#rouxblackpac

[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]

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]

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.