Verbal Construction

An unidentified woman stands inside a jail cell in Denver. She wears a hat with a lace veil, a wool coat and gloves. Denver Public Library, Western History Collection.

On the eve of the mayoral election, a group of friends discussed our nominees for the biggest scandal in Denver.

I nominated Comcast’s contempt for Denver subscribers, as expressed by their refusal to carry The Tennis Channel (which Dusty Saunders mentioned here.)

Comcast can’t offer tennis because they don’t have room, they say — an insulting lie, considering Comcast’s ubiquitous ads touting limitless bandwidth capacity for data, internet, voice, and TV.

Room for everything except tennis. You see, tennis is the TV programming equivalent of hairballs and soap scum. It clogs Comcast’s fat pipe.

My friends don’t think this is a scandal. Rather, it’s only natural that a monopoly blessed by city hall is contemptuous of ratepayers. The most scandalous aspect of the situation is my naive suggestion that citizen complaints might make a difference. Hmph.

Another scandal nominee: Low voter turnout in the municipal election. Voters stayed away because they knew their votes didn’t matter; the Powers That Be at city hall would remain the same regardless.

Scandalous spin: The Powers That Be want voter apathy. They want voters to opt out of municipal decisionmaking so city hall can better serve the interests of real-estate developers, contractors, nonprofit “partners,” and companies seeking “economic development incentives.”

The juiciest scandal is the re-emergence of the Denver Players investigation and the online publication of documents supposedly showing that Mayor-elect Michael Hancock was a customer of the prostitution ring.

Denver Players is a Chinese box of scandal, if you will. Some people are scandalized that Complete Colorado dared to post the documents. They’re fake, people say, and it’s a political dirty trick.

According to news reports, high-profile athletes, politicians, lawyers, and doctors were among Denver Players clientele. They never were named, and they never were prosecuted.

By contrast, when Denver Sheriff Deputy Eric Griffith was caught in a lesser prostitution sting, he was outed and fired.

Yes, Chief U.S. District Judge Edward Nottingham resigned from the federal bench when his involvement with Denver Players was alleged, but he wasn’t charged with a crime.

Why were no johns arrested or charged in the Denver Players sting? Hello. This is the scandal.

In the investigation, police seized client books and credit card receipts. During the year-long sting, they also conducted routine surveillance. They probably photographed suspected johns, for instance. They recorded license plate numbers of cars driven by suspected johns. So it’s not as if the police couldn’t figure out who these guys were.

If Hancock was involved — if any public official was involved — the police know it but the public doesn’t.

Meaning, Denver Police have a golden chit in their pocket giving them secret leverage over people in positions of public responsibility. Obviously, this is a recipe for corruption.

Need I mention the DPD’s growing infamy for lying, brutality, and official misconduct, and city hall’s baffling inability to do anything about it until interim-Mayor Bill Vidal took charge? If there’s one name not on the Denver Players list, I’m guessing it’s Bill Vidal.

Some members of the local media claim to know the names of powerful johns, too, but won’t reveal them. One reporter said that it’s not in the public interest to name names.

Really? It’s not in your interest to know whether your child’s pediatrician, your tax attorney, or your mayor is involved in the sexual and economic exploitation of human bodies? See Myth of the Victimless Crime here and here.

I imagine that reporters choose to stay mum because they don’t want to jeopardize their access to influential people. Or maybe news organizations want to retain the option of calling in favors from johns in high places. Also, it’s possible that “respected newsmen” were on the johns list.

The plot thickened yesterday when Denver Players client lists and appointment sheets were stolen in a home break-in. Who took ‘em? Someone wanting to expose the johns, or someone hoping to protect the johns from exposure?

Summer is already hot and sweaty with scandal.

The biggest scandal in Denver, however, involves poison and radionuclides in Denver’s recycled water system, how these pollutants got into the water, and why this water is now irrigating our public parks.

Tiny, neighborhood paper Wash Park Profile is the only news outlet interested in this story, apparently. (Their website is offline at the moment. I’m referring to the article “Reclaimed Water Picture Anything But Transparent.”)

The city’s experts insist that we have nothing to worry about. Profoundly reassuring, isn’t it?

So here I am — contemplating my ballot for the Denver municipal election while watching the French Open on NBC — when suddenly I realize….

As a Comcast customer in Denver, I don’t get The Tennis Channel. Meaning, I’ve missed most of the best coverage.

It’s petty. I know. Still, I’m irked that Comcast won’t carry “The Tennis,” as my friend calls it. “Turn on The Tennis,” she says. “I don’t have The Tennis,” I say, dispirited.

Shouldn’t it be a public utility, like water?

I’ve complained to Comcast. They don’t care what I think. So I will complain to city hall. They don’t care either. But, weirdly, they have leverage.

Every 10-to-15 years Comcast has to negotiate a new franchise agreement with Denver’s Office of Telecommunications, an independent regulatory agency that answers to the mayor and city council. Comcast’s renewal process started earlier this year.

Suddenly I realize that my top priority for local elected officials is: Get me The Tennis!

Very possibly this falls within the scope of mayor-council powers and duties. In fact, city hall has more influence over Denver’s cable television franchise than they have over creationism in public schools, the farcical campaign issue du jour.

I want The Tennis. And I vote.

Trifling. But that’s what this election is about. Vincent Carroll confronts the crappy choice for mayor here.

Romer calls out the dawgs.

Denver mayoral candidate Michael Hancock doesn’t believe in evolution or science or modern medicine. He has his doubts about gravity, too, and wants to abolish math. How can we trust him?!!

Suddenly, the race for mayor has become an absurd parody of a political smear campaign.

First, I received an automated push-poll phone call that went something like this:

Press 1 if you support Michael Hancock. (I pressed 1.) You know that Hancock is a bug-eyed creationist, right? Press 1 if you support the bug-eyed creationist. (I pressed 1.) You know that Hancock voted for a pay raise, right? Press 1 if you support Hancock the self-dealing politician who lines his pockets at your expense. (I pressed 1.) You know that Hancock doesn’t like firefighters, right? He wants them to lose their jobs. Just sayin’.

Hilarious. The call disclaimed affiliation with Hancock’s opponent Chris Romer, but please. Who else would stoop to such a shameless, ham-handed distortion/misrepresentation?

Next, I went to my mailbox and found the now-infamous mailer that warns: “We need to keep anti-science politicians like Michael Hancock away from our children’s classrooms.”

I admit that I was too stunned to laugh. I mean, this is funny to me because I know how over-the-top crazy this mischaracterization of Hancock actually is. But what if some voters really believe this stuff?

Romer has a good chance of winning this election. If he succeeds, it will be difficult for him to overcome the ill will he’s sowing with disingenuous assaults on his opponent.

Press 1 if you support Chris Romer. (You press 1.) Really? That’s too bad. You probably didn’t hear Romer’s cranky, carping, I-know-better-than-everyone interview on Colorado Public Radio. If you listen to it back-to-back with Hancock’s interview, I think you’ll change your mind. Just sayin’.

Michael Hancock or Chris Romer for Mayor?

One candidate stands for sincere but blandly vacant caring about Denver, more maneuvering to get city hall’s hands on the assets of Denver Public Schools, more catering to real-estate developers, more ceding of public space and public money to private interests, continued secrecy at Denver Water, continued multimillion-dollar slush at DIA, and poignant self-congratulation.

The other candidate represents exactly the same interests.

Cynical of me to say? No, this has been city hall’s atmosphere for the past several decades. You know what’s cynical? Candidates who shiv each other and magnify irrelevant minutiae as if offering meaningful choices to Denver voters.

I plan to vote for Hancock because he’s not a Wall Street financial wizard, and Romer is…in the great, public-spirited tradition of JPMorgan banksters. Sorry to reduce the race to this one fact. To me it’s the only salient difference between the candidates.

Elsewhere on the ballot, the Second Rule of Denver Politics continues to operate. What rule? Jan Tyler. Marcia Johnson. Sandy Adams. Susan Rogers. Stephanie O’Malley. See the pattern? Over the past decade or so, Denver voters chose these people to oversee city elections.

The Clerk candidates who made it to the run-off also fit the pattern: Sarah McCarthy and Debra Johnson. Despite being popular and having an impressive roster of endorsements, Tom Downey finished third. Why? Because of the Second Rule: Denver voters consistently, unconsciously prefer women with anglophilic-sounding names in the role of Election Commissioner/Clerk.

The First Rule of Denver Politics: City hall is married to you but involved in a torrid affair with real-estate developers. You feel empty and dirty and you don’t know why. When you ask to see phone records, for instance, you’re told that Denver is exempt from the Colorado Open Records Act, and you need to be more trusting. Maybe you should sign up for a pottery class.

Ballots for the run-off election must be returned by June 7.

I sat around a table recently with friends despondent about Denver’s upcoming mayoral election. We despaired that the top candidates are awful.

The easiest candidate to reject is former State Senator Chris Romer. He’s the one with the most campaign cash, and the favorite among Denver’s elite. He was also JPMorgan’s lead banker on the questionable municipal bond deals that led New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to withdraw from Obama cabinet consideration.

Some say Romer was involved in this, too: Exotic Deals Put Denver Schools Deeper in Debt. Do I want a Bankster for mayor? Under no circumstances.

I’m crossing the three city councilors — Carol Boigon, Michael Hancock, and Doug Linkhart — off the list.

Everything wrong with Denver is exemplified by city council. I’ll give you one recent example. Denver is facing a significant budget deficit for the fourth
year in a row, something in the range of $100 million. The city’s so-called leaders talk in grave tones about raising taxes while cutting workers, pensions, libraries, and services.

So, naturally, city council just voted to give $850,000 in corporate welfare to
multi-billion-dollar DaVita, Inc. Yes, DaVita! Renowned for intimidating
competitors with lawsuits, all to dominate the kidney dialysis market.

Jeanne Faatz was the only councilor who opposed the bill on first reading. She
condemned the measure as welfare for a corporation that doesn’t need the money. There’s something rotten in the souls of Denver Democrats when the only politician who pushes back on corporate giveaways also happens to be the only Republican in the room.

Boigon, Linkhart, and Hancock all voted to give DaVita a handout. So when they talk about “hard choices” facing the next mayor, think about DaVita and wonder what “hard choice” they made with their votes.

Of course, they’ll say they did it to create jobs. That’s what they say when they spend our money — as when Boigon wrangled the votes to pass a $2.6 million budget increase for employee raises for 2008. Jobs! Or when Linkhart held backroom meetings with union leaders. Jobs!

For the past eight years these three candidates have made “hard choices” and created “jobs” on city council. Yet Denver is in an ever-deepening hole. So how much confidence can you have in their ability to run the city?

Lots of people seem to love James Mejia, especially around Sloan’s Lake where he’s winning the battle of the yard signs. He claims credit for the Justice Center, but questions have been raised (here, for example) about how “on time and on budget” the project really was. What distinguishes him from any other lifetime insider/employee? So far, all I see is the meh in Mejia.

Danny Lopez, Jeff Peckman, Ken Simpson, Thomas Andrew Wolf. I’m focusing on serious candidates, so these guys are off the list.

That leaves Theresa Spahn. (Also known as, Who?) She’s a lawyer and an advocate for women and children. She has a record of community leadership but she isn’t a city hall insider. To me, that makes her the most credible and qualified candidate.

Process of elimination. The election is May 3.