The Little Lady Who Won't Shut Up

Videotaping around Denver as I do, I often have the good fortune of meeting and getting to know individuals who are inspirational in their efforts to inform us and who are far more knowledgeable than our current City Council members. One such shining example is Cathy Donohue, the little lady who won't shut up. Maybe that's because she knows what she is talking about.

Note to City Council: Better pay attention here or you'll be inviting a whole lot of trouble later.


From former Denver City Councilwoman and indefatigable protector of our parks, Cathy Donohue:

December 9, 2009

Mr. David Fine, City Attorney
Mr. David Broadwell, Assistant City Attorney
Third Floor
City and County Building
Denver, Colorado 80218

Gentlemen:

Since the current city Charter has been in effect there has never been a re-zoning of land in the City and County of Denver that did not require a separate ordinance and a separate vote of the Council to change the zoning classification of a parcel of Denver land.

In order to clarify this statement, the Charter sections that govern these legal actions are as follows:

Section 3.2.9 (D) Method of procedure. The Council shall provide for the manner in which such regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of such districts shall be determined, established and enforced, and from time to time amended, supplemented or changed. However, no such regulation, restriction or boundary shall become effective until after a public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. At least fifteen days notice of the time and place of such hearing shall be published in an official publication of the City and County of Denver.

Section 3.2.9 (E) Changes. Such regulations, restrictions and boundaries may from time to time be amended, supplemented, changed, modified or repealed. In case, however, of a protest against such change, signed by the owners of twenty per cent or more, either of the area of the lot included in such proposed change or of the area to a distance of two hundred feet from the perimeter of the area proposed for change, such amendment shall not become effective except by the favorable vote of ten of the members of the Council of the City and County of Denver. The provisions of the previous Section relative to public hearings and official notice shall apply to all changes or amendments.

Additionally, in Section 3.3.5 Ordinances and Resolutions. The follow Charter provisions are required:
Section 3.3.5 Ordinances and Resolutions.

(A) When required. The Council shall act only by ordinance in matters of legislation or appropriations, or when action by ordinance is otherwise required by this charter, by ordinance, or by general law; and may act by ordinance or resolution in other matters.

(B) Single subject. All ordinances or resolutions, except ordinances making appropriations, shall be confined to one subject, which shall be embraced in any ordinance which shall not be expressed in the title. If any subject shall be embraced in any ordinance which shall not be expressed in the title, such ordinance shall be void only as to so much thereof as shall not be so expressed. Ordinances making appropriations shall be confined to the subject of appropriations.

Given that this Charter language has not been amended or changed by a vote of the people, the following questions need to be answered in regard to Charter regulations.

1. Will each parcel of park land and private land that is going to be rezoned have it own public hearing and notification?

2. In case of a legal protest of property owners adjacent to any public park, will a super-majority of Council be required to change current park zoning to the new OS zone?

3. Will the property owners be receiving the Charter mandated hearings and separate votes of Council for all zone map changes?

The most troubling and shocking aspect of the City Administration's complete disregard of the Charter regarding the zoning of all land in the City is that no one in the City Attorney's office has taken the duties of the legal work of the City to be a matter of supreme importance. For an entire body of work (the New Zoning Code) to be labored upon by hundreds of people, both elected officials and private citizens, without proper advice by a City Attorney is unbelievable. The emperor truly has no clothes.

I listened to hours of pleas by private citizens about the faults of the code as written. I have attended workshops, both in my neighborhood and with 40 neighborhood groups throughout the city. Never has any person in any official capacity informed the citizens of the Charter requirements that currently exist.

How can we have come this far with such a glaring vacuum in the educational process?

I await your answers to the questions I have posed. Surely, if they are not clarified and answered, many citizens could wish to avail themselves of the rights that have been given to them in our Charter by demanding public hearings and separate votes on each zone change in the new code.

Yours truly,


Cathy Donohue
Former City Councilmember

Hentzell Park: City's rejection of petition spurs new challenge

 By Alan Prendergast
Published in the WestWord Blog , Mon,Jul. 8 2013 at 11:06 AMP

They started out questioning the ability of Denver city officials to trade a formerly designated natural area for an office building. But opponents of the Hentzell Park land swap now have another bone to pick with Denver Clerk and Recorder Debra Johnson, claiming that her rejection of their efforts to put the issue on the ballot amounts to playing high-stakes poker with a stacked deck. The dispute, they say, raises a basic constitutional issue: What happens to the right to petition the government for redress if you need the government's permission to do so?
 As we've previously reported, Mayor Michael Hancock wants to turn over 11.5 acres of city-owned open space adjoining Paul A. Hentzell Park in southeast Denver to the Denver Public Schools. DPS wants to build an elementary school there to take the pressure off overcrowded schools in the area. In return, the city would take over a DPS building at 13th and Fox and convert it to a "family justice center," housing various agencies that provide services to domestic violence victims.
Overruling the recommendation of her own advisory board, Denver Parks and Recreation manager Lauri Dannemiller agreed to formally remove the "natural area" designation for the site, which Hancock has described as "blighted" and overrun with prairie dogs; about two acres of the site is currently a parking lot. The Denver City Council approved the deal in April.

Read more »

Parks are for people, not profit (continued)

from Tom Morris:

Mayor Hickenlooper wants to rent out our parks. Those who oppose this plan contend that renting out our parks is a violation of the City Charter. The Charters says that the city may not sell, lease or rent any park or portion of a park without a vote of the people.

The mayor has no doubt told his city attorney to find a way to ignore this section of the Charter. They do it with words. They’ve changed the name of what is illegal and, because they’ve come up with these new words, the Hickenlooper administration proceeds undeterred.

In point of fact the Charter doesn’t ban renting our parks. It doesn’t, however, leave the decision up to the mayor. It says that you can rent our parks if the people of Denver approve it.

John Hickenlooper doesn’t trust his constituents. And, as in all relationships, I urge his constituents to assume the reflective position and not trust the mayor.

There is no reason to believe that renting out our parks is a harmless action. His first subdivision of a park will be City Park, if the mayor gets his way. He will rent out the large meadow west of the Museum of Nature for movies. Once established, this policy will extend to all city parks.

The large meadow is recognized by television networks, postcard producers, tour guides and the city itself as an iconic view of Denver. The city has protected the view with a view plane ordinance which prevents thoughtless greedy developers like John Hickenlooper and other pirates of real estate from blocking the view.

During the replanning of City Park, historic preservationists suggested recreating two paths which once extended from the rose garden to the big lake through the big meadow. The stake holders involved in the planning process objected, pointing out that the meadow is the largest expanse of green grass with a classic view anywhere in the city. The plan preserves this meadow as a part of the iconic view.

But John Hickenlooper is going to allow a movie company to construct a bank of bleachers, a 30 foot tall movie screen, probably an advertising fence to keep out non-payers and banks of portable toilets and trash dumpsters in the big meadow for almost two months at the height of the tourist season for every summer for years to come.

It is for this reason that I urge all Denver voters to support Hickenlooper's bid to quit his job and vote for him as governor.

Reply from Councilwoman Madison:

Hi Tom,

I understand that you are clearly against Open Air and any other admission based events. You have worked for decades preserving the green space of City Park for passive purposes (and some active uses, like City Park Jazz) and so I in no way expect you to see things differently but I do want to address a couple of things.

Below is the language from the charter:

§ 2.4.5 Sale and leasing of parks.

Without the approval of a majority of those registered electors voting in an election held by the City and County of Denver, no park or portion of any park belonging to the City as of December 31, 1955, shall be sold or leased at any time, and no land acquired by the City after December 31, 1955, that is designated a park by ordinance shall be sold or leased at any time, provided, however, that property in parks may be leased for park purposes to concessionaires, to charitable or nonprofit organizations, or to governmental jurisdictions. All such leases shall require the approval of Council as provided for in Article III of this Charter. No land acquired by the City after December 31, 1955, shall be deemed a park unless specifically designated a park by ordinance.

The underlined part was added by the voters in 1996 and completely eliminated the original charter prohibition on parks leasing, allowed leasing of park lands with voter approval in some situations, and allowed leasing of park lands with City Council approval in other situations. The charter empowers the City Council to approve or disapprove any “leasing” of city-owed real property, park land or otherwise, in excess of 30 days.

Also, Open Air will not be occupying the open meadow in front of the DMNS. They will be located off to the south, out of the view plane. Still visible, certainly, but not blocking the view. This is a contract for 2 years and the liquor license will have a new hearing every year. The neighbors will, through this mechanism, always have a say so in whether this event happens and/or continues as well as the contract will have to go up before council again if it is to continue beyond 2012.

Thank you,

Carla

Carla Madison 

City Councilwoman District 8

303-587-6543 cell

303-298-7641 office

2713 Welton Street, 80205

Urgent Message from Cathy Donohue

To: All interested Citizens
Re: Change in use of City Parks

On Tuesday, January 19, 2010, at 5:30 P.M. in City Council Chambers, Room 451, City and County Building, a Public Hearing will be held by Council to hear comments from the public regarding a contract Council wishes to approve allowing a private, for-profit corporation to rent a major part of Civic Center Park for one year and a part of City Park for the two following years.

Civic Center Park, City Park and 10 other city parks have been placed on the City's new "Festival Parks" list. These parks will be used for admission based events.

The Council will vote on this contract which allows US Open Air Cinema to fence off parts of these parks in order to show films for 30 days, with set up and removal of equipment for an additional 20 days.

Read more »

Denver Parks and Recreation Department Running Wild

Mock-up of US OpenAir proposed 30-day cinema at Civic Center Park

It's hard to say what's really going on at Denver Parks and Recreation (DPR) these days. So many proposals are on the table that keeping track of them all is a full time job. For example, the proposed Admission Based Events policy is still under consideration and has not been approved by City Council, and yet DPR is going full steam ahead with a contract to allow US OpenAir to show movies at Civic Center Park this summer, and to expand to City Park in 2011. No mention is made of this at the DPR website, so you have to subscribe to their newsletter to keep up.

From the newsletter of 12/31/09

Open Air Cinema Coming to Denver in 2010
Part of the Biennial of the Americas


US OpenAir is a spectacular cinema and lifestyle experience, a seductive combination of:

· fine food and wine
· panoramic views
· cutting edge cinema technology
· a season of great film

Thanks to Dave Felice for keeping up with this open letter to City Council:

Members of the Denver City Council:

The ordinance on a contract for park movies must be rejected because
it seeks your approval of unlawful acts proposed by the administration
of Mayor Hickenlooper.

Both the Charter and Zoning Code prohibit placing and operating movies
in city parks.

The contract was negotiated in secret, without any perceivable public
involvement, and the contractor was not competitively selected. The
proposal violates both the spirit and intent of polices proposed by
Hickenlooper’s Denver Parks and Recreation Department on civic
engagement and admissions based events. Hickenlooper’s City
Attorney’s office has continually tried to deceive both council and
the public into thinking park movies are acceptable.

CHARTER
In attempting to approve a LEASE of two public parks, it must be noted
that Charter permits leases only for “park purposes” and only three
types of lessees. It is NOT a park purpose to place and operate
movies in parks, restricting public access for an extended period and
requiring a fee for entrance.

Despite the City Attorney protestations to the contrary, US OpenAir,
whose very base of operation is dubious, is not a charitable or
nonprofit organization, government jurisdiction, or “concessionaire”.
(Charter 2.4.5; McLauthlin v. Denver, 280, P.2d 1103, 1106, 1955)

ZONING
Under current Zoning, the Code prohibits outdoor movies in districts
where the parks are located (B-8-G and R-1). Even if outdoor movies
are considered “special events” under temporary permit provisions of
the Zoning Code, the provisions would apply only to Civic Center Park,
not City Park. However, such a “special event” would be prohibited
because the US OpenAir activity would exceed the 12-day maximum
duration allowance of the Zoning Code.

Under the Zoning Code, “park uses” are conditional in the B-8-G
district (Civic Center Park). The city has not complied with the
required procedures for proper review of this conditional use.
(Zoning Code 59-202, 59-117, 59-86, 59-205).

Charter 3.2.6 defines such use (i.e. setting up and operating outdoor
movies) as a lease and the City Attorney is seeking improper Council
approval. Charter 2.4.4 cannot excuse the requirements of Charter
2.4.5; they must be read together as intended.

City government must comply with the Zoning Code in effect until the
“New” Zoning Code is adopted. Even under the “New” Code, the
Hickenlooper administration proposes to take park zoning authority
away from Council and place the authority in the sole hands of the
Manager of Parks and Recreation, an appointed bureaucrat.

Council can amend the language of the Zoning Code (i.e. re-zone) only
by following due process of Charter 3.2.9 (D) and (E).

It appears Parks and Recreation is speaking of outdoor movies in parks
as a fait accompli and seeking a “courtesy” Public Hearing on January
11 as a means of hastening its plans to inappropriately control
taxpayer-funded property and conduct unlawful activities.

Council should schedule the Hearing for January 19, 2010. If the
Hearing is held on January 11, this message must be considered part of
the public record since I will be away from the city and unable to
appear in person.

Unless there are overwhelmingly compelling arguments to the contrary,
Council must avoid complicity in the improper and unlawful acts of
admissions based outdoor movies in public parks.

David P. Felice
City Council District 8
Director, ABC Streets Association
At-Large Delegate, Greater Park Hill Community (GPHC) Board of
Governors
Delegate, Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation (INC)
Member, INC Parks and Recreation Committee
Delegate, Denver Area Labor Federation (DALF), AFL-CIO
Steward, Communications Workers of America

January 1, 2010

Tax increase dangerous to homeowners and small businesses

Commentary by Cathy Donohue

Now that voters have approved the tax increase Measure 2A on the notion of trusting the current city administration, it is critical that citizens watch how the money is being spent.

Passage of Measure 2A allows the city to retain up to $68M in refunds mandated by the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR).  This revenue windfall, essentially giving the city a blank check, is the most damaging raise in taxes imaginable.  It is a gamble on wispy promises and the threat of dire consequences.

While voters blithely hand over $68M to those supposed to be guiding the city, the actual tax increase may be the final nail in the coffin of many small business owners who are struggling.  Our honorable mayor and the honorable councilmen and women know nothing about business economics.  The only one who has useful knowledge about business success is District 2 Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz.

We have no idea if Mayor Michael B. Hancock is wise enough to administer such a huge influx of “play” money, nor do we know if Council is smart enough to appropriate these funds.  Hancock’s record of leadership or ability to govern is thus far untested.   Since he has been in office, we have had virtually no reviews of his management capabilities.  Council has shown no interest is actually finding out how he is running the city; and we no longer have two newspapers to engage in the usual political wars.

As an elected and appointed veteran of city government, I have some opinions about this lack of inquisitiveness.

Prior to 2008, when the city fathers and mothers oversaw the re-codification of the City Charter, the following procedures were in effect under Article 3, General Police Powers (of Council):

 ...the Council, or a committee authorized by it, shall have power to investigate any Department of the City and County and the official acts and conduct of any officer thereof, and may compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of books and documents.

After the Mayor and Council approved and the voters agreed to a Charter “Re-codification” the City Charter said:

...the Council, or a committee authorized by it, has the power to investigate any departmental official of Denver city government accused of certain type of misconduct. (Note:  The type of “misconduct” is not explained and Council deleted the rest of its power.)

In the final version of the newly codified Charter, all of the former duties of Council to “investigate” any Department of the City were given to the Auditor and are now called Performance Audits.

Auditor Dennis Gallagher, a former councilman, approved the change in accounting procedures as recommended by Mayor John W. Hickenlooper, and made lots of noise about his new duty to do Performance Auditing.

These audits included reviews of the time it takes ambulances to reach locations, parking at Denver International Airport, or the issuance of building permits.  But Gallagher’s audits have not scrutinized the performance of an entire agency.  Unless I have been completely asleep at the wheel, I am not aware that these small but worthwhile reviews produced any changes.

Under the old system, I can think of only three genuine performance audits that were approved by Council. 

One, requested by the Council’s Public Works Committee of City Council in 1991, examined the city’s development process.  The results were ignored by the mayor’s office and forgotten.

Another performance audit of county courts resulted in computerization of the court system.  The public might not like the results, but the audit did what it was supposed to do.

Greg Romberg, the first mayoral appointee to a new agency called Regulatory Reform, started an audit of Excise and Licenses.  When Romberg resigned in February 1994, Mayor Wellington Webb appointed me to run the office and supervise that audit.  Mayor Webb and Council ignored the results.  About five years later, the entire inspection staff resigned, and the inspectors were indicted.  The audit showed very serious problems with the issuance of liquor licenses.

   

Although none of the Councils during and since Hickenlooper have displayed any desire to delve into the workings of any part of any of mayoral agencies, there is still a desperate need for someone to occasionally investigate.  Gallagher also has not displayed any burning desire to see that one of his minor audits changed any departmental procedures.  Performance Audits seem to have a history of being ignored by everyone except the authors.

These two reasons – lack of interest by a Council and lack of toughness by our Auditor –do not mean that such an “outside” review is not needed in all governments.  The state legislature has an Audit Committee and the state lawmakers frequently stick their noses into the workings of a state agency.  The federal government has the Government Accounting Office (GAO), which takes orders from various congressional committees to investigate federal agencies.

I am reluctant to hand over such a very large amount of money without a greater guarantee that the Mayor and Council will spend it wisely.  Vague references to more police and fire officers, longer library hours, and more pot holes filled are just not enough.  There are promises to allocate only $21M and the reminder of the money can be spent without any strings. 

The people of Denver need to learn much more about Mayor Hancock’s ability to run the city.  The city’s so-called performance auditing is a sham.  People need to think critically about who’s watching the store.

I am deeply concerned that people “on the edge” of financial failure, such as low-income homeowners and small business owners, have little idea what is about to happen when the new “taxes” take effect.

On a Clear Day You Can See Hentzell Is a Park

by Paul Kashmann

With an April Fool’s Day vote that parks advocates only wish was a prank, Denver City Council approved a deal to hand Denver Public Schools a wad of cash, along with 9 acres of southeast Denver parkland in the Hentzell Open Space (Hampden Heights Natural Area) on which to build a much needed elementary school. In exchange, the City and County of Denver gets a DPS office building at 1330 Fox St., where Mayor Hancock wants to house a domestic violence resource center.

A school for our sweet little children. A safe place in which to help heal the horrific damage wrought by domestic violence. Both worthy purposes to be sure. I wholeheartedly support both projects. In theory.

But should this particular bit of civic parcel shuffling have ever been consummated?

Read more »

Don't Fence Me Out

You, Denver citizen, own Denver’s parks. You take a walk to your park one day, and you discover a temporary chain-link fence blocking you from your normal path. A portion of your park has been leased to a promoter to conduct a for-profit event from which you are barred, unless you are willing to pay. The event features one of your favorite bands. Great! Oh wait, it costs $75/day to get admission to the other side of the fence. How did that happen?


Hickenlooper's Plan: Public Parks for Private Profit
by Dave Felice

Despite widespread neighborhood opposition and a reevaluation by the Colorado's preeminent concert promoter, Denver’s Parks and Recreation Department (DPR) is forging ahead with a new Admission Based Events policy. For the first time since the City was founded, public access to public parks will be allowed only to those who are willing to pay admission to attend exclusive, fenced off, commercial events.

Ultimate responsibility for this misguided public policy belongs to Mayor John Wright Hickenlooper. When in 2007, Anschutz Entertainment Group (AEG) Live, Rocky Mountain CEO, Chuck Morris, proposed to stage the Mile High Music Festival in City Park in August of 2008, the Mayor immediately gave the go ahead. The proposal by Morris to close the western two-thirds of City Park for up to two weeks for his 3 day inaugural Festival then became a the source of severe controversy. Having already given permission in violation of a long held City policy deemed to be in violation of the Charter, Hickenlooper ordered his then Manager of Parks, Kim Bailey, to come up with a new policy that would cover his “assessment” and apply to everybody else in the future. A“Task Force”, heavily populated with City employees, event promoters and lobbyists, sprinkled with a few neighborhood representatives was given the charge of developing a policy that would validate the idea of “Admission Based Events”. The Department continued to spend money and time pursuing the admissions-based events policy until Bailey unceremoniously left in 2008.

The City cites the proposal by Morris as the impetus for an Admissions Based Special Events Policy (ABSEP) Task Force which has been meeting since November 2007. Morris may have actually been encouraged by Hickenlooper. Public documents obtained under a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request show that Morris was in private communications with Bailey several months before the proposal was made public.

Despite many opinions from City Attorney's in previous administrations saying that closing off parts of parks would require a vote of the general electorate, Hickenlooper's cause was bolstered by a new legal opinion out his own City Attorney's office. Assistant City Attorney Patrick Wheeler proclaimed such a major shift in managing Denver's parks did not violate the Charter and is within the rule-making authority of the Parks Department.

Ultimately, forced by public pressure and opposition from the Denver Zoo, Morris successfully moved the event to Dick's Sporting Goods athletic field complex in Commerce City. In published comments in May 2009 (Denver Daily News), the well-known president of the AEG Live Rocky Mountains, Chuck Morris, said he respects opposition to commercial events which would result in the closure of public parks. Morris was quoted as saying he understood how neighbors would be frustrated by having the Mile High Music Festival in City Park. He said growing opposition encouraged him to look for what turned out to be an advantageous alternative site. “There were some very astute, some very smart comments about parks being open to the public,” said Morris, who himself lives in Park Hill, only about a mile from the east side of City Park.

District 8 Councilwoman Carla Madison was an early and enthusiastic supporter of what AEG called “a rock music festival of world class proportions.” Madison, who received campaign contributions and took junkets to “research” the issue on AEG's lobbyists dime, appeared in a video produced by Anschutz to promote the City Park notion. During the deliberations of the task force, Madison was a member of the Fees Subcommittee. Her appointment to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB), Keith Pryor, has continued to strongly support the idea of closing parks for commercial events.

Opposition to the commercial closure of public parks was expressed by neighborhood representatives throughout the Task Force process. INC and other neighborhood representatives repeatedly insisted that any such policy leasing land to the private commercial interests should be voted on by the electorate.

Neighborhood representatives advanced an alternative proposal to build a new, year-around, festival park in the heart of Denver that would not negatively impact any neighborhood, where admission could be charged and access to public transportation, proper infrastructure and parking would be available. Many American cities have moved in this direction with great success, including Milwaukee and Seattle.

Bailey's replacement, Kevin Patterson, made short order of the Task Force process, calling two poorly attended meetings, basically summarizing the work of the individual committees, which worked in isolation of each other and an overall vision, as proclamations of support for a comprehensive policy. The Department's long awaited policy, absent any dissenting opinions, was publicly unveiled in October for presentation to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board in December along with another policy entitled “Public Notification and Civic Engagement Policy” which would legitimatize the aforementioned slanted public process and give credence to the rushed approval of the Admission Based Special Events Policy before the vast majority of the public are aware their parks will become a playgrounds for profit for the rich and famous.

Hickenlooper and Patterson virtually ignored a resolution from Greater Park Hill Community (GPHC) in May, opposing park closures for commercial events. “Access to named public parks should be free and open, consistent with the City’s Charter,” states the resolution. The GPHC resolution further called a public referendum if such a policy were to be proposed.

The Parks and Recreation Committee of the Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation (INC) organization approved a similar Resolution in August 2009 and that Resolution was overwhelmingly ratified by the INC General membership in September 2009. The Resolution, which was never acknowledged by the Parks Department, also called for a public vote.

Even now, the city continues to put forth the fiction that there is widespread interest. “Increasingly…citizens and event organizations have contacted DPR to clarify the implementation of admissions based events,” states the latest policy draft. And yet, neither the department nor event promoters have ever cited any specific expressions of interest.

Furthermore, the city will not profit greatly from commercial events in parks. The charges for leasing public property are specifically designed to be low to encourage promoters to stage commercial events. This is a classic example of the “rip it out of the ground and sell it” approach to public property.

It is wrong to prevent free and open access to public park land. It is wrong for private business to close park land and charge admission for special events such as music and beer festivals. Commercial enterprises have no claim to use public park property for profit. Parks are public property, not sources of revenue. No amount can compensate residents around parks for neighborhood disruption caused by commercial events. No trendy entertainment or glamorous celebrity can justify taking away the citizens' right to enjoy what little open space is left in the City.

Oppose exclusive commercial use of taxpayer-owned park properties! The issue could be resolved with one simple statement: Denver public parks are free and open; Denver public parks cannot be closed for private profit-making enterprises. That's what the Charter of the City of Denver intended. Call, e-mail, or send postal mail to Mayor John Hickenlooper, Parks and Recreation Manager Kevin Patterson, City Councilwoman Peggy Lehmann Chair of the Public Amenities Committee, and your city council representative.

A copy of the draft of the Admissions Based Events policy can be obtained by contacting the Mayor's liaison to the Mayor's Manager of Parks and Recreation, Chantal Unfug, chantal.unfug@denvergov.org, or telephone 720-913-0670. A Public Hearing on the Admission Based Special Events Policy and the Public Notification and Civic Engagement Policy will be held December 10 at La Alma Recreation Center, 1325 West 11th Avenue at Navajo.


(The author is a long-time resident of Park Hill and an At-Large Delegate on the GPHC Board of Governors. He is also active in the Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation Organization and the Denver Area Labor Federation. For additional information on park issues, see: www.savecitypark.org.

The Big Doobie

We've all been told that the laws of the State of Colorado force the Denver Police and Prosecutors to continue to arrest and prosecute the possession of less than an ounce of marijuana within the City of Denver because State law trumps City ordinance.

Not so.

The Colorado Constitution, Article XX Home Rule Cities and Towns, Section 6, says:

The statutes of the state of Colorado, so far as applicable, shall continue to apply to such cities and towns, except insofar as superseded by the charters of such cities and towns or by ordinance passed pursuant to such charter.

Of course I'm not an attorney, but this sounds to me like Denver's ordinances take precedence over Colorado laws. But then what about that gun carry situation - didn't Colorado law supersede Denver ordinance? Can we get a little clarification here from some of Colorado's fine legal bloggers?

And from SAFER:

New marijuana initiative has teeth
Wednesday, 08 August 2007

Denver voters will once again weigh in on how the city handles marijuana, and this time they will consider a new ordinance designating private adult possession the city’s lowest law enforcement priority.

The measure comes at a time when pot arrests are at an all-time high in the state capital, despite voters’ approval of a 2005 initiative calling on the city to end them entirely.

Denver police and other city officials argued then that they must continue enforcing the state marijuana law, and it is unsurprising that they have dusted off those very same talking points for 2007.

But this assertion is just as bogus now as it was two years ago.

Officials have yet to provide any concrete justification for their need to be subservient to the state here, and they fail to discuss what — if any — repercussions there would be if the city ignores the state pot law.

Unfortunately, much of the mainstream press in Denver opted to take these officials at their word, rather than asking them such tough questions concerning intergovernmental relations.

The Rocky Mountain News, for example, ran an editorial claiming that this latest initiative will make no difference in the city if passed (“Pot vote, Round 2/Possession will remain illegal, no matter what the result”). This came on the heels of a Denver Post story bearing the headline, “Denver cops say they can’t ignore state pot law.” But according to the Denver city attorney’s office, the issue is not so clear cut.

As Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell put it in the Post story: “This is an entirely new beast, and I don’t know what it means. There’s not a single law on the books like this.” But there are virtually identical laws that are on the books in other major cities — a fact omitted in the Rocky editorial.

Seattle voters adopted a “lowest law enforcement priority” measure in 2003, and it has resulted in a dramatic decline in marijuana arrests and prosecutions.

Even Seattle City Attorney Tom Carr, who originally opposed the initiative, has admitted that implementation of the policy has been safe and effective.

Moreover, neither Carr nor the home-rule city of Seattle ever doubted its ability to implement such a policy. So, why does Denver?

The Mile High City also enjoys home-rule status, having been granted the right to self-governance under Article XX of the Colorado Constitution.

Along with enumerating Denver’s abilities to “define,” “regulate” and “alter” the powers of the local police, Section 6 explicitly states:

“[The city's charter] and ordinances made pursuant thereto in such matters shall supersede within the territorial limits and other jurisdiction of said city or town any law of the state in conflict therewith.”

Herein lies Denver officials’ dilemma. They say they are sworn to uphold state laws, thus they supposedly cannot implement the proposed city ordinance and ignore the state pot law. But the state constitution says that such city ordinances “shall supersede” conflicting state laws. The result: In order for Denver police to abide by the state constitution, they must implement the ordinance.

Denver officials have tried to account for this inconvenient truth by arguing that the city only gets to flex its home-rule muscle when it comes to local laws that are stricter than state laws.

But this fails to take into account the fact that Denver police do often ignore stricter state laws.

For example, a Sept. 11, 2006, article in the Rocky carried the following headline: “Denver ignores DUI law: City not enforcing state’s photo, fingerprint rule for those caught driving drunk.” If Denver can take it easy on people who get drunk and drive, why can’t we take it easy on adults who simply possess a small amount of a drug that is safer than alcohol?

It is time Denver city officials admit that their hands are tied only by themselves. And if voters approve the “lowest law enforcement priority” initiative, it must be implemented.

Citizens Will Lose Control of Parks with New Zoning Code

From:  The Desk  of Cathy Donohue Former Denver City Councilwoman

Date: November 9, 2009

Re: Words of the New Zoning Code: Sec. 9.4.3.1.B

“In the OS-A zone District (all city owned, leased and/or operated parks), the Manager of Parks and Recreation shall determine all design and development standards applicable to new developments in the District pursuant to the City Charter”.

Sometime shortly after the beginning of the new year, City Council will be voting to adopt a new Zoning Code. Serious questions have been raised about the wisdom of one particular section of the code. If the new code is adopted as written, citizens will lose their rights to influence the way land use decisions are made for our city parks.

Since the mid-1920's , when the city first adopted a Zoning Code, all land use decesions have been under Council's jurisdiction. The new Zoning Code proposes to establish a new way to control land in our parks. All parks will be in the OS (Open Space) zones. Ironically, all of the other land in the city will have new zoning classifications with strict regulations that must be followed for all development.

The City Administration decided that the new OS (Open Space) zone needs absolutely no rules or regulations. Specific language which would give definitions and rules of proceure for this zone was proposed by a number of citizens. However, this reasonable approach was rejected by the Council. The new Zoning Code gives control of development in the parks to an unelected bureaucrat, the Parks Department Manager, and allows City officials development rights without regulations.

Building sizes, number of stories, open spaces, bulk and view plains will be controlled at the discretion of this Manager. Today there are zoning regulations for parks. Depending upon the adjacent land use, they range from R-O (single family) to B-8 (high density commercial), Although the current situation is confusing, it still allows the citizens to tell Councilmembers when they disagree with a zoning decision...

Because all zoning is established by ordinance, the citizens have a time-honored American way to tell the elected officials if they disagree with their actions. They may present a legal petition (with approximately 5000 signatures), to require any Council-approved zoning change to be voted upon by all the citizens. When the unelected Manager of Parks is given the sole power over developments in our parks, the citizens will have no legally binding way to disagree with a decision made by this bureaucrat because his/her decisions are not made by ordinance.

Currrently, the Manager of Parks only has jurisdiction over the uses of facilities in our parks—not land use changes or initial development. This new “decider” for all development in our parks will not be subject to anything more than letter writing or public outcry.

In response to these objections, members of City Council are repeating a specious theory that because they control budgets, they can control the Parks Manager's decisions. Nowhere in budget process is an opportunity for legal citizen dissent. The budget process is an “insider” game of vote trading that allows no legal citizen involvement.

During the time that I served as a member of the Council, I would never have thrown away my power to represent the electorate on any matters concerning our parks. For that matter, I would not have relinquished any power granted in the Charter unless the people voted to take it away. The City Administration and the Council have stated that they can will be transferring this power without a vote of the people.

Unbelievably, Council members have publicly stated that they approve of this transfer of power.

The political atmosphere has changed at City Hall, and our elected representatives have publicly expressed their willingness to give their parks' responsibilities to a bureaucrat. This situations is an anathema to me. There is only one way to stop the Council from approving this portion of the new Zoning Code. They must be asked by the electorate to amend this provision of the Zoning Code and remove it from the ordinance. Parks' rules need to be established in their own section of the Charter.

There are two chances for us (the voters) to let City officials know that we do not want to lose our right to have elected officials govern our parks. On Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2009, between 5:30 and 8:30 p.m. there will be a public hearing in the Webb Office Building. There will be a second public hearing on Nov. 19 from 1-4 p.m. As many people as possible should come to show their disapproval of the City's proposal. We should also write to councilpersons at Room 451, City and County Building, Denver, Co., 80204. Council members need to know that the citizens are unwilling to allow them to give away the power vested in them by the voters.

I ask that you forward this message to anyone that you believe might understand how important it is to stop this decision. The new Zoning Code must be amended. An amendment can be passed with seven (7) votes of Council, but the Mayor can veto the amendment; then it would take nine (9) votes to override his veto. This new plan for our parks has been placed in the code by the Administration and is currently supported by most members of Council. We need to have our voices heard, or else we will lose control of our parks.

The time to stop this denial of our rights is now, before the issue is passed by Council. I hope you will join those of us that have already begun voicing our objections to our representatives and send a message, loudly and clearly, at the public hearings and through letters, emails and phone calls.

Denver Slated to Lose Critical Natural Area

Photo by Ray Ehrenstein

On January 2, 2013, Denver Parks and Recreation Manager Laurie Dannemiller removed the Natural Area designation from a portion of Hentzell Park (aka Hampden Heights Open Space Area). This action flies in the face of the recommendation of her own Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, the majority of whom voted on December 13, 2012, to deny Mayor Hancock’s request that de-designation occur. The Mayor wanted de-designation so that the City can convey the land to Denver Public Schools. DPS plans to build a new school on the site; in exchange for the land, the City would get a DPS building at 1330 Fox Street that would be used for a domestic
violence center. This exchange of property will next be considered mid-February by the
Government and Finance Committee of the City Council, and then by the full City Council,
which has the final say, some time in March.

Why Losing 9 Acres of Hentzell Designated Natural Area Should be Opposed
1. We need more not less urban parkland, in light of Denver’s expected population
increase, and this action would set an unacceptable precedent that could erode the quality and
size of Denver’s park system;
2. The land in question, though described by Mayor Hancock as “blighted”, is in fact an
area that was designated as having significant biological value in 2007 by Denver’s Department
of Parks and Recreation, and the unique seed stock and vegetation on this site has not changed
significantly since that time. Those who consider the area unsightly are responding to the way it
looks superficially rather than to its biologic significance;
3. The Hentzell site is in a flood plain: Building a school on this site, as a result, is
unwise on the face of it; moreover, schools in Denver have a long history of being opened,
closed, re-opened and even demolished-- the latter possibility would open the way for
commercial development of this property. Loss of a rare Natural Area (Denver has only166
acres of land deemed worthy of Natural Area designation) for such development would be a real
loss;
4. All parkland managed by DPR including natural areas is held in the public trust. It
should not be used (or sold) for purposes removed from conservation, preservation, and
recreation. The City Charter provides the model for how this land should be treated. The
Charter prohibits the sale or leasing of land designated as a park by ordinance without approval
by a majority of registered voters. Conveying 9 acres of Hentzell Park to DPS without a vote of
the people violates the spirit of the City Charter.
What You Can Do
 Write Denver City Council members to express your opposition to this land transfer, to
encourage designation as Denver Parks all legally-available land, and to alter the City
Charter to require a vote of the people for de-designation of all lands managed by DPR;
 Attend the Government and Finance Committee Meeting and the City Council Meeting at
which the land transfer issue will be discussed and consider speaking, if there is a
hearing; and
 Find more information, including updates at www.denvernature.net.
1/17/ 2013 Advocates for Denver’s Parks

Who Will Control Our Parks?

Original photo from Denver Water, taken down after toxins, including uranium, from Lowry Landfill Superfund Site were added to recycled water in City and Washington Parks (Don't let your dog do this!)

When Cathy Donohue spoke to Denver City Council Public Amenities Committee, it was as if no one was really listening. Council members and the City Attorney apparently did not understand the importance of her statement. Here, in an email, she reiterates:

Honorable Councilmembers, Because the three points that I spoke of on Wednesday at the Public Amenities Committee meeting were so poorly interpreted and the opinions given by the City Attorney were so incorrect, I want to put my words and thoughts in written form for councilmembers as well as others concerned about our parks. The first point is that City administrators should take the time to write clear and understandable rules and regulations for the new Parks Zones. The City family has been able to write hundreds of regulations for all of the zones for private land, so it seems to me that the task of promulgating parks rules is possible as well as necessary. The suggestion to promulgate park zoning rules similar to PUD rules was made in order to give you some idea that a similar process could be used to write parks' rules. The citizens that I have been working with for many years do not trust an appointed official to protect our parks. Elected officials are accountable to their constituents, appointed officials are not. David Broadwell's assurances that the vague terms ("parks uses") mentioned in the Charter are sufficient to give the public comfort about the actions of an appointed official are just not acceptable. The new Zoning Code should not be adopted until specific parks rules are included. Despite the confusing and unprofessional comments made by the City Attorney about the second point that I made (Charter changes), the simple answer to the question should have been if the powers granted in the Charter are changed, the people need to vote on the change. It is not possible to rewrite the powers granted to the Council in the Charter with a simple ordinance revision. The system for amending the Charter has been in place for about 120 years, and it cannot be altered by any ordinance procedure enacted by Council. The third point, to which no one responded, regards the inability of the citizens to vote on any administrative actions of the non-elected Parks Manager. This point is of vital importance. If the Council convinces the public to vote to amend the Charter to give their powers to an administrator, the people will be unable to remedy any grievances in the same way that they can today. They will have no way to use their referendum rights to seek redress. Council and the Parks Manager can write as many political, insider mechanisms (as described in the 15 point list of "check and balances") imaginable. None of these so-called "checks" is an ordinance that people may vote upon. Today, if the citizens do not like land use decisions made by the Council, they may express their objections with a referendum. Whenever a petition drive is started, all ordinance procedures cease. The day after a group of citizens began the petition drive to stop the State History Museum from destroying park land, the State changed its mind about building in Civic Center Park. Once petitions are started, no bonds can be issued and no money can be spent. The loss of referendum rights is the greatest of the losses proposed by the City Administration and the Council in removing Parks land use from the authority of an elected official and giving it to an appointed one. The word of a City Attorney is not law, it is merely an opinion about the law and, in the past, they have made mistakes or interpreted the law in the interests of the Executive Branch for whom they work--that is why we have courts; and, occasionally, dissenting councilmembers. Cathy Donohue

RESOLUTION FOR THE RIGHT OF DENVER CITIZENS TO DETERMINE THE USE OF DENVER PARKS BY A VOTE OF THE PEOPLE

WHEREAS, Denver City Charter, Section 2.4.5 requires a vote of the people to allow a City park to be sold, transferred, or otherwise converted to non-park use; and

WHEREAS, Denver is known for its abundant and beautiful park system and Denver citizens are justifiably proud of Mayor Speer’s legacy of preservation of land for park space for the enjoyment and leisure of the citizens of Denver; and

WHEREAS, Denver citizens have clearly expressed an abiding desire to exercise their right to vote on any proposed conversion of a park; and

WHEREAS, Denver currently has over twenty parks that are only partially protected from future sale or development and over forty parks that are not designated by ordinance as parks and therefore not protected at all from future sale or development; and

WHEREAS, The Mayor of Denver and the Denver City Council have pronounced that conversion of these unprotected parks is not subject to a vote of the people as defined in City Charter Section 2.4.5 and, therefore be it

RESOLVED, The Democratic Party of Denver graciously reminds the Mayor and City Council that the change in the status of their parks; and be it further

RESOLVED, The Democratic Party of Denver demands of the Mayor and City Council that any action to sell, trade or develop any land currently used or maintained as a City park be submitted to the people for a vote as required by City Charter Section 2.4.5, regardless of whether it is designated as a City park.

Controversial land swap of Hampden Heights North Park land to Denver Public Schools

The matter of what attorney John Case contends is the city's illegal taking of 11.5 acres of Hampden Heights North (Hentzell) Park is now in the hands of the Corardo Court of Appeals. Case has been fighting the legal battle pro bono for nearly three years.



Here are two reports from courtroom observers, plus the actual courtroom video. The video doesn't actually start until 24 minutes into the "broadcast." Use the slider to advance the time. A reporter for the daily publication attended the oral argument hearing Tuesday (9/1), but nothing had been printed by Thursday afternoon.
Report #1
A citizens' group on Tuesday brought a long-term solution before the Colorado Court of Appeals for a controversial land swap of Hampden Heights North Park land to Denver Public Schools. The group has argued the deal originated by the city of Denver without a vote of the people, in violation of the city charter.
"The elephant in the room is that the school district built the school with this case pending," said John Case, pro bono attorney for the nonprofit Friends of Denver Parks. "This case may set a precedent for the city to do this over and over again."
The school opened for the first time last week. Part of the group's argument is that it was being built in the Cherry Creek floodplain.
Case asked the three-judge panel to reverse the decision and remand the case to the lower court. If the court agrees, once the useful life of the school ends, in 20 or 30 years, the land would revert back to open space. Denver Public Schools would in effect lease the property until that point.
City of Denver attorney David Broadwell said the group never proved that the land was operated as a park before 1955, the year designated in a 1996 law. It was operated as a park in the 1960s and later. He made a distinction between designated parks and non designated parks.
Case said the intent to use the land as park to connect parkland in Denver to the west dated back to 1936.
The court will announce its decision later.
Following the hearing, group spokesperson Renee Lewis feared that city park land would be in jeopardy should the group lose the case. Sixty percent of the park land in the city has been considered non-designated by the city of Denver.
Report #2
John Case did a great job. He was articulate and forceful. He had the first say, and started with Section 2.4.5 of the city charter. If it was used as a park prior to 12-31-55, a park was a "common law" park even if it was never "designated" as a park. Then there's the question of the meaning of "designate", with an ordinary meaning of "denote" or "show". The word is apparently not defined in the charter. Of course, this is important because park land can't be sold without a vote of the people.
Then there's a fascinating issue of "designate" versus "dedicate". A street or alley can be "dedicated" by council resolution and doesn't require an ordinance. Hentzell Park was not dedicated by ordinance, but was included in parks maps, and an expert witness testified that it was used as a park.
David Broadwell for the city argued that it's only a park if it's so identified in the deed, in the plat, or by ordinance and that mere use as a park is not enough. Judge Rothenberg asked him about the parks commission's annual reports in which the city repeatedly listed it as a park. He responded that there was no evidence of pre-1955 use as a park.
Then Broadwell dived into the 2010 zoning ordinances, the 1983 OSA zoning for the park , the ripple effect if no OSA land could be sold, and finally his big point: THE SCHOOL HAS ALREADY BEEN BUILT AND IN FACT IS IN SESSION!
Case had the last word. He responded that in the McIntyre case, park land had been illegally sold. There, the parties worked out a settlement involving a long-term lease. Case also refuted the lack of pre-1955 park use, citing a December '55 deed connecting the "park" to a highway.
That was a lot of talking in a half hour.

From Mayor Hancock

Looks like the Mayor has been doing a lot of imagining himself:

RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE MAYOR

Change Charter language to enable the Manager of Public Works to administer Local Maintenance Districts - Ask City Council to refer to the ballot in November.

Authorize members of Board of Equalization to assign designees. Ask City Council to refer to the ballot in November.

Simplify description of department duties by removing "exclusively" from categorized duties in various departments in Charter. Ask City Council to refer to the ballot in November.

Rename Department of Environmental Health to Department of Environment and Health and clarify public health roles and responsibilities to eliminate redundancy Further analysis and discussion required.

Explore restructure of Civil Service Commission (CSC), Office of Human Resources (OHR) and Career Service Authority (CSA), moving recruitment, hiring and promotion of all employees to OHR, placing discipline for all uniform employees in a CSC-like entity and all discipline for non-uniform employees in a CSA-like entity. Further analysis and discussion is required.

Move prescription of Salaries and Benefits to ordinance. Further analysis and discussion is required.

Clarify rules of the OHR/CSA discipline and appeal process. Further analysis anddiscussion is required.

Conduct a comprehensive review of Pay and Benefits to identify innovative practices. Further analysis and discussion required.

Create Department of Finance and Administration to consolidate appropriate city functions Further analysis and discussion is required.

Modern - Relevant to Current & Future Needs

Specify head of Denver Sheriff's Department is the constitutional Sheriff and is named Sheriff in Charter and ordinances. Ask City Council to refer to the ballot in November

Allow Manager of Aviation up to 5 discretionary appointments of executive managers. Ask City Council to refer to the ballot in November.

Change titles of department heads from "Manager" to "Executive Director". Ask City Council to refer to the ballot in November.

Eliminate 25% cap on Public Safety Cadets moving into recruit classes. Ask City Council to refer to the ballot in November.

Include Division of Real Estate in the Charter as a unit of Dept. of Finance. No Action

Streamline and simplify language to focus on broad functions of each department and standardize level of detail for departments. Further analysis and discussion is required.

Organize Charter by function, rather than department. Further analysis and discussion is required.

Eliminate requirement that Fire Chief be appointed from the classified service and allow classified service candidates to be drawn from any rank. Ask City Council to refer to the ballot in November.

Critic: Park Movie Scheme Flawed

By Dave Felice

Denver City Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz says cancellation of plans to close a large part of Civic Center Park this summer for outdoor movies does not resolve the fundamental issue.

“I’m amazed the administration would bring such a controversial contract to council and try to justify it to concerned citizens when the event promoters didn’t have their own act together,” says Faatz in exclusive comments for Denver Direct. “Unfortunately, the underlying charter issues still remain.”

Faatz voted against a contract allowing the Massachusetts affiliate of a Swiss firm to take over a major portion of the park for 50 days this summer and charge admission for outdoor movies. Among the four council members opposing the contract, Faatz is the most vocal in defending the City Charter prohibitions against leasing park property, using parks for non-park activities, and commercial use of park property.

Read more »

Pollution in Denver Parks

Selling drugs (malts, vinous and spirituous liquors) in City Park to raise money (photographed in City Park 8-16-09)

In his 2005 novel, Pattern Recognition, William Gibson describes “Cayce Pollard, a "coolhunter" with an uncanny knack for understanding logos and identifying trends before the public at large recognizes them. In an ironic twist typical of Gibson's sardonic humor, she herself is acutely allergic to brand names, harboring a violent reaction to the doughy Michelin Man, among other random trademarks.” In a TV interview Gibson mentioned that this character is based on his own daughter, who does, in fact, suffer from this allergy. I am also allergic to brand names and advertising in general. I “time-shift” all of the TV shows I want to watch solely to be able to fast-forward over the more than 20 thirty-second ads jammed into each half-hour. I won’t watch TV if I can’t skip the ads. When viewing web pages with ads, I’ve learned to block them out and never-ever click on them. When ads first started appearing online in Prodigy (how old are you anyway?) I taped a piece of paper over the bottom of the screen where they always appeared. I’ve tried putting ads on my own websites, but took them down because I couldn’t stand them. Now we have a scheme approved by the Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee to put advertising pollution in our parks in the form of dog-poo bag dispenser signs. What a bunch of crap! Responsible dog owners carry their own bags, being slightly more aware than their animals in their ability to predict the probable results of a good constitutional. From "Poo Free Parks" promotional material:

Top Ten Reasons to Brand Your Company with Us 1. Association with the "Go Green" theme 2. Opportunity to be the frst (sic) to brand your company in a place that has never before allowed it 3. Exclusivity: No one else is allowed to brand themselves anywhere near these dispensers 4. Great Reach: "18 X 12" signage display reaches commuters, dog owners, and general park visitors 5. Great Frequency: people regularly walk their dogs and drive their cars along the same pathway viewing your message each time 6. Provides a public service at no cost to the public, making you a friend of the taxpayer 7. Increases brand awareness in a location where people tend to let their "guard" down 8. New and unique medium that will undoubtedly generate media exposure and general public interest 9. People love their pets and are more accepting of brands who are associated with them 10. Involvment (sic) in community based projects positions your company as a resposible (sic) citizen

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ These Poo-Free signs had better be made of something indestructible mounted on something un-removable, or they will be taken down immediately in self-defense by park lovers sickened by exposure to advertising. Or perhaps they will be enhanced with artistic graffiti provided by “gangstas” seeking to mark their turf. Mind you, I’m not suggesting anything here … This just in:

Letter to Denver Citizens August 17, 2009 From: Cathy Donohue 1023 Lafayette Street Denver, Colorado 80218 Many already have heard that the Board of Parks, under the direction of the Parks Manager, Kevin Patterson, voted on Thursday, Aug 13, to rubber stamp a plan promoted by the Manager allowing 200 new signs to be placed throughout our parks. These signs, for the first time in the history of our city will bear an advertising logo of a for-profit corporation. The City Attorney and Kevin Patterson told the Parks Board that the City Charter permitted advertising. The words of the Charter reads: 2.4.5 Sale and leasing of parks Without the approval of a majority of those registered electors voting in an election held by the City and County of Denver, no park or portion of any park belonging to the city as of December 31, 1955, shall be sold or leased at any time...provided however, the property in parks may be leased for park purposes to concessionaires, to charitable or NON-PROFIT organizations, or to governmental jurisdictions. All such leases shall require the APPROVAL OF COUNCIL, as provided for in Article III of this Charter... No concessionaire is selling a product, no voters have been asked to approve a contract with a for-profit corporation and no Council voted upon this action. How could the Parks Board, the Manager of Parks and the Council allow this to happen? I believe the City Attorney will make a serious mistake if he approves this contract. Our elected and appointed caretakers of the parks were not wise enough to use their own common sense and read what the Charter says. I can never remember a time when I silently took advice of any attorney, without also reading the law as written. Having served for 19 years as an elected representative and 9 years as an appointee of Mayor Webb, I listened to whatever advice was given; but when I made a final decision I included my own intelligence into the process. In the Parks Advisory Board, we have a group of citizens who have been appointed to be the stewards of our parks. Those who voted to allow this advertising scheme failed in their duty to protect the parks on behalf of present and future generations. Along with the Mayor, they are the first to violate Mayor Speer's parks legacy. Moments before final vote of the Board, a mayoral appointee, the liaison from the Mayor's office to the Parks Manager, uttered the following words, with crossed fingers held high: “We are working to change the policies by 2010 so that they are consistent with what we want to do now.” In addition, just days ago the Mayor's office announced that he had approved a policy that would allow private promoters to chain off sections of Civic Center, City Park, Sloan’s Lake and a number of other newly named “festival parks'' to permit private ticket holders to attend concerts and other exclusive events. These parks will no longer be free and open to all citizens, as they have always been. Following these two actions, the Mayor is planning to permit commercial purveyors to sell liquor by the glass in the “festival” parks. Where does it end? Mr. Hickenlooper has his own plans for our parks. We will have “festival parks”, advertising logos, more drunks and empty plastic cups wherever our leadership wishes. The Mayor's liaison, with an air of absolute authority, told one citizen who questioned whether the Charter should be reviewed; “We don't need anybody's permission to do this.” There was no investigation to find out if “festival parks” would be successful or desirable, or if there were under-utilized days in already built facilities. The City produced no economic forecasts, no market research; nor did they seek any input from the neighborhoods near the new “festival” parks. Our leaders decided that chains around our green spaces would be desirable. The race has been the historical one between the tortoise and the hare. Who has won the race? The hare, of course. Our mayor is a very fast fellow and everyone loves a winner, especially when he has the wind at his back. The cleverest players stacked the deck—at least this time. Our landscapes will change—with hundreds of advertising signs, chained-off green spaces and more trash. I would have wished all of the people had asked to speak by voting. We have indeed been denied our rights as granted in the Charter. No matter what the “winners” bring us tomorrow, we must continue with a steady and unrelenting pace, paying little attention to those who sense no importance in history, beauty or respite. Expediency is not the answer to those who compromise our values. We must fight back for the sake of our parks, whether the battle is political or legal. We have to move on to the next battleground.

Also upcoming:

(from) Katie Fisher and Larry Ambrose: We hope you all have your calendars marked and schedules cleared for this important INC Parks & Recreation Committee meeting tomorrow, Tuesday, August 18 at 6:00 p.m. at the Heritage Club at 2020 S. Monroe, (between Buchtel Blvd. and E. Evans Ave. First street west of S. Colo. Blvd in the Crafts Room.

We will discuss:

Advertising in the parks - Status Report and Next Steps

Admission Based Special Events - Status Report and Next Steps

The implications of the new Zoning Code in reference to Denver Parks transferring power from the legislative to the executive - Status Report and Next Steps

The Gray Water Forum - Wash Park Profile article - Next Steps

Dog Park Master Plan Task Force - Off leash hours and fees for using Denver Dog Parks proposed

New Business

Ambrose Proposes Parks Solution

by Dave Felice

A City Council candidate welcomes the possibility of an admissions based festival park along the Platte Valley, and a member of the Parks advisory Board offers a qualified endorsement of the prospect.

For years, Larry Ambrose, a candidate in the District One special election, has suggested creating a full-time festival park at the Elitch Gardens site or some other location for fee-based events.

Now, Denver Parks and Recreation (DPR) Planning Director Gordon Robertson concurs with Ambrose, publicly saying: “If someday Elitch's (amusement park) were to move, the opportunity exists for a huge event center. This (an admissions based festival park) is a potential future use should that land (in the central Platte River Valley) become available.”

Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) member Mary Ewing likes the notion. “I think it is a good idea for Parks and Rec to acquire the Elitch's site for a large event park,” Ewing told Denver Direct. “If Elitch's were acquired for this purpose, I would support giving it a special designation to allow it to be used for paid admission events, but only if the current proposal to use existing parks for paid admission events is withdrawn.” Ewing represents central Denver’s council District 10 on the PRAB.

Ambrose, a member of the Admissions Based Special Events Policy (ABSEP) Task Force, and co-chair of the Inter-Neighborhood Cooperative Parks Committee, is deeply concerned with the negative impact on parks and the conflict between the Denver City Charter and a commercial events policy.

Read more »

PLATFORM FOR DENVER PLANNING AND ZONING 2014

Inter-Neighborhood Cooperation (INC), a volunteer network of approximately 100 Denver registered neighborhood organizations (RNOs), was organized in 1975[i] to ensure that:  (a) residents of Denver be fully informed of proposals, policies and actions of the city government that affect the quality of life in all neighborhoods, and (b) all city departments and agencies solicit and consider opinions and ideas from citizens and neighborhood organizations.

INC and the Denver city government must work together to ensure that the residents of Denver individually and through their RNOs and other similar groups, most of which are volunteer-based and do not have lawyers and lobbyists, have the opportunity to engage in meaningful participation with access, standing and influence in all decision-making by the city in planning and zoning matters.  The quality of planning and zoning decision-making is improved when residential neighbors have early and meaningful involvement.

The purpose of this INC Planning and Zoning Platform is to provide a proactive position and collaborative framework in which residents of Denver and city officials discuss public policy pertaining to planning and zoning which deeply affects the future and the quality of life in all Denver neighborhoods.  Accordingly, to ensure that residents and neighborhood organizations are included as stakeholders in public policy and decision-making processes, INC proposes the following principles be adopted to ensure that residents and neighborhood organizations are included in all policy and decision-making processes.

I.  ACCESS TO COMMUNICATIONS

            1.1       RNO Notification -- Denver’s neighborhood notification ordinance, adopted in 1979[ii] must be implemented in a consistent, effective, accurate and timely manner by all city departments.  All of the required notifications related to planning and zoning must be given with adequate time for neighborhood organizations to meet with their residents and take positions before city hearings, recognizing that some RNOs do not have regularly scheduled meetings and it will take some time for them to schedule a special meeting.

Read more »

Parks as Profit Centers - an email conversation (Updated)

DenverDirect file photo of Admin Building in City Park

The Hickenlooper administration has been moving on a straight line towards an administrative takeover of our Parks ever since Anschutz asked him to (see Parks Policy in the sidebar index). This is a two-pronged attack using the new Zoning Code and a new Admission Based Events Policy. Meanwhile, an email conversation has been occurring between Councilwoman Marcia Johnson and a group of concerned (and very knowledgeable) citizens. I reprint it here (unedited except for removal of email headers) in the hope of bringing more people into the conversation. Make no mistake about it, if Hick gets his way, this will bring about a major change in our parks and our ability to control what goes on in them.

Update 11/28/09: Is Councilwoman Johnson turning around on this issue? See her email towards the end of the updated section where she says "I got a number of examples and now agree that Parks should not have unlimited say in what goes on in the parks." (bold added)

From Councilwoman Marcia Johnson

Cathy Donohue is right. The new OS-A zoning being proposed for Parks in the new Zoning Code does take away Council's power to zone them. But I would argue that City Council has many other tools in which to exercise control over our Parks.
I asked our Parks Recreation department to prepare a response to Councilwoman Donohue's letter. In their response (attached), they list 15 ways that Council, with public input, controls what happens in the Parks.
1. Year-to-year budgeting and capital appropriations for park improvements are entirely subject to approval by the Council.
2. Any capital improvement to park lands financed through bonded indebtedness is subject to approval by the Council.
3. Any expenditure contract in excess of $500,000 for parks services or improvements is subject to approval by the Council.
4. Any capital equipment purchase in excess of $50,000 on behalf of DPR is subject to Council approval.
5. The granting of any lease or concession for park purposes is subject to Council approval.
6. The authority to ultimately allow "compatible non-park usage" of historic structures in parks is vested entirely in the City Council.
7. The establishment of any fee or charge for use of city parks and recreation facilities is subject to Council approval.
8. The acceptance of any and all grants or gifts for the creation or improvement of parks is subject to the approval of Council.
9. The authority to refer to the voters any proposal to sell existing park lands or to lease any park lands for non-park uses is vested entirely in the City Council.
10. The approval of cooperative agreements with non-profit entities (e.g. the Denver Zoo, Botanic Gardens, Museum of Nature and Science) and with other government entities (e.g. DPS, Jefferson County, etc.) is subject to approval by the Council.
11. The establishment of any "enterprise" related to parks operations (e.g. the Golf Enterprise) is subject to legislative approval by Council.
12. The City Council has adopted view planes that control the height of structure in and adjacent to parks.
13. The City Council has adopted building and construction codes that apply equally to any and all city structures, including structures in park lands.
14. Through Chapter 39 of the Denver Revised Municipal Code, the City Council has traditionally regulated a wide variety of activities in city parks (e.g. service of alcohol, sales of goods and services, curfews, camping, vehicle restrictions, etc.)
15. Thirteen of the nineteen members of the Board of Parks and Recreation are appointed by members of the City Council.
Thanks for your email – we have also sent an article over to Shadron which discusses this issue.
Marcia Johnson

From Cathy Donohue

I, and many others, have seen the famous list of 15 ways council has control over parks' budget, projects, etc.
They are just fine if you happen to be an elected member of council. In none of these options is there a option for citizen redress because there is no ordinance process by which a citizens group can recall or reject the actions of the parks management or the council. No group of citizens can recall any ordinance procedure, as they can today, whenever Council passes a zoning change in a city park. Marcia Johnson evades the issue of recall of an ordinance; which we will be losing as soon as the Council hands over land use control to parks. I am sick of this completely uneducated nonsense, which is put forth by our elected officials in order to fool us into thinking we, the citizens, still have any kind of control in the 15 in-house trading mechanisms she and her friends at city hall keep thinking will fool all of us.
Cathy Donohue

From Councilwoman Marcia Johnson

Would someone please tell me when a rezoning of a park has come up? If you don’t know of any in the past would someone please construct a plausible hypothetical of an action that Parks might take that would be thwarted by the re-zoning process of a park? I would fight for a cause that I could understand had content.
As for the famous 15 things Council has to pass on before something major can happen in a park, everything Council is in committee, on Channel 8, subject to review of written minutes and therefore public. I catch myself…No, sometimes we pass things on a consent agenda, which is not very transparent. These items are not controversial, though and every member of the Amenities Committee has to sign off. Any time on a consent agenda would be ‘way below an issue equivalent to a rezoning.
I really want to get some response to the first paragraph because these are the questions I have wanted to ask any of you and haven’t caught up with you at the end of a meeting to have the conversation.
Marcia Johnson

From Tom Morris:

While council has carefully avoided asserting its zoning powers in parks, it might have avoided years of dispute and mistrust had it done so.

Under the zoning ordinance a zone lot is allowed but one "accessory use." This has resulted in both the zoo and museum being classified as "accessory uses" at various times down through the years. The last iteration of this fabrication defined the zoo as a park and therefore a "use by right" and the museum as an "accessory use." The code limits an "accessory use" to ten percent of the zone lot. At its present extent the museum is approaching this limit. The zoo, under its present classification avoids any land use review at all.

Over the years there have been numerous attempts to bring orderly and transparent governance to City Park. Council has always taken the least contentious approach. There was a green space regulation (or ordinance, I'm not sure which) which requires public hearings when green space is lost. I suspect that it is a regulation since when the Junior golf clubhouse was constructed in City Park golf course, no public notification or input occured.

When a firestation was proposed located in City Park at 17th and Jackson, only a change in administration from McNichols to Pena prevented it from being constructed. It required thousands of hours of citizen time to defeat the station which ended up at 14th and Harrison. Had it been built as proposed, the station would have had grass and trees in fully half it adjacent area.

The 1985 additions to the museum were undertaken without any citizen input or participation. Community disgust at that project allowed us to successfully oppose location of the city's aquarium in the park. There were no rules. It required public protests, picketing, confrontational public meetings and eventual reluctant capitulation by the Pena administration. The dispute over the aquarium led to five years of public meetings, a change in the city charter (expanding the Advisory Board), the green space regulation/ordinance, a disputed City Park master plan, road closures, a solemn pledge from the museum never to ask for those roads to be opened for supplementary parking, the two garages, and an almost universal distrust of the Department of Parks and Recreation among neighborhood groups. Because of a pledge by Raylene Decatur, the museum CEO, that the museum would never expand in City Park, the museum garage was constructed without the capacity to expand vertically. The latest bond issue results in an addition 60,000 sq.ft. of exhibit space (300 cars required under the existing zoning code) with no place to park the cars. I'm sure the residents of west Park Hill will make someone pay for this lack of orderly land use.

The proposal to put the Department's offices in the pavilion without zoning control was overturned by the U.S. District court after years of confrontation, demonstrations, picketing, public meetings and more distrust of city government.

I suspect without orderly zoning requirements these kinds of disputes will continue. We have already seen a glimpse in the AEG proposal. When people discover that council has given away the people's right to legally petition to overturn a decision by the manager or to require an extraordinary majority of council to pass a change in the park, I suspect there will be hell to pay. I plan to participate in that.

Citizens have always had the right to complain. They will retain that right under this proposal to deny the checks and balances of orderly democracy. Even if an administration sneaks a park change past them, the people will find a way. It is unfortunate that this council is willing to keep park land use issues in this maelstrom of anger and haphazard governance.

The failure of past councils to exert their land use responsibilities is not a good reason to continue a failed system. It is only an excuse for council to continue to place their constituents at a disadvantage which can only be overcome by the basest public efforts and public anger.

Think about it, please.

Tom Morris

From Larry Ambrose

Dear Councilwoman Johnson:
Please note one example of a controversial capital construction project for a Denver park which could quite possibly come up very soon. The Library Commission is considering putting a new already bond-funded West Denver Library in Sloan's Lake Park. Under the proposed zoning code change, the Manager of Parks & Recreation would have exclusive power to decide whether to put such a building in the Park and to determine its shape, scale and height. You (Council) already approved funding and building it before you even knew where it was going! You may be changing the definitions of zoning for private property under the new zoning code being considered, but you are not taking away the citizens rights under the Charter to either ask for a rezoning or to challenge a zoning change. Council's willingness to limit the publics' right to participate in decisions or redress decisions with which they may not agree with regard to zoning of public property, especially Denver's limited, valuable and historically admired park system and to turn it over to the whims of any particular Mayor or bureaucrat would be first, and foremost, unnecessary, not to mention fool-hearty, bad civic policy, a violation of your oaths and dereliction of your fiduciary duties.
Respectfully but indigently,
Larry Ambrose

From Cathy Donohue:

Marcia,
Just imagine for one minute that the Manager of Parks would like to put a Tennis Ball practice machine (at 10 balls for a dollar) in Cramner Park. Anyone that wanted to practice hitting tennis balls that were in the machine would simply put their dollar in the machine and hit balls till closing time. Who made the decision to put in the ball dispensing machine? This kind of for-pay project would certainly not need the approval of council for any reason should you hand over you power to control the land use in parks to the Manager.. Would this use be a "parks use" as described in the Charter, especially the "for pay" part?. Whether or not the zoning surrounding Cramner allowed such a profit making machine is questionable. Just how would any citizen stop the Manager. Now, under the Charter with rules for ordinance control of land in parks, a group of citizens could pass a legal petition to stop a Council member who would vote such an abuse of zoning rules (I imagine Cramner is probably R-1, or something close to that). Tom Morris' lengthy history of abuses over the years just in City Park is noteworthy in that it shows very clearly that the parks' legacy is open for abuse.
As I have said before, the list of 15 ways to influence a decision of the Council which has been designed by the Parks Dept. is simply another insider trading game played in Council Committee or with the city Administrator. This list of 15 ways to execute your influence do not include a public referendum as currently required by Charter. You were elected and swore to uphold the Charter. We would all like to see the sworn duty remain in Council's hands.
Cathy Donohue

From Ray Ehrenstein

Dear Councilwoman Johnson,
When I moved to Denver from El Paso some 37 years ago I was informed that Denver has a "Strong Mayor" form of city government. I have certainly found this to be true during my years living here. Mr. Morris illustrated this fact perfectly with his description of what happened to that firehouse proposed but moved when the change of administrations between Bill McNichols and Federico Pena took place. The thousands of hours of citizen time and input Mr. Morris referred to apparently influenced the Mayor and hence the decision was made.
I would be interested if anyone can remember a time when the Denver City Council ever successfully opposed any Denver Mayor and won their battle? Is there any example where the Council Members changed the Mayor's mind or possibly overrode his decision? Just curious.
It does seem to me that when Denver citizens elect Council members, they should expect a more forceful and involved legislative branch and not one which Mr. Morris said "takes the least contentious approach" to issues. Charlie Brown being an exception. Xcel has his ear.
After considering Denver's City Council's history as described by Cathy Donohue, Tom Morris and others involved with this Parks discussion, I will agree the last thing our City Council should be doing is to further dilute their powers, especially to a Mayor's appointee.
With as little open green space as Denver has left within its' borders, we should look for locations for libraries, fire stations, museums and the like outside of the open park spaces we have currently. Please let's not give up any more park land and trees for any building.
Respectfully,
Ray Ehrenstein

Updated Nov. 26, 2009

From Marcia Johnson:

I have only served on Council along with the current administration. The pattern for the process in bringing anything forward to Council has been consistently that

1.) Someone from the department of the administration where the issue originates visits with the councilperson(s) whose district(s) are affected. There have been some items die or get altered right here. Council members can set up meetings in their districts to air the issue.
2.) The item goes to the appropriate committee or, because it was passed by the chairman on the consent agenda, goes to Mayor Council. Even there the affected City Council member can greatly alter the outcome.
3.) The Mayor appointed RD Sewald and Amber Callendar as liaisons to Council and they check over and over with Councilmembers on whether or not we are ok with what is being proposed. They have negotiated with Councilmembers and changed the proposals.
4.) Still, Council members weigh in at meetings, (witness Jeanne Faatz’ comments).
5.) Proposals can be held and changed at this point. This happened with budget items.
As a consequence, there is little drama on Monday nights. It may appear that Council is rolling over because there is so little debate at this point. All that has happened with much input before things get to the floor.Your concern is that there will be many mayors with various styles of working and the zoning code must guarantee that the public and the public’s representatives have access to processes before the final ordinances are passed. We all get this.

Thanks to this email dialogue, you have sent this example and I did receive some other useful specifics from George Cerrone. I’ll check with CPD to see how it has adapted to the concerns raised. I heard CPD planners, sitting to my right at the listening sessions, saying that there needed to be some response. Then you can see if that response allays your concerns.Thank you for your clear language. Personally, I find you one of Denver's most accessible and responsive Council Members. You took my point about changing Mayors exactly and I take your point that you have only served during the tenure of one Mayor.

I continue to believe that as long as we create a New Zoning Code only every forty years or so, our citizenry does want and need protective language in this newest code ...

From George Cerrone:

Marcia,

Below are my responses to the questions in your first paragraph.

When has a rezoning of a park come up?

Rezoning of a park comes up virtually every time Council enacts a “language amendment” to the Zoning Code.

Council “rezones” property (changes or modifies permitted uses or forms of structures) in one of two ways: through “language amendments” to the Code it changes the regulations and rules that govern the use and form of structures on properties; and through “map amendments” to the Code it changes the boundaries of a zone district or the district in which a particular property is to be governed.

Under our Zoning Code, parks are governed by the general y applicable Code regulations and the regulations of the Zone District in which they are located. When these regulations are changed or modified, (or “rezoned”), one or more of the parks are “rezoned”.

Examples of some of the subjects of “language amendments” to the Code that would affect a park include: uses to be made of the properties, set-backs (front, side and rear), parking space requirements, traffic study requirements, interior roads, street access, building heights, bulk plane restrictions, separation restrictions (between liquor stores, adult bookstores, soon-to-be marijuana dispensaries, etc.).

Park’s Actions Thwarted by “Rezoning”.

Park’s actions have “recently” been thwarted at least twice: once by a proposed citizen-initiated rezoning; and once by a failure of Council to rezone.

Proposed Rezoning. The most recent proposed Park’s action that was thwarted by a proposed rezoning is the proposed siting of the Colorado History Museum in Civic Center Park. The Mayor and Council and the State were very recently set in building the new museum in Civic Center Park, only the details remained to be worked out. A group of citizens began a petition drive to initiate a rezoning of the park which would have prevented the construction of the museum. The proponents of the museum backed down and went elsewhere. Park’s action was thwarted.
Failure to Rezone. In the late1980’s, Parks proposed siting some of its administrative and management facilities in City Park. The Denver District Court prevented such action, ruling that Council failed to rezone the park to allow such siting, since the then current zoning did not allow such use and forms of structures. Park’s action was thwarted.
George

From Tom Morris:

Slowly, they turn. Why we have to invent a new means of land use control is beyond my understanding. We know how zoning works. It is tried and true. Disputes arise, are discussed and resolved. Inventing a new system guarantees that it will fail in some new and exciting way. Viewing the manager of parks as a developer rather than a tool of the mayor would be too simple for words.

From Councilwoman Marcia Johnson:

Cathy
I got a number of examples and now agree that Parks should not have unlimited say in what goes on in the parks. However, I am not sure zoning is the only tool we can use to insert Council accountability. I am ready to hear what other solutions may come forward.

From jdwerther:

if the city attorney were an elected position would this discussion go in a different direction?

thanks