Roux Black PAC!

[blackfriend5280]

Roux Black PAC Voter Guide: Nov. 3, 2015 Edition 

Proposition BB: Do we let Colorado keep $66 million dollars—that would otherwise be refunded to taxpayers, retail pot cultivators, and retail pot purchasers—to spend on school construction and marijuana education/prevention programs?     YES!

·      Reasoning: Two-thirds of the money will go directly towards school construction, a key factor in getting Amendment 64 passed, so voter desire will be met. In addition, the average tax refund for most Colorado residents would be near $8; while that isn’t NO money, it isn’t enough to fundamentally sway an individual’s life; a competent pre-school in an at-risk area will. And the money towards those prevention programs will also go towards rehab centers and homeless facilities that desperately need it!

 Question 2B: Do we let Denver keep roughly $5 million dollars, that they’d have to refund because of TABOR, to spend on municipal projects (The younger brother of the above issue)?            YES!

·      Reasoning: Besides the fact that it makes little sense to vote yes on BB and no on 2B (philosophically or pragmatically, with regards to TABOR), this would set a precedent for the return of tax money in the marijuana industry and bolster positive public perception/reception of pot shops. Additionally, this isn’t a new tax or an amendment to a previous one: the government essentially admitted they under-guessed a previous amount and is asking for permission to keep what they gained.

 Question 1A: Do we allow Denver to amend its deal with Adams County in order to annex more land for DIA (Denver International Airport), resulting in job creation and economic development for both counties, understanding that Denver will share the tax revenue with Adams County? NO!

·      Reasoning: Primarily a question of over extending. Denver has at least two massive, costly undertakings to complete in the next few years: the light rail expansion (mostly already funded) and the 1-70/Swansea-Globeville-Elyria Restoration, a large part of which is based on the re-haul of the National Western Complex. The former has yet to really prove itself besides the W line, and the latter is still up to voters, on this ballot, as to whether Denver can increase its debt to pay for (Question 2C). Denver is expanding rapidly, and by itself, 1A isn’t particularly bad. But combined with 2C, the construction from 2B (if its passed), and a host of other issues Denver needs to deal with regarding population influx, 1A seems like a currently unnecessary stretch of resources.

Question 2C: Do we allow Denver to raise its debt to $778 million (by borrowing $479 million) in order to finance the restoration of the National Western Complex and surrounding neighborhoods?        YES!

·      Reasoning: Voters last year agreed to extend the existing 1.75% lodging/car rental tax concerning the NWC, so it stands to reason they’ll vote yes for this, which is probably why the city planned it this way. Over-the-barrel tactics aside, this money would go a long way to revitalizing a part of Denver that sorely needs it and is largely ignored. Improved transportation, access to fresh food, job creation: if implemented consciously, this plan has a lot in store for the Swansea/Globeville neighborhood. The city plans to play back part of the loan with revenue raised from the lodging/car rental tax, as well as bonds, notes, and other measures.

[blackfriend5280]

2B or Not 2B: Spending the Stash Money

Prop BB: This a somewhat well-known issue this November: do we ask Colorado to refund $66.1 million to taxpayers and pot growers, or let the state keep it, using two-thirds ($40 million) for public schools? The remaining third would be split thusly: $12 million on various drug awareness, prevention, and rehabilitation programs, and $14 million towards the general state fund, because the actual amount of revenue wasn’t known when the proposition was drafted. If refunded, $25 million would go directly to taxpayers, $24 million would be refunded to cultivators, and $17.1 to retail purchasers (the stores, not you) in the form of a temporary tax cut on recreational pot: 10% to .01%, from Jan. 1st – Jun. 30, 2016.

Arguments For: 1) Money for public schools construction. 2) Money for the general fund. 3) If it’s your thing, money for drug prevention programs. Also, 4) support is bi-partisan, so bully that. Essentially, the government is saying “We didn't think this was gonna make as much cash as it did, and we’re kinda broke, and we’ve got some things coming down the pipeline but not just yet, sooooo, if you could let us keep this and we’ll totally make the poor kids’ schools better, that would be tight.”

Arguments Against: We should get the money owed us, which is fair. But it breaks down to between $6 and $16 per person. ($16 is only if you made an adjusted gross income of $182,000 or more, which, if you did, dude…you don’t need that $16)  2) Marijuana growers would lose out on $25 million refunded to grow facilities for excise taxes collected in the 2016 fiscal year, plus the tax break on retail purchase. 3) This could be construed as a tax increase because we’d receive less on our tax returns.

Question 2B: essentially the same question as the above, only the City version, and for $5.3 million. Denver is unsure what the financial breakdown would be, but some of it was already tapped for staffing inspections, enforcement, and public education regarding marijuana. 

[blackfriend5280]

Expansion Pack: Question 1A

     Question 1A seeks to amend a 1988 amendment allowing Denver County to annex land from Adams County in order to build DIA; essentially, Denver wants more land. The big selling points of the deal are commercial airport development, subsequent job creation, and shared tax revenue between Denver and Adams County--roughly half the amount earned from commercial development. Denver also agrees to an upfront payment of $10 from to Adams County, likely coming from DIA’s budget, the city’s budget, or a combo of both. (keep this in mind: this ballot is also asking you to agree to Denver borrowing $479 million for the National Western Complex. Hoping all this expansion works.) Part of Adams County (Aurora, Commerce City, possibly other surrounding municipalities) would become an “Airport City” of sorts (term the Denver Post’s), on par with other large cities’ airports that have similar set-ups.

Arguments For: 1) Tax revenue for Denver and Adams County; at the highest estimate, $270 million over three decades, garners $9 million a year, presumably split among both counties/cities in said counties. 2) Jobs, which is cool. Plus there’ll be a light rail out there now... 3). “Global attractiveness,” which could be an argument against, given the rising flood of people moving to Denver and our fair cities lack of affordable housing.

Arguments Against: 1) Adams County would lose more land to DIA; up to 1,500 acres. Two years ago, Adams County nearly demanded much of the land back, and this agreement came after no small amount of contention. 

[blackfriend5280]

     Colorado, You’ve Been Bad With Money

     According to a letter from the National Administration for Children and Families, in 2012, the Centennial State failed to ensure enough Colorado Works participants were engaged in what the program refers to as “countable work activities:” working, job training, or education.  2012 was the most recent year audited, and because of the failure—achieving 23.8 % when the target was 50%—the state faces a fine of $4.8 million dollars. This will likely (and somewhat fairly) be blamed on Reggie Bicha, executive director of the state’s Department of Human Services, but he’s only been serving since January 2011; a look at the stats reveals, since Oct. 2006, Colorado has never reached a 50% engagement rate. The department plans to dispute the fine.

           They would’ve come much closer to never incurring the fine had they spent more than 1.5 percent of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) budget on countable work activities. The state coffer would’ve benefit also: according to the Colorado Works website, “it is estimated that for every dollar invested into Transitional Jobs Programs, four dollars are reinvested into the local economy.” That’s from the ReHire Colorado section of the site; ReHire is the apparently singular program focused on employment activities, so that’s ostensibly where 1.5 percent is spent. This begs the question: where does the other 98.5 percent of the budget go?

           Speaking of fines, that same department faces a $1 million dollar sanction for spending roughly that same amount in unauthorized federal dollars from the SNAP fund in 2013 on new software to a) improve application efficiency and b) identify people who’d committed fraud in other states. Instead of, you know, putting that million towards the funds dispersed to recipients. The expenditure might’ve been understandable were it an overhaul, but it was an unapproved four-year contract extension (plus various amendments) with Deloitte Consulting, a private Denver firm. This lack of approval seems suspect, largely because it seems like that would be an obvious prerequisite for spending federal funds. This is kind of like seeing your parents’ Visa card on the table and thinking “You know what? They’ll be cool with me getting an iPad, that’s a school supply.”

           It’s actually exactly like that, which is what’s so troublesome. If director Bicha will spend money without oversight, then essentially claim he doesn’t know why the state’s getting hit with a fine…how the hell is he handling that 98.5 percent? In both sanctions, director Bicha waited until the last minute to inform many lawmakers of the issues, in May 2015. Which is like waiting until your parents get the bill for that iPad before you say anything. This makes me question the director, the department, and the Governor, who continues to stick up for Bicha in the face of continued failures. If this is the level of competency is a standard—inefficient program spending and inexcusable negligence—how severely underserved is our lower-income and/or job-seeking population??

Our state is bad with money, and this is only one example. Next week, I’ll approach the gentrification in Five Points through the lens of a $475,000 grant siphoned off from the Federal Community Block Grant and given to brand-new developers on Welton Street.

[blackfriend5280]

In the past few weeks, three petition drives were launched in order to pose these questions to the voters in November: will Denver allow certain private businesses to condone limited public marijuana consumption with restrictions, and will Colorado redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions? (The third would allow wedding industry businesses opposed to same-sex marriage to contract out their services.) Denverites: you should sign the petition to get the marijuana public consumption question on the ballot. Coloradans, you should not sign the petition to get the initiative on the ballot to redefine same-sex marriage.

           The first one is simple to justify: Denver is a global trailblazer, if you’ll forgive the pun, and legitimizing cannabis clubs and/or bars that allow bring-your-own-weed consumption would be a major step towards decriminalizing marijuana in the States. (Subjectively it helps, cutting down on the feeling of resentment held by some residents towards tourists that brazenly smoke in public.) It gives tourists somewhere to consume marijuana and keep it in the state. Limited public consumption avenues would decrease the need for police resources focused on nabbing public smokers. Pueblo and Nederland already have a similar situation in place with regards to the one proposed in the Denver initiative. Plus, it only needs 5,000 signatures to get on the ballot. So, sign that, then vote yes on it in November.

           The language and motives behind the proposed civil union amendment are bigoted and illogical, and this initiative is easy not to support. Besides being audacious enough to think they can circumvent the recent Supreme Court decision—the amendment would redefine same-sex marriages as civil unions, thus removing some of the legal rights of marriage—the two lawyers from Littleton who wrote the law utilize completely backwards reasoning: “A marriage is recognized as a religious expression…that shall not be abridged through the state…recognizing any law…that defines marriage in opposition or agreement to any particular religious belief.” Seriously? This language essentially says, “My religion says marriage is this, so the laws should be based on that, but they also can’t be based on what anyone else’s religion, or lack thereof, has to say about it.” Which, besides being hypocritical, also presumes the validity of one religion, and basically ignores the whole idea of church and state (where are the defenders of the Constitution when you bring that up?). The initiative needs 99,000 signatures to get on the ballot, and the population of Littleton is only 42,000, so if none of us sign it, and ::goes to check the Springs’ population::…ok, well, NO ONE IN DENVER SIGN THIS PETITION if you see it.

           The Supreme Court decision deals with the legal rights of marriage as determined in the United States, so your religion can consider a same-sex marriage invalid (or immoral or a precursor to horse-leprechaun marriage or whatever) but the IRS shouldn’t, and now can’t. There’s a moment when two characters are arguing in a Star Trek: Voyager episode: one of the characters quits the argument abruptly, and an onlooker asks, “How do you get him to give in so fast?” The character that won answered “I wait until his own illogic overwhelms him.” This is how I feel about this amendment, and what I believe the outcome will be if it even gets on the ballot.

[blackfriend5280]

No, It’s Terrorism. Stop.

      In preparation for this piece, I read six articles, listened to two news stories, and came to one conclusion: I’m not digesting anything more that doesn’t refer to the attack on black life in this country as terrorism. “Domestic” terrorism, if you must.

           Knowingly setting fire to a place that contains a congregation of people you hate is called terrorism. Synonyms include radicalism, bombing, and extremism, according to Microsoft Word; dressing in white hoods and using Molotov cocktails to burn down churches qualifies for all three. Aren’t…aren’t we, as a country, supposedly fighting a War on Terror, or did we win that? Did that include all forms of terror, or, just, like, religious terror towards American citizens, for which the church burnings would still qualify? I wondered, sadly, what has to happen before we, the United States, include and/or legitimize white supremacy as terrorism in our collective conscious…then I realized hate towards black lives is such an ingrained aspect of our history that it isn’t perceived as terrorism. If it were, the War on Terror would’ve started back in 1995.

           The Mt. Zion A.M.E. church in Greeleyville, South Carolina—the seventh church in the South to catch ablaze since June 17th —has burned to the ground before, so recently that pretty much anyone reading this was alive and watching Power Rangers, but few of us remember it. Twenty years ago, in the summers of 1995 and 1996, a similar yet larger and more destructive rash of church bombings terrorized the South. It was so bad, the Clinton administration created a National Church Arson Task Force, which initiated 827 investigations…at a success rate of about 35%. While the cause of Tuesday night’s fire has “yet to be determined”, three of the previous six fires have been ruled arson: the College Hills Seventh Day Adventist Church in Knoxville, TN; God’s Power Church of Christ in Macon, GA; and the Briar Creek Baptist Church in Charlotte, NC. There is a legacy of domestic terrorism against black churches, but we don’t perceive it as terrorism because the victims aren’t perceived as true Americans.

           Race-based church burnings are only one example of ugly, bigoted, terrorist acts interwoven into the culture and history of the United States—consider lynching or cross burning—and our refusal to call them terrorist makes them seem less incendiary than they truly are. Dylan Roof is a terrorist; the KKK is a terrorist organization; the Confederate flag is a terrorist symbol. Further, our refusal to legitimize the actions against black churches and lives as terrorist acts exposes the racial hypocrisy in our country with alarming transparency. Perhaps we can focus the War on Terror to eradicating the domestic terror against black lives by police and militias and murderers?

           Call it what it is. Stop domestic terrorism against black lives in America.

[blackfriend5280]

Intersectionality, or, Protests on Protests on Protests!!

     So…who heard about that protest in the middle of the PrideFest parade? If you didn’t, that’s probably because it was almost too well executed for it’s own good.

    First, lets give it up for the city of Denver coordinating three major festivals in one day: a celebration of local music with the Westword Music Showcase; a celebration of the abolishment of American slavery with the Juneteenth Festival in Five Points; and one of the nation’s largest celebrations of LGBTQ pride, Denver PrideFest. The latter, as noted, had an unscheduled (or at least mostly secret) protest, which I’m having mostly positive, but mixed, feelings about.

           The protest was in response to the lack of charges filed against the cops that murdered Jessica Hernandez in January.  Officers Gabriel Jordan and Daniel Greene shot and killed Jessica behind the wheel as she supposedly drove at them, even though neither cop was hit and both were, according to Jordan’s testimony, already out of the way of imminent danger…which is precisely what the District Attorney decided both officers were in when he decided not to file charges…even though only one officer was ever in danger of being hit. And they shot inside the car 8 times. But I digress. At PrideFest, the Hernandez Protesters stopped the parade, noted Jessica’s place in the LGBTQ community, and called for the attendees to “demand an end to police brutality and the sexual discrimination in our community.” The protest was brief, focused, non-violent, and topical; in short, almost perfect.

           I’m wondering: would it have been more effective if the organizers (I haven’t been able to figure out who organized it, yet) had chosen not to go guerilla? Granted, and personally believed, sometimes you have to grab the mic away from the powers that be…but the powers that be weren’t at the forefront at PrideFest; if anything, they were allies who would’ve likely raised the banner alongside. I’m also wondering if this appears divisive, with regards to one civil rights expression having to interrupt another. Any media coverage—or more importantly, the people present at the parade—would perceive these two social issues as either competing or at odds, the opposite of which is true. And while I’m obviously glad there was no unreasonable violence, the lack of eventfulness almost makes the protest feel like an interruption. Perhaps this is idealism, but can you imagine, if, say, the whole front half of the parade stopped cause they were in on it? Youd’ve seen that in the Post.

I could be wrong. What do you think?

[blackfriend5280]

Are All Cops Bad? #ACAB

Short answer: yes. Long answer, see below.

           A police officer’s obligation is to uphold a legal system that is inherently biased, employs systematic judicial discrimination, and has been repeatedly proven to be thoroughly unjust. Police officers enforce injustice. It is a bad profession. If the officers followed a common police motto, to protect and serve, that would be one thing. But they don’t: they enforce and police and restrict. They protect the interests of a system that only has its own survival and proliferation in mind. City departments only police relatively smaller crimes, the transgressions perpetrated against each other on a smaller level. They have no power to punish the larger, corporate crimes that victimize nearly all of our communities. Police officers are the most direct link communities have to the prison-industrial complex; the officers work for the complex, filling the prisons disproportionately with impoverished people of color.

           I’m not asserting or implying good people don’t become police officers and lose their decency; many of them retain it, and stay good people. I am largely ignoring semantic conceits of “police officers” are the good ones and “cops” are the bad ones—or vice versa, depending on how you feel about N.W.A.—because that tends to cloud the subject.  I am arguing that, unlike a firefighter, paramedic, or other civil servants who respond to community issues they haven’t caused and can only actively further through negligence, police officers respond to issues in the community they have no ability (or desire) to alleviate or end constructively, only regulate and monitor. Despite the best intentions of individuals who choose to be cops: that career doesn’t actively help people, it only stops transgressions.

           This is, of course, not to say that police officers don’t stop or prevent violent and petty acts citizen perpetrate on each other, but I think the time has come for us to ask ourselves whether we need a group of people to do that, or if the collateral damage of terrorized neighborhoods and young dead black people is enough that…maybe we just take it into our own hands, own up to our behaviors as human beings, and begin policing ourselves. This is a difficult and massive undertaking that will likely take at least a century of consistent efforts by a majority of the population; the alternative is another century of stories about dead teens and an over-militarized American police force. Are we willing to argue that WE can’t get better so we NEED cops?

           You’ll probably predict where this comparison is headed, but: the reason most people don’t tolerate forgiveness for Nazi soldiers under the guise of “just doing one’s job” is that the job itself was so morally bankrupt, corrupt, and systematically perverse that hiding behind the uniform is seen as, if you’ll forgive the highly appropriate usage of this word, a cop-out.

           “But heavily armed American police officers are by no means working together to commit a philosophically motivated genocide of a specific group of people to promote the idea of racial purity and hegemony, are they?”

           Now, I’m not saying the American police force is as bad as the SS, nor am I saying all cops are Nazis, because they aren’t; that’s unfair to cops. I am wondering, though, how many police homicides and cover-ups have to happen, how many young black people have to be shot multiple times and left to expire in the street, how many pregnant women have to be manhandled or beaten, how many thousands of inappropriate incidents by officers on the job ranging from solicitation to drug abuse will go unrecorded and unpunished before we, as a society, finally admit “You know what? Maybe this cop thing isn’t working.” What I don’t understand is the expected yet perplexing rash of “police apologists” who feel the need to clarify that all cops aren’t bad.

           Yes, they are.

           Police officers, if one is referring objectively to the job title and subsequent wealth of data as to how that profession has so far handled itself in America the past 200 years, are not good professionals.

           I missed a week of 4th grade when my parents kept me home from school during the worst of the 1992 Los Angeles Riots. These riots were a response to a verdict of “not guilty” delivered by a jury of peers in the Rodney King case concerning the brutal beating of a black man by four white police officers. It didn’t occur to me until about I sat down to write this piece that my parents were likely just as scared I’d be subject to police violence as I would righteous violence. 

     To the people claiming that “all cops are bad” is stereotyping, it’s not: the entire system is admittedly corrupt, not just a few examples the media chooses to over promote. Stereotyping is believing a preconceived set of notions regarding a group of individuals while having no proof that individual conforms to those stereotypes. Hourly news articles, statistics citing a new dead black man every 18 hours at the hands/guns of police, allegations of misconduct in nearly every police department in the nation, a private prison-military industrial complex full of minor offenders, and the quota system imposed on officers, I feel, are more than enough proof to make this somewhat blanket statement: All cops are bad. 

[blackfriend5280]

DON’T IGNORE YOUR RUNOFF BALLOT. If you have one, that is. If you live in District 2, 7, 10 or 11, you’ve likely received another ballot for the runoff election because no candidate in the packed field garnered more than 50% of the vote.

 DON’T IGNORE YOUR RUNOFF BALLOT:

1.     District 2: vote Kevin Flynn (municipal government experience over name recognition)

2.     District 7: vote Jolon Clark (community experience plus lived here three times as long)

3.     District 10: vote Anna Jones (community planning experience, female representation, progressive ideology)

4.     District 11: vote Sean Bradley (community experience, p.o.c. representation.)

DON’T IGNORE YOUR RUNOFF BALLOT. Even if it feels like you just did this. You may have. But the razor thin margins in some of these elections—District 10’s top two candidates were 100 votes apart in May, according to the Denver Post—are a almost perfect example of how one person and one vote can make so much difference. Go drop off your ballot here: 

https://www.denvergov.org/maps/map/votecenters

DON’T IGNORE YOUR RUNOFF BALLOT. Because affordable housing but gentrification, doe; because the city is progressive in some ways and has a ways to go in others; because legal recreational marijuana but no place to smoke it legally leading to all sorts of complications that could largely be alleviated by a restricted form of cannabis club. I’d like to keep the city basically the way it is and start attacking the weaknesses with vigor; it’s easier to do that with like-minded people on the City Council.

long story short, DON’T IGNORE YOUR RUNOFF BALLOT.  

[blackfriend5280]

What Shall We Do Without Us? A Review of City Council Elections

     The election results are in, and…they are a bit depressing. Denver may seem concerned with a progressive agenda and affordable housing, but the list of winners after last Tuesday’s election represents a movement towards a further gentrified city and a continued concentration of wealth.

           Mayor Hancock retaining his title was a surprise to literally no one, earning 10 times the votes of his nearest challenger.  As well, the sitting incumbents all won their uncontended seats. What is surprising is the election of business-oriented candidates with moderate to conservative views to the council…though maybe not so much considering the conservative backlash against the passage of Amendment 64, as well as the promise by many of the winning candidates for “responsible growth.” The (possible) shining light of the election could be Rafael Espinoza’s election to the District 1 seat. The victory was pronounced, with Espinoza earning twice the amount of votes as Shepherd. Shepherd was seen as distanced from her district and in the pocket of developers, so it’s not a big shock she was ousted. However, I’m concerned that Espinoza’s record, which is largely based in architecture and city planning, will result in him following the same development lead as Shepherd, and the major difference will be he’ll just have better office hours than Shepherd.  

           John Kidd won in District 2, which makes sense given his endorsement by the previous Councilmember, Jeanne Faatz. Unfortunately, his platform is shallow, he’ll likely be in the pockets of apartment builders (and hopefully some condos, for the little pressure that will indeed alleviate), and he doesn’t have very much legislative experience. More troubling, he beat out three candidates with better experience: Kevin Flynn, the city hall journalist, Jeanne Labuda, who was a former State Representative, and Fran Coleman, who was ALSO a former State Representative. I’m curious if Labuda and Coleman—similar candidates whom, vote totals combined, would’ve had the most votes—split the women’s vote, or if that’s an antiquated way of thinking. The good thing about District 2 is that there’ll be a runoff, so hopefully Flynn can take it. Wayne New winning is District 10 is a disappointment. His focus is on Cherry Creek, and I don’t see him paying the same amount of attention to the Colfax area of his district. He’s a Republican and wholly business minded, which makes sense in a business district, but not for the overall healthy growth of the city to have him on the council.

           What worries me most, though, is the fact that less than 30% percent of registered voters voted.  With mail-in ballots and a three-week window, I’m not sure how much easier democracy can be, unless they installed it as an app on our phones, and I think they might’ve already done that. Local elections are the last vestige of true (ish) democracy left, because local politicians are (ostensibly) the last line of defense against the outside interests of multi-national corporations. Some races in this election were won by a margin of 100 votes.  And were it not for the two at-large seats going to incumbents Robin Kniech and Debbie Ortega, the council would only have three women on it; that’s not very representative of Denver’s gender ratio, which is split nearly down the middle. We cannot afford to believe the lie we’ve been sold that our votes don’t matter. While the existence of the Electoral College is troubling with regards to Presidential elections, City Council elections are determined directly by the people. And I’m a little angry…at them AND at us. Them, for knowing apathy would win out and catering to it, and us because we cant keep letting this happen. We can’t keep running to Facebook to post a convenient platitude or meme about the lack of democracy and then not fight to bring it back.

           So here’s my vow, as an individual and as a leader of a Political Action Committee. I vow to be a watchdog for us, keeping an eye on City Council and bringing you up to date info on what these people are allowing to (or NOT to) happen to our neighborhoods. I vow to engage you as much as possible, and to provide outlets for directly and positively affecting our community. I vow to try my hardest to raise that 30% to at least 50% by 2016.

           Join me.

[blackfriend5280]

Roux Black PAC Info Sheet #2: Districts 2 and 7·      

District 2—Southwest Denver, Mar Lee, Harvey Park, Bow Mar Heights, Glenbrook

 Fran Coleman—with lots of varied experience including as a State Representative for House District 1 (where she focused on education, transportation, and environment) Coleman is assuredly qualified for the position. The seat has normally gone to a conservative to reflect the neighborhood, but Coleman is a moderate Democrat: she’s in favor of the Urban Camping Ban, but also supports collective bargaining and restricted public marijuana consumption! She has comprehensive plans for what she wants to do in office; specifically, facilitating a quarterly Community Congress which would include residents and business owners. Her focus is on a council with more resident inclusion, and continued and expanded infrastructure repair.

Kevin Flynn—as a former City Hall journalist with 20+ years experience, Flynn is thoroughly informed on the inner workings of government. He also boasts the most thorough plan for what he intends to do when he gets in office: a list of ten specific things he wishes to accomplish, available on his website. His focus is on public investment in existing infrastructure, and he seems in favor of expanding multi-modal transportation to the area to attract private development. He also has an interesting and empirically based answer to Denver’s red-light camera problem: lengthen the timing of yellow lights by half a second, which apparently works because response times and science.

 Jeanne Labuda—Labuda is a similar candidate to Fran Coleman, with regards to a focus on resident inclusion and a legislative background as a State Representative. She has a focus on education and parks and rec, with a specific eye at using the athletic potential of Colorado to attack childhood obesity. Having served on the Finance Committee during her time in the House, she retains an emphasis on analyzing the city budget with scrutiny to determine efficiency. Labuda has run for Council before (unsuccessfully) and describes herself as a stalwart Democrat.

 Other notable candidates:

·      John Kidd, who has the backing of current Councilwoman Faatz, but has little legislative experience and a shallow platform.

·      Danny Lopez, a former candidate for City Council and Mayor; his platform seems to be based on “shaking it up” and little else.

   District 7-West Wash Park, Platt Park, Ruby Hill, the “Green Mile” of Broadway, Athmar Park

(note: since there are 9 candidates for this seat, the following will be a smaller summary with three points for each candidate)

 Jake Viano (military vet, business owner)

1. Focused on promoting small business (through consulting firms based on the private model) and economic growth, followed by extending and spreading multi-modal transportation.

2. Proponent of incentivizing auxiliary dwelling units (ADUs), a form of coach housing.

3. Progressive ideas on marijuana as a business; believes it should be regulated like any other legitimate business.

Mickki Langston

1. Focused on improving transportation infrastructure citywide and food justice: alleviating food deserts and increasing access to healthy foods.

2.  Would support a limited number of restricted cannabis clubs.

3. Created Mile High Business Alliance, an organization that focuses on localism and cultivating connections among small businesses.

Michael Levy

1. Intensely focused on improving DPS

2. The only candidate NOT fundraising at all; he instead suggests you make a donation to DPS or the charity of your choice.   

3. Specific ideas: Anything But Cars (ABC) First Fridays, where people use any mode of transportation, and a City Council Task Force to deal with issues arising from jail mismanagement.       

Aaron Greco     

1. Very transit-oriented (is currently liaison to Colorado Department of Transportation, CDOT) and focused on multi-use density with regards to non-car transportation.

2. does NOT support the ban on Urban Camping.

3. Was an aide to Colorado State Representatives.

Jolon Clark

1.Wants to explore social impact bonds (a type of performance-based investment that relies on private and public funding) as one possible solution for the homeless dilemma in Denver.

2. Not on board with collective bargaining rights, and seems to be a fan of the private sector.

3. Would explore allowing restricted cannabis clubs. 

Other Notable Candidates: Ian Harwick, Anne McGihon, Luchia Ann Brown, Mateos Alvarez.

[blackfriend5280]

Roux Black PAC Info Sheet #1

           Denver is split into 13 districts, and this May 5th, all of those City Council seats are up for election; six have no incumbent. Decisions made at this level directly impact our daily life, and THIS is when it’s important to utilize our political agency. The Roux Black PAC’s goal is to provide information and resources so that people can make informed decisions and engage in beneficial actions: voting the right people into office covers both of those. Below is a summary of the races for Districts 1, 9, and 10, which covers a large part of Metro Denver, and the largest concentrations of residents. Next week, we’ll cover districts 2, 6, and 7.

 District 1: Northwest Denver, Highlands, Sloan’s Lake, parts of West Colfax

Who’s Running:

Susan Shepherd—running for her second term as District 1 representative, Shepherd’s main focus is neighborhood growth and expansion. She is a fairly active proponent of food equity: she worked with Mi Casa teaching kids how to grow food and joined Denver’s Food Policy Council in 2010. She was elected to city council in 2011 and has been in the center of debates about expansion in the Highlands/Northside. A third of her funding from Jan. 2013 – Jan. 2015 has come from businesses and individuals who’s projects she advocated for while on City Council; as well, much of her funding comes from out-of-state property developers looking to further develop (or gentrify, depending on your point of view) North Denver. Many political critics and bloggers also cite a growing discontent with Shepherd’s lack of connection with District 1 residents.

 Rafael Espinoza—an architect who is actively involved with city planning, Espinoza is running on a platform of zoning knowledge and stronger resident representation. He doesn’t have much government experience except being appointed to the Board of Adjustment in 2014, which examines zoning requests around the city. Somewhat unfortunately, much of his campaign is centered on pointing out Shepard’s failures instead of promoting a cohesive plan of attack. Still, he is promoting representation and not pricing Latinos and African American’s out of the community, so he has a pretty focused message of visible representation on city council.

Other notable candidates: Malachi “Tiny” Martinez, who is running a similar platform to Espinoza, but has less experience and even fewer backers.      

District 9:  Downtown, Five Points, Whittier, City Park West, Park Hill,

 Who’s Running:

Albus Brooks—a pretty active councilmember who, for the most part, has the city’s residents firmly in mind. He’s at the forefront of the movement to make Denver even more bike friendly, and seems to be a genuine representative of the areas he’s in charge of.  His office was involved with a fair amount of the positive growth efforts in Five Points and Northeast Denver, and his re-election platform seems focused on transparency.  He also sponsored the bill that recently led to the increase in taxes to benefit the Denver Preschool Program. A major issue with his candidacy is his support of the 2010 Unauthorized Camping Ordinance, which effectively outlawed homelessness on the 16th Street Mall and surrounding areas. While a total of 9 City Council members sponsored the ordinance, Brooks was the leading force. Despite this unpopular decision, his reputation as a representative seems mostly positive and intact.

 Ean Tafoya—a relative newcomer to the campaign game, Tafoya’s main interaction with local politics has been as the Legislative Assistant for Denver City Council, so he’s familiar with the responsibilities of a Councilperson. While Tafoya is only 29, Albus Brooks was the youngest councilperson ever elected to District 8, which is now District 9. Tafoya has served as a board member on multiple civic-minded Councils, including the Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee and Capitol Hill United Neighborhoods. His campaign is centered on his connection to the youth, which may or may not translate directly into votes, but he’s definitely representative of the newer population of District 9.

Other notable candidates: Mike Borcherding, whose major claim to fame is his non-profit “Mile High Gives.” His campaign goals are focused on finding a solution to homelessness that alleviates the burden on District 9, which seems like a mixed bag of a platform.

District 10: Cherry Creek, Central Denver, Congress Park, Capital Hill, Golden Triangle

Anna Jones—a candidate whose experience lies in zoning and economic development, Jones is running on a platform of  “balanced growth and progressive values.” Her government experience consists of serving on the Denver Planning Board for seven years; however she’s Vice President of the Progressive Urban Management Association, which deals with community development and public policy formation. She is also an adjunct professor at CU Denver, and like Tafoya, she served on the Mayor’s Bicycle Advisory Committee. Her resume seems tailored for service on a City Council; hopefully, she unveils a concrete set of goals for her District and mobilizes voters.

 Wayne New—a retired healthcare consultant and hospital administrator, New is running on a “campaign for efficiency,” hoping to convince voters his success at running businesses will translate into representing a district. He has been recognized repeatedly by various Cherry Creek neighborhood organizations, specifically for community service, and was in fact former president of the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association. He’s recently come under fire for failing to disclose campaign expenditures, specifically that its his campaign paying for advertisements, not some other body, which could be inferred.  

 Travis Leiker—Leiker has a similar progressive platform to Jones, campaigning for social equity, women’s rights, and animal rights.  A specific platform point is his desire to bring more businesses owned by women and people of color to Denver, which speaks to the fears of gentrification in District 10 (and others). His campaign seems to be more focused on the culture of Denver: it’s art, its distinctive ethnicities and neighborhoods, its love for charismatic megafauna. His website features a comprehensive plan for his time in office, more so than the other candidates of district, which is refreshing to see.

 Other notable candidates: Almost too many too name; there are 9 people running for this district alone. The above three represent an estimated cross section of platforms.

Key Issue in All Districts: Property development is key for a growing city, but much of what’s taking place around metro Denver feels like gentrification. How is the new city council member, specifically, going to deal with rising rents in their district? Is rent control feasible? What about strengthening the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance?

[blackfriend5280]

Three Weeks, Three Steps: Vote!

 And who you votin’ for, Republican or Democratic? / Don’t say it doesn’t matter cause that’s how they stole the LAST one.

           -- “Daddy Fat Sax,” Big Boi (of OutKast)

       Voting, by itself, isn’t going to stop police officers from shooting unarmed black men in the back, because voting doesn’t cure institutional racism.  By itself. But if you don’t think picking the people who run the institution has an effect, um…I don’t know what to tell you. Politics should always be viewed with healthy levels of skepticism and cynicism, but there’s a reason for the phrase “lesser of two evils.” Especially when one of those evils is picking appointees for the Supreme Court. (I’m looking at you, Former First Lady.)

       City council elections usually don’t have the same impact as national elections—except when you become the first city in the world to legalize recreational marijuana consumption—but your individual vote has way more of an impact at the local level because there’s no electoral college. The city of Denver began sending out ballots Monday, and I, for one, would like the city to remain the progressive, bike-friendly, pot-friendly city it is, AND I want better buses. And lower rent. And more shelters for the homeless. And on May 5th, we get to help choose the people who will make my desires a reality. Plus, you’re already paying them through taxes; so not voting is literally throwing money away. Ain’t nobody got time for that.  

So do yourself a favor:

 1.     Find out which district you live in. (pretend it’s the Hunger Games if you want to.) If you get the chance to research the other 10 districts, even better, but it’s imperative you at least figure out which district you live in. Visit www.denvergov.org for a district map, Google “Which district do I live in,” look at your neighbor’s lawn for a campaign sign: the information is easily and readily available.

2.     Research the candidates. Besides citywide resources such as the Denver Post and the Westword, many districts have a local newspaper that covers the candidates more in-depth. Find out who’s running in your district, then go to their website to see if they have an actual platform, or if they’re just spouting platitudes. While it’s unlikely you’ll find a candidate who agrees with you completely, you’ll definitely find one you agree with more.

3.     …VOTE. Whether you fill out your ballot and drop it off early or head to the polls on Tuesday, May 5th, make sure you get counted!!!!!!!!!!!

[blackfriend5280]

VOTE MAY 5th!

Go to www.denvergov.org and find out which district you live in, and then think about what you like and don’t like about your district. Then, research who’s running in your district and figure out which candidate will keep doing the thing you like, and/or may not always do the thing you like, but will listen and strive to reach a balance between yourself and other informed residents. Vote for this person. Repeat this process every two to four years. If you have the time, research other districts. If not, it’s all good.

           That’s what engaging in local democracy should be like.  But what democracy has become is, whoever has the most money can buy the most signs and trigger the most name recognition, thereby jumping on the sweet, sweet track to incumbency. Democracy has become a frustratingly anti-climactic exercise because the two options that electoral politics has been distilled down to seem to mirror each other more and more. And even though city council elections are ostensibly non-partisan, party support (and philosophy) will definitely influence district victories. This election, five of the six seats on City Council are up for grabs, mainly because the incumbent councilmembers were term-limited.  There are over 40 candidates vying for those seats. And there’s a reason.

           Do you know who helps makes urban camping illegal in Denver? City councilmembers. Do you know who helps make Denver one of the foremost bike-friendly, pot-legal, and progressive-thinking cities in the nation? City councilmembers. Do you know who helps construction firms come in and gentrify neighborhoods? City councilmembers. Do you know who helps alleviate food desserts and promotes urban gardening in disenfranchised neighborhoods? City councilmembers.

           Do you know who controls the City councilmembers? You.

           Yeah, you knew where that was going. For real though, you should vote on May 5th. I will likely lose some credibility from my super left-leaning friends and/or the “anti-voting to make a statement” crowd, which is fine, because some of them wear funny hats, but you should really vote. The people who literally shape the foundation of your surrounding environment are up for job evaluation. If democracy worked, this would be an exciting thing:

             “Cecil. CECIL!! Wake up, for today we engage in the most noble and fundamental of our civic responsibilities.”

           “Ju…jury duty?”

           “No, Cecil: it’s Voting Day! And today we run those thieving buggers out of office and put in true representatives of the people!”

           “Huzzah!”

             This conversation has never happened. And it’s because the direct link between our voting agency and any meaningful effect in our society has been blurred by the ineffectiveness of federal government for the past four decades…as well as a basic lack of representation for many populations of America. But there’s a reason some states make it okay to discriminate against gay people, and some states don’t. There’s a reason that some cities have legalized the purchase and private consumption of marijuana, and some haven’t.  Local government affects your daily life, and it is only through a two-pronged attack of focused voting and measurable activism that we’ll regain some of the political power we’ve been told we don’t have.