(From Nextdoor - City Park West)
Hello everyone. I have been in touch with Albus Brooks, our town councilman. We are planning to discuss the problems with drug dealers, gangs, and other problems that are not being addressed by the Property Managers of the Low Income Housing, Section 8, etc.
While the vast majority of those residents are good people and need this assistance, we are trying to get the owners/property managers to do a better job with regard to the bad tenants that are making our neighborhood littered and unsafe. We see a LOT of drug use in the alley that connects 2 of these Low Income Apartment Bldgs.,
If anyone out there is having problems with tenants in the Section 8/ Low Income Housing, please contact me. We have had quite a bit of trouble with violent drug dealers in the apartments on E 17th Ave. (while shooting at rival gang members driving by on 17th Ave, on a Friday evening, 4 bullets went into our building, 2 went thru the front door of our neighbors and were lodged in their wall). We worked closely with the police and were able to get them evicted last April. We also just helped the Property Manager get rid of another tenant that is part of this same gang.
Lets work together to keep City Park West safe and beautiful.
Saturday, December 20, 2014
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Tuesday, December 16, 2014
During Council remarks on the extension, I heard a lot of talk about promoting public safety. I never heard any talk about proving that these two programs actually improve public safety.
In 2011, we conducted an audit of the Photo Radar and Photo Red Light Program. The audit found that the Denver Police Department had not shown the public safety impact of either program.
It is critically important that both programs be supported with solid Denver-based data, so we do not maintain public policy on the basis of wishes and hope and anecdotal evidence that may not accurately represent Denver driver behavior. To that end, we recommended that it was important to conduct objective analysis and study of both programs to determine their actual impact on improving public safety.
Among the recommendations we made in our original audit, three dealt with study or analysis of the safety impact of the Photo Radar Program and three dealt with study or analysis of the safety impact of the Photo Red Light Program.
Our follow-up work through 2014 indicates that those studies have never taken place. The Denver Police Department still cannot demonstrate that either program has had a tangible impact on improving public safety.
If they are not having a tangible impact on improving public safety then perhaps other options for that improvement need to be investigated and implemented that might be better at improving public safety.
We also noted that these two programs are generating over $7 Million combined annually. Because these programs were sold as public safety enhancements but are widely viewed as a ‘cash grab’ by the public, it undermines public trust to maintain photo enforcement programs that are profitable but whose safety impact has not been conclusively shown.
We are all concerned with reducing accidents; protecting the safety of our children in around our public streets; and ensuring that pedestrians are not at risk when they step off the curb and into the street. However we need to ensure that any program we undertake, does indeed do that. As I have said, without verifiable and objective data we cannot confirm these programs do that.
It is interesting to note that it is very likely that the Police Department will want to expand each program. Among our recommendations we stated that the Manager of Safety should not expand either the photo radar of photo stoplight programs until the program’s safety benefits are adequately demonstrated through objective analysis. The department agreed with the recommendations but did not do either study. They stated that they would not expand either program.
at 3:59 PM
Testimony of Bridget Walsh, to City Council , December 15 in re Denver Zoological Foundation Permit Application
(Did you know that the Zoo is planning on burning animal waste to produce energy, on site?)
I am Bridget Walsh, a member of CPFAN.
I would like to read excerpt from experts about the risks of the gasiﬁcation process: From Wikipedia on the subject of biomass gasification:
Environmental advocates have called gasiﬁcation "incineration in disguise" and argue that the technology is still dangerous to air quality and public health. "Since 2003 numerous proposals for waste treatment facilities hoping to use... gasiﬁcation technologies failed to receive ﬁnal approval to operate when the claims of project proponents did not withstand public and governmental scrutiny of key claims," according to the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives. One facility which operated from 2009-2011 in Ottawa had 29 "emissions incidents" and 13 "spills" over those three years. It was also only able to operate roughly 25% of the time.
The second is from a European Commission Report , 2009:
Guideline for Safe and Eco-friendly Biomass Gasification
The technology of biomass gasiﬁcation differs from other energy conversion technologies based on renewable energy sources because it inherently involves the production, treatment and utilization of ﬂammable and toxic gas mixtures, plant media and utilities. Therefore, an adequate risk assessment is strongly recommended and is often a legal requirement for placing the plant into the market and running it. A risk assessment is aimed at protecting the workers and the plant itself.
Manufacturers/operators have to keep in mind that accidents and ill health can ruin lives and can affect the business too if output is lost, machinery is damaged, insurance costs increase or there is the possibility of prosecution [Ref 16].A risk assessment consists of a careful examination of what could cause harm to the people and environment in the plant, and the adoption of reasonable control measures. The manufacturers/operators have to produce a complete and well documented assessment of the risk relative to:
• Human and animal health hazards such as dangers from toxic gases
• Safety issues such as explosion hazards and ﬁre hazards, and
• Environment hazards from plant emissions and loss of containment ! relating to toxic substances.
Well, Denver voters may never have the opportunity to judge the risk assessment plan at the Zoo’s industrial waste plant, because much like highly proﬁtable oil and gas companies who refuse to give First Responders information about the trade secret contents of the fracking solutions that they inject into the earth , the Zoo has wrapped up much of the data needed for robust citizen and government agency review of their proposals as trade secrets or “Conﬁdential Business Information.”
I suggest that citizen health and safety is much more important than the future proﬁts of the Denver Zoological Foundation, who along with DPR run the Zoo with an iron hand that is symbolized by the ugly, Gulag-style Gate 15, the back door to the Zoo, but an ugly, deep wound on historic City Park.
I implore you to put this project on hold until there is a legitimate Citizens Advisory Committee set up to evaluate for the ﬁrst time the Zoos gasiﬁcation proposal in the light of day. The risks seem very serious and potentially deadly for park users and neighborhood residents. Thank you.
at 8:15 AM
Monday, December 15, 2014
The Denver City Charter identifies the branch of government responsible for the city’s land use as City Council. In 2010 you assigned that responsibility to the Manager of Parks and Recreation. Several controversies have arisen over that policy.
at 2:02 PM
Cynthia works full time, goes to college, and is a single mother of two children. Yet she is well-known for making time to always be helping others.
at 7:42 AM
Thursday, December 11, 2014
at 1:51 PM