space we need in the city limits?  A lot!  According to Denver's own Game Plan for a Healthy City, we are tens of thousands of acres below the city's needs for parks and green space.

                      From yesterday's Denver Post:

                      Denver slipped to 29th place in a new national ranking of cities’ park access and quality

                      Denver fell from 26th place last year and 14th place in 2014. Neighboring Aurora now outperforms Denver

                      Giellis committed to add 2,816 acres and criticized the approach under Mayor Hancock, who has served two terms coinciding with rapid development and a booming population. Growth without adding significant new parks — diverging from Denver’s tradition as “a city within a park” — has led to a park space decline to 8.9 acres per 1,000 residents, below the national median of 13 acres and projected to fall to 7.3 acres by 2040.

                      As you know, Park Hill Golf Course is north of 35th Ave, in what the city acknowledges is a park desert.

                    • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                      If unlimited open space is the only goal, I could just move back to my farm in Phillips County.  God knows, it has open space, aka Nebraska!

                      But we need not prolong the argument.  The NIMBYites have found their champion in the non-voting lady and firmly believe that all our troubles will go away if not one more house is erected by those evil developers west of the Kansas border.

                      The fact is the laws of economics always win over the passions of men.  Restrict the supply of anything — housing or celery — and its price will rise.  Check with MJ on the celery side of the equation.

                      Yes, NIMBYs will then respond with rent control.  Check New York City for its success rate.  Likewise attempts to lower housing prices by fiat fail, each and every time.

                      Supply and demand always defeats political blatherskitery, if only because it is easier to spell☺

                      You're a good man, Harry.  But I'm voting for a guy who at least understands basic economics, not the lady who thinks good intentions trump bad policy.


                    • harrydobyharrydoby says:

                      I think we've both said our piece and cast our votes.  Maybe someone passing by changed their vote as a result. 

                      I hope whichever one wins the election will leave Denver a better place than they found it.

                      I've always respected you and your achievements as well.  On this Memorial Day weekend let me say, thank you for your service.


      • VoyageurVoyageur says:

        You could always write in Jill Stein, just to set off R&Rsmiley

        • RepealAndReplace says:

          Well, since you mentioned it……

          • kwtreemamajama55 says:

            Jill is his obsession, not mine. He can write her in. Do you have a dart board poster of her, R&R?

            • VoyageurVoyageur says:

              Well, if she's not your obsession, why did you come roaring i n at a mere mention of her that made no reference to you?smiley

              Sounds pretty obsessive to me.

              • kwtreemamajama55 says:

                Pardon -in the nest of reply boxes, I see that you were responding to cook's post, not mine. It does serve as a reminder for why I should never respond to your trolling.

                • RepealAndReplace says:

                  Well, I did not bring her name up, but since someone else it, I figured it was fair game.

                  You should have noticed that I complain less about Stein now than I used to. That is because in reading "Shattered" by Jonathan Allen and Aime Parnes, I see that many of Bernie's supporters did much more damage to Hillary 's chances in MI, PA and WI than Jill Stein. In fact, it was so bad that there were some Bernie Bros who wouldn't even listen to Bernie as he made his half-hearted endorsement of Clinton.

                  Early in the race when Bernie was drawing policy differences between himself and Clinton, he was running a clean fight. But after he lost OH, IL, and MO, he started making it personal about Clinton which only served to drive up her negatives.

                  I imagine that after he loses to Biden next year, Bernie will engage in another scorched earth approach. But if Biden has Warren as his running mate, it may not get as far.

                • VoyageurVoyageur says:

                  I knew you would respond.  Your rule is that if a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, it's still all about MJ.wink

  2. DavieDavie says:

    *rump may want to consider moving his NYC headquarters to the Caymans…

    Albany Closes a Loophole for Trump Pardons. Next Up: His Taxes.

    The New York State Assembly passed a bill on Tuesday that would allow state prosecutors to pursue charges against any individual granted a presidential pardon for similar federal crimes, closing a loophole that lawmakers said could be exploited by President Trump in a bid to indemnify former associates.

    The bill, which has already passed the State Senate and has the support of Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, would exempt the state’s so-called double jeopardy law from cases involving presidential pardons, something supporters say is necessary to stave off a possible abuse of Mr. Trump’s pardon power.

    On Wednesday, the Legislature — controlled by Democrats — is expected to pass a separate bill that would allow three congressional committees to seek Mr. Trump’s state tax returns; that bill also has the support of Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat in his third term.

  3. UglyAmericanUglyAmerican says:

    I'm voting against Jamie. I saw her in a relatively small group setting, and in my opinion she is a lightweight that would get rolled by the various players in the city and the city bureaucracy. She gave a substance free talk (admittedly not much different in lack of vision from Hancock) and couldn't answer questions substantively and coherently. Two poor choices for mayor in this runoff.  

  4. VoyageurVoyageur says:

    I'd be happy to see our first woman mayor.  But so far, that's the only reason to vote for the non voting lady and it's just not enough.

  5. DavieDavie says:

    While the option of starting an impeachment inquiry should never be dismissed, it might be better to just do things the old fashioned way.  *rump's track record of losing in court continues…

    Judge rejects Trump’s request to halt congressional subpoenas for his banking records

    By Washington Post Staff

    May 22 at 4:03 PM

    A federal judge on Wednesday said Deutsche Bank and Capital One may hand over the president’s financial records to Democrats in the House.
    This is a developing story. It will be updated.

    • Duke CoxDuke Cox says:

      The Whitest House seems about to turn into a dramatically more stressful and chaotic place. All the stuff Trumps' troops have tried to hide is about to go public. 

      I think he really, really, really wants to start a war for Bebe and MBS. That will get that terrible woman off his back. Didn't you hear him, dammit? He doesn't DO coverups!


Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account

You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.