Responses to our 2015 Municipal Candidate Questionnaire

Yes. Denver cannot thrive in the long run without encouraging diversity and accommodating people of all socioeconomic backgrounds.

Yes, there is strength in diversity.  Our eco-system is a prime example.

Denver is a Socioeconomically-diverse City. I live in Green Valley Ranch which is a socioeconomically-diverse neighborhood.

I don’t equate socioeconomic mobility with affordable housing.  Our way of dealing with the homeless is clearly inadequate, but the services we have should not be located on the same block with some of the city’s most valuable real estate.

With a comprehensive zero footprint regional transportation system, excellent homeless services could be made a part of a broader, lifecycle approach to comprehensive social services delivered by the city and coordinated with our regional partners.

I would review the IHO for the city.  We can looking for ways to fund a dedicated funding source here by developers of the City.  Additionally, we should review the portions that have the “buy outs” and see how that is affecting the affordable house based on the data.  And the final part is to see what areas of the city are most impacted with the lack of affordable house and target the areas needed first.

By some measures, Denver is now the least affordable major inland city in America. The next city council has the opportunity to make Denver great for generations to come. To ensure that Denver’s students, creative young people, and seniors can continue living in the city we love, we must tackle a variety of issues with forward-thinking and fiscally responsible policies

As a member of city council, one of my top priorities will be growing the supply and diversity of affordable and attainable housing options in Denver while maintaining the character of our unique neighborhoods. That means taking carefully considered action to encourage responsible density and an interconnected, multimodal transportation system that minimizes the additional strain on our congested roadways.

Transit-oriented, multi-use density must be promoted in areas like the former Gates Rubber Factory location, the Shattuck site near Broadway & Evans, the former RTD bus barn location, and other areas adjacent to light rail. These kinds of developments have the least impact on parking and congestion and are largely located in former industrial or light-industrial areas.

District 7 has unique challenges with an interstate, a river, and several north-south arterials dividing communities. Residents of neighborhoods like Ruby Hill and Athmar Park are in close proximity to transit hubs but have no easy way to connect with those hubs outside of an automobile. In addition, the citizens of Platte Park, Baker, West Wash Park and Overland can’t access the South Platte River Trail safely.

We need a leader who will promote partnerships between government, non-profits, and the private sector to achieve greater connectivity between neighborhoods and throughout the community. To be a thriving, resilient city, Denver’s residents need and deserve a transportation system that supports multiple modes of transportation. With basically no room or money to expand our roadways, our future depends on how well we integrate public transit, bike lanes, bike sharing, car sharing, and pedestrian access into our existing system. Any new developments along the South Platte corridor must include incentives for connectivity upgrades and investments.

I want to consider strategies on encouraging “holding the line” on our smaller houses so they can remain affordable. The size of the house determines its price per square foot.   A smaller house would also use fewer utilities.  I would like to see a re-introduction of solar access rights, as Denver had at the beginning of the 20th Century.  If we want to take advantage of renewable resources, protecting solar access is one way.

As a B-Cycle user and avid walker, I will promote filling the gaps with multiple transportation modes from pedestrian-friendly development, bicycle lanes, public transportation and innovative transit solutions such as Bridj. The Platte River is the heart of District 7 and my vision includes bike and pedestrian access that would bridge both sides of the river and unite our communities.

Affordable housing is an economic development issue and I will advocate for a local affordable housing trust fund. I support the IHO-Incusionary Housing Ordinance and believe the amount of affordable housing built should be around 20% of total units.

I would work with our regional partners to create areas for economic restabilization throughout the region.

We can set the vision for Our Denver Metropolis with zero homelessness.  Regional coordination of critical services like transportation, healthcare, education, social support services, job training, universal pre-k, and other programs managed effectively will do a lot more to getting people into homes, than market warping affordable housing schemes which raise rents.   Colorado will have over 6 Million residents by 2020.  Our vision and policies need to be coordinated regionally.

Minimum wage is not a livable wage. Period. I support an increase in the minimum wage and a change in state law that would allow local communities flexibility.

Getting to work is one of the most expensive but important aspect of having a job.  Denver needs to continue and expand its efforts to fill the gaps in our transit system as well as bicycle and pedestrian access.

Continue to support the use of subsidizing ECO passes. Raise the minimum wage over a specific period of time. Make sure that adequate affordable housing is available from transitional housing, short term rental and  opportunities for for first time home ownership in condos and traditional housing.

We must keep Denver and it’s surrounding areas the most beautiful in the world, Our Denver Metropolis.  develop our transportation system for the long term as sustainable and universally affordable, and ensure that businesses continue to move here.

As Mayor, I will solicit regional cities to

All of these will go a long way, but none will go as far as working with everyone who loves Denver to ensure that all Denver employers pay a living wage.

• Find a dedicated funding source for affordable house through provisions of the IHO
• Review and update the IHO to include more provisions with regard to development and the number of affordable housing to make it more balanced
• Review the permit process and find solutions to streamline the “red tape” of this process
• Create a fair and balanced construction defects reform that does not favor one group over the other, but rather incentivizes good developers and holds poor developers accountable.

Denver City Council passed an inclusionary housing ordinance recently in an effort to combat the stagnation in building new affordable units since the first inception of the ordinance over a decade ago. Currently, developers can opt out of building affordable units by paying a fee or building units in other areas of town. My solution is to develop a suite of dedicated revenue sources to subsidize affordable units.

I am hopeful that the revised inclusionary housing ordinance will encourage more developers to build inclusionary units rather than “opt out.”  We need to expand our scope and ensure that we not only address providing affordable housing for those of modest incomes but also those families particularly whose income fall below “modest” income thresholds.  As stated above, we need to look at how to encourage our smaller housing stock to be maintained at existing size.  Not every house needs to be 3000 or 4000 square feet in size.

Support an local affordable housing trust fund, use the new Federal Affordable house trust fund to build transitional housing as part of mixed development. Continue to use new State housing credits. Seek regional solutions and funding. Approve of short term BNB and Air BNB with user fees, lodgers tax and enforcement and regulations. Continue to support partnerships in development  of affordable housing goals. Seek to mitigate constriction defects through mediation and arbitration methods.

The problem is that Denver itself is landlocked.  Our success as a Metropolis is drawing high-quality jobs and employers.  We should be proud of that fact.  Affordable housing abounds in regional areas like Aurora, Lakewood and Littleton.  Public transportation is ubiquitous and if anything we should be working to help lower wage workers to find well priced and easily accessible housing in nearby localities.  But the best way to make housing affordable is to pay workers a living wage.

Builders must be inclusionary with every project, buyouts, scraping and paying fees to opt out should not be an option.

Rather than having the burden be solely on residential developers (data suggests that raises in property values and rents are influenced just as much by commercial development), dedicated sources of funding need to be developed as soon as possible.

See #4 above.  I think the cash-in-lieu of building option may still be too tempting to developers as an easy way around providing affordable housing units.  This issue is further complicated by the construction defects laws currently in place that has the effect of discouraging the construction of condominiums units.

Yes they should be able to opt out, but the price of opting out should be high enough that  it becomes an equal choice for the developer.

It will be my job as Mayor to work with our legislators to find a reasonable solution to replace the IHO.

I believe the IHO is going to hurt Denver more than it will help.  We are in a free market society.  How do we expect Builders/Developers to take a loss so that a few will have the benefit over other citizens?  It seems unfair to subsidize a few who can’t afford housing over those who can.

IHO requires new developments with over 30 units to include 10% “affordable housing”.  For a 30 unit build out with units selling at $275,000 fair market price, three would have to be sold at $100,000.  The city would pay $25,000 to the developer.  That would leave a loss of  $450,000 total among the 27 remaining units.  As such, fair market buyers will have to pay in this example an additional $16,666 per unit over fair market price.  This further drives up rental pricing in Denver.   Does anyone believe developers are going to simply pay the difference?

It costs the developer, it costs the buyers, costs the city.

This is just a Band-Aid fix, we have to create long term solutions.

It would be useful as a long term solution to affordable housing that needs to be looked at now.  I believe we need to look at more short term, in the matter, and then consider this as the next step to ensure over the next 20 years we have a dedicated TIF funding for developments.

If developers turn to the City Council to subsidize their developments through tax increment financing, every facet of the development can and should be on the table for advancing public priorities including affordable housing. Urban redevelopment plans can specify the number and type of residential units constructed, whether they are for rent or for sale, and how they are priced relative to what a household with the area median income can afford.

(skipped question)

TIF offers a strategy for municipalities to “self finance” a redevelopment project without having to raise or impose new taxes. In an environment of fiscal stress, TIF is often one of the few means available for municipalities to finance new development projects within the community. Moreover, once The TIF district expires, the municipality will receive the full benefit of the property taxes on a much higher property tax base than would otherwise have been present without the investments. TIF is increasingly popular as a tool to fund affordable homes because it can generate an additional revenue stream with which to meet a community’s housing needs. It is especially helpful given that an increased need for affordable housing is a nearly inevitable by product of any successful redevelopment strategy.

TIF could be used for projects like giving Denver a new Football Stadium or cleaning up areas along the I 70 corridor.  If it’s good for business, good for the community and increases safety for all, I’m all for it.

The city has a great deal of leverage to provide incentives for attainable rental rates and should use that leverage appropriately.

Strategies that encourage a range of unit sizes could help address the affordability issue.

Keep up with supply and demand issues. Make sure that there is mixed use development that will offer transitional, short term and condo development. If updates and repairs are made using Federal, State, Regional or local money to have in place a time period where you cannot convert high luxury apartments for sale immediately. Have a Renter’s Bill of rights to address short term leasing options.

We are land locked.  Development needs to go forward and we need to build up in Denver.  If we continue to build an effective public transportation system affordable housing in Denver will become less of an issue.

This is Our Denver Metropolis.  Whether we live in Denver proper, Aurora, Golden or Littleton, we all love it here and economic forces will drive affordability.

It’s true that we can’t build our way out of congestion. New capacity should only include managed lanes. The I-70 viaduct is outdated and will be unsafe soon if nothing is done. Either the viaduct needs to be repaired or replaced as soon as possible, or we can continue to explore options like CDOT has proposed.

The current financing mechanism is problematic because it uses a large portion of “Faster” dollars that are intended to repair and maintain bridges statewide over a 30-year period.  People across Colorado would be impacted if the current funding strategy is implemented.

I believe we need to obtain more data from CDOT before I would have confidence in my opinion about the current proposal.  For example, what is included in the impact statement of the proposed re-route using I-76?  Has CDOT updated its population data methodologies to include the desired higher than estimated use of light rail system-wide.  With the new line to DIA due to open in 2016, what impact will this have on that stretch of I-70.  And, given that 60% of the traffic is local, what other local transit options could reduce the need for less congestion?

At this moment it is the easiest solution in terms of funding. However if we want true progress, if we want to mitigate past wrongs we must re-think the possiblities and the realities of these areas. I also believe you can build and replace as is. I am in favor of a re-route and restart the whole process if necessary  to receive adequate Federal Funding.

It doesn’t matter until we move the Purina plant someplace else.

When you stand downwind of that plant, nothing else matters.

The Purina Plant has been good to Denver, but it’s time we say goodbye to the dog food smell.

We can replace it with the vision of Honorable Mayor Robert W. Speer.  His 1913 governance established non-partisanship his vision of the City Beautiful, Denver, Colorado.

I-70 is the traveler’s introduction to Denver, and all she has to offer.

That corridor should be our proudest way.  It should be a beacon of five star service to the world to match the five star ethic in all Denver city services.

It should show the beauty of the Rockies to welcome our travelers home.

I would also like to point out that a free zero footprint magnetic train encircling the city of Denver would eliminate thousands of cars and help make Denver the greenest city in the world.

I see that corridor as offering a network of investment, innovation,
travel, service, hospitality and  seasonal businesses, along with the best views in the West.

Nothing like that will be possible until that beloved Purina plant is effectively relocated to another location.

We love you Purina, but we will cry a lot less when you’re Gone!

There may be other options if money and time were no object. Because of these constraints the viaduct should either be replaced or I-70 should be reconstructed below grade.

Other cities have found that increasing the number of lanes does not alleviate the congestion.  If the majority of the traffic is local then I would hope we could look at “smart street” solutions, look to the ideas suggesting by Vision Zero, and how to increase the use of bus/transit use by establishing more connector routes.

Yes I am in favor of  a re-route that would include the building of a Parkway that would connect to Brighton Boulevard. This would preserve this historic and inter-generational neighborhoods while bring in opportunity for economic development, open space and opportunities for new parks and recreation services.

It doesn’t matter until we move the Purina plant someplace else.

When you stand downwind of that plant, nothing else matters.

The Purina Plant has been good to Denver, but it’s time we say goodbye to the dog food smell.

We can replace it with the vision of Honorable Mayor Robert W. Speer.  His 1913 governance established non-partisanship his vision of the City Beautiful, Denver, Colorado.

I-70 is the traveler’s introduction to Denver, and all she has to offer.

That corridor should be our proudest way.  It should be a beacon of five star service to the world to match the five star ethic in all Denver city services.

It should show the beauty of the Rockies to welcome our travelers home.

I would also like to point out that a free zero footprint magnetic train encircling the city of Denver would eliminate thousands of cars and help make Denver the greenest city in the world.

I see that corridor as offering a network of investment, innovation,
travel, service, hospitality and  seasonal businesses, along with the best views in the West.

Nothing like that will be possible until that beloved Purina plant is effectively relocated to another location.

We love you Purina, but we will cry a lot less when you’re Gone!

Potential impacts are many and varied. The federally-mandated EIS process provides a sound process to weigh potential impacts and solutions.

The northern portion of the neighborhoods will be even more isolated from its southern neighbors and the rest of Denver.  The noise impact now is significant but the health impacts due to pollution are under-recognized currently and would be further exacerbated by a larger roadway.

If current proposal goes through there will be a displacement of 50 of the 150 families that live in Elyria Swansea. That is a third of the current community.

It doesn’t matter until we move the Purina plant someplace else.

When you stand downwind of that plant, nothing else matters.

The Purina Plant has been good to Denver, but it’s time we say goodbye to the dog food smell.

We can replace it with the vision of Honorable Mayor Robert W. Speer.  His 1913 governance established non-partisanship his vision of the City Beautiful, Denver, Colorado.

I-70 is the traveler’s introduction to Denver, and all she has to offer.

That corridor should be our proudest way.  It should be a beacon of five star service to the world to match the five star ethic in all Denver city services.

It should show the beauty of the Rockies to welcome our travelers home.

I would also like to point out that a free zero footprint magnetic train encircling the city of Denver would eliminate thousands of cars and help make Denver the greenest city in the world.

I see that corridor as offering a network of investment, innovation,
travel, service, hospitality and  seasonal businesses, along with the best views in the West.

Nothing like that will be possible until that beloved Purina plant is effectively relocated to another location.

We love you Purina, but we will cry a lot less when you’re Gone!

The council needs to work with all stakeholders to vet potential solutions.

As a Council representative, my primary responsibilities are to the constituents in District #7.  However, as I recognized when I was an elected representative in the Colorado Legislature, my role is also to look for the greatest positive outcome for the largest number of people with the fewest negative impacts.  I would feel a strong duty to ensure that the bridges in District #7 are repaired and maintained adequately with the funds appropriated for that purpose.

Green Valley Ranch and Montbello share common  problems such as the food desert and the use of the I-70. What happens in Globeville and Elryia Swansea effect all of Denver in terms of future policies and redevelopment.

It doesn’t matter until we move the Purina plant someplace else.

When you stand downwind of that plant, nothing else matters.

The Purina Plant has been good to Denver, but it’s time we say goodbye to the dog food smell.

We can replace it with the vision of the Honorable Mayor Robert W. Speer.  His 1913 governance established non-partisanship as part of the City Charter, the “Constitution” of the City and County of Denver.  It established and his vision of the City Beautiful: Denver, Colorado.

I-70 is the traveler’s introduction to Denver, and all she has to offer.

That corridor should be our proudest way.  It should be a beacon of five star service to the world to match the five star ethic in all Denver city services.

It should show the beauty of the Rockies to welcome our travelers home.

I would also like to point out that a free zero footprint magnetic train encircling the city of Denver would eliminate thousands of cars and help make Denver the greenest city in the world.

I see that corridor as offering a network of investment, innovation,
travel, service, hospitality and  seasonal businesses, along with the best views in the West.

Nothing like that will be possible until that beloved Purina plant is effectively relocated to another location.

We love you Purina, but we will cry a lot less when you’re Gone!

Public lands should benefit all members of the community. No single interest group should have too much influence over how public lands should be managed.

Parks and open space bring people together and enhance healthy activities among our residents.  We must protect these jewels for our children and future generations.

It is important to designate space that was and is intended for Park Space to ensure that we preserve open space. It could be part of a land banking system to preserve open space for future public use,

It is great that we use our public land for events, that creates revenue for the City and County of Denver and gets people out to enjoy our parks.

We all love Denver and want what is best for the City Beautiful.  Public event areas can be administered so as to do no lasting harm to the surrounding green spaces and still yield great times and  positive cash streams for the City.

Like many, I saw the large standard Parks & Rec placard that reads “Paul A. Hentzell Park” and assumed it was already designated. I’m not in a position to question the ruling handed down in district court asserting that the land swap with DPS did not require a vote of the people, but designating the entirety of the area called Hentzell Park by everyone (including the City itself) as a park would have been the right move.

Yes, it should have been protected as parkland and open space.  An enduring long-term vision of our early city leaders was a detailed parks and parkways system.  Studies show that in areas where there is open space and trees, the residents are healthier than those who live in areas with less open space and trees.

Yes the original purpose of the Hampden Heights Open Space — formerly known as Hentzell Park natural area  was for the preservation of open space.

From my reading of the situation, Hentzell Park should not have been so designated without approval from the voters.  This was an illegal action made by Mayor Michael Hancock in direct violation of the city Charter.   I believe that courts will side with Friends of Denver Parks on their current lawsuit against the city and Mayor Hancock.  This is an issue of Democracy and self-governance.  We have laws here to protect business, the community and safety.

Whatever the goals or purposes, we need to honor the rule of law, and The Mayor’s actions here are a threat to our self-determination as citizens.

Public-private partnerships can provide opportunities to close funding gaps for services and should be used strategically and with great scrutiny.

It is my opinion that public parks were acquired and are maintained through public funds and thus these grounds should be open for use by the general public.

I am in favor of public-private partnerships. It is a tool that is needed to implement, create and maintain projects that are needed in our communities.

As with the Hentzell Park project, we need to make sure that public lands are protected and that the rights and natural inheritance of the voters are respected.

Financing public projects is always a challenge, and when it makes sense and when the voters approve, I will welcome public-private partnerships to help drive the Future of Denver.

I think that it is adequate, not everyone is going to be happy all the time. We must do a better job of communicating with residents about events, expected noise and traffic issues. We have events in the day that disrupt residents that work, so this should be an night versus day issue but what makes sense for each community affected.

I believe this an area that we can improve if we will continue to allow our parks to be used by private events.  While we do allow all to use our parks by permits, we can do a better job of advertising that the events will occur to make the public aware. Also,  I believe 80dB (equivalent to a garbage disposal) is a good place to start, however, we can implement stricter bans based on events and having monitoring of such events.  Should these be violated, there should be a process to have penalties including fines and no future use of parks by the event.

Denver has a habit of creating new ordinances that are unenforceable. This is usually due to political pressures leveraged against the council to “fix” a problem that can more easily be addressed by better enforcement tools.

Too many of our current ordinances, like the noise ordinance or the fireworks ordinance, are not enforced.  In District #7, in 2014 we watched the City’s successful efforts to increase its enforcement of the use of Washington Park and 3.2 liquor consumption.  As a Council representative, I will look for every opportunity to direct city staff attention to an issue before supporting the passage of a new ordinance.

I am in favor of public-private partnerships. It is a tool that is needed to implement, create and maintain projects that are needed in our communities.

The problem with the Chive Fest had to do with noise levels, and the crowd got rowdy.  Organizers failed to control decibels.  That’s a permitting issue, and organizers need to face that.

But it is in all of our interests to make these events successful.  Are we not going to have the People’s Fair because it gets messy?  Denver has a long tradition of celebration, and there’s a lot here to celebrate.   The ordinance is effective, this was an enforcement issue.

Denver needs robust investment in maintaining our parks, especially considering our rapid rate of population growth.

With the significant anticipated growth in Denver over the next decade, I want to review how the development fees are allocated to see if these fees can be better directed to pay for the maintenance of our public spaces.

One of the Projects that I am proposing for Northeast Denver is a Festival Site that will use user fees for the funding of all Denver Parks and Recreation Services. I am also in favor of creating a Parks and Recreation trust fund that can be used for park improvements. I am in favor of land banking saving space for the future public good.

Our city parks are maintained very well.   As your Mayor I will champion the Adopt-a-Park program and work to ensure that every city park has a sponsor.   Denver has a wonderful park system, we need to protect that legacy and expand it by adequately funding maintenance, beautification, and cleanup in all parks.

According to DURA and I agree with the premise “TIF is a mechanism to capture the net new or incremental taxes that are created when a vacant or underutilized property is redeveloped and use those revenues to help finance the project”

Tax increment financing is a method of financing urban redevelopment. In Colorado, urban renewal authorities are authorized to issue bonds to construct infrastructural elements of a project in an area that is determined to be affected by blight. The debt service on these bonds is made from the incremental sales and/or property taxes generated in that TIF district, and URAs are empowered to pledge incremental property taxes generated by mill levies from special districts including school districts.

(skipped question)

TIF is a method to use future gains in taxes to subsidize current improvements, which are projected to create the conditions for gains above the routine yearly increases which often occur without the improvements.

TIF can be a useful tool for urban renewal and development.   Building projects based on future tax revenue has been effectively implemented across the country on projects in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  If we can build a new Football Stadium, or continue building beautiful locations throughout the city, I support TIF financing based on my decision criteria:  what’s good for business, what’s good for the community and what increases safety for all.

Other applications of TIFs can be bad for the community because the notion makes assumptions of economic growth but does not always take into account the full cost associated with the TIF when it is created. So I would approach this with great professional skepticism and ensure all my data is in place before i made any such decision.

I don’t support or oppose the general concept of TIF. While TIF has probably accelerated the redevelopment of places like the former Gates Rubber Factory in my district, there are plenty of problematic TIF provisions in state law. For example, blight is defined very vaguely and URAs can divert incremental property taxes of special districts without their approval.

I support the concept, especially when its use benefits the residents more than other stakeholders.

TIF is a tool that can be used in the right situation or it can also be abused if not used in the right context. I am in favor of TIF because I have seen more positive results than negative.

TIF can be a useful tool for urban renewal and development.   Building projects based on future tax revenue has been effectively implemented across the country on projects in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  If we can build a new Football Stadium, or continue building beautiful locations throughout the city, I support TIF financing based on my decision criteria:  what’s good for business, what’s good for the community and what increases safety for all.

TIF can be a useful tool to capture the value created by (for example) a new passenger rail line to finance capital construction, operations, and maintenance. There is also (at least in theory) some value in leveraging TIF to allow elected decision-makers to guide the nature of redevelopment of high-profile brownfield redevelopments such as Union Station and the National Western complex.

For example, when the Broadway Marketplace development was put into place more than 20 years ago, a mitigation fund was established to have revenue available for unanticipated needs after the development was complete.  A few years later, when it was proposed to move the McDonald’s from 6th and Broadway to Alameda & SouthBroadway, there was a lot of resistance from the neighbors.  An agreement was stalled in mediation over who would pay for new utility lines needed due to changes in the alley configuration.  When it was remembered that these sequestered funds might be allocated for these costs the developer/neighborhood agreement moved forward.  This kind of use for TIFs is what I would support.

Green Valley Ranch is an example of a TIF. The Green Valley Ranch Metropolitan District  funded the infrastructure costs for the building of neighborhoods.

Lower Downtown Business Improvement District is another example of using TIF money for revitalization.

TIF can be a useful tool for urban renewal and development.   Building projects based on future tax revenue has been effectively implemented across the country on projects in the hundreds of millions of dollars.  If we can build a new Football Stadium, or continue building beautiful locations throughout the city, I support TIF financing based on my decision criteria:  what’s good for business, what’s good for the community and what increases safety for all.

I would like to see a more explicit accounting of how much genuinely new tax revenue is expected to be generated by a proposed TIF and how much is cannibalized from existing businesses and property value in Denver and neighboring municipalities. I also think TIF can and should allow the Council to require affordable housing, jobs paying a living wage, parks, and other public priorities.

(skipped question)

(skipped question)

I am for negotiations and for advocating for what would be best in my neighborhood.

TIFs depend on future tax dollars and are inappropriate for school projects and other non-revenue producing city projects as they would too deeply impact neighborhood tax rates.  These are better suited to bond amendments or other funding vehicles.

As in the previous question, the real impact to schools and other special districts that levy property taxes should be made clear to the Council and other stakeholders using realistic and transparent assumptions. I will push for accountability in any new TIF proposals, including providing DPS the resources to maintain existing levels of service based on the impact to the DPS tax base and its enrollment.

(skipped question)

TIFs pays for the improvements that attract private investment and stimulates economic growth. If the increment cannot be used for financing improvements and incentives, private investment and economic development will not occur, and no increment will be made available to any taxing bodies.

TIFs depend on future tax dollars and are inappropriate for school projects and other non-revenue producing city projects as they would too deeply impact neighborhood tax rates.  These are better suited to bond amendments or other funding vehicles.

I did not support its passage because we do not have enough shelter beds and still don’t.

YES…YES…YES!!!!!!

Yes. It needs to include solutions for addressing the root causes of homelessness and not just symptoms.  As an auditor, this is an example of policy made without facts or data or using. In this case, creating policy to effect said data.

I would not have supported the camping ban as passed in 2012, and I would gladly vote to replace it with something more productive and less antagonizing to our most vulnerable citizens. Denver still lacks proper services and shelter space, although I applaud steps taken through Denver’s Road Home and other programs supported by the Mayor to address these needs. Giving someone seeking shelter a criminal record only makes the problem worse. Supporting our most vulnerable populations with basic services is a core function of government.

Yes.

No, I believe we need to fund, support and maintain what has been promised in terms of services, shelters and transitional housing.

Let’s talk about homelessness.

Officially, homelessness doesn’t exist in families. We are perpetuating homelessness in the name of eradicating homelessness, it’s crazy, and really we are creating a catch-22 to administer federal moneys, and not dealing with the problem.

In 2007, I had a deadly diagnosis. The surgery was going to cost $250,000.   They told me that I made too much money to qualify for Medicaid and that I was uninsurable because of my now “pre-existing” condition.

I was homeless for two months; with my  wife and kids. The city tried to take my kids from me and keep me homeless.  They tried to break up our family to put my kids with my wife in a battered shelter (nobody was battered) and put me in the men’s shelter program with drug users and alcoholics (no drug abuses, either).  I was homeless because of the fact that I had to be poor in order to qualify for Medicaid.

We ended up in Samaritan house, and there I investigated this issue from the inside out.

Here is the issue as I see it. You don’t set out to eradicate homelessness and create a multi-million dollar homeless shelter right next to the ballpark, one of the most prosperous and visible areas of town.  The problem with the homeless is that we keep them right in the middle of our city.  It’s a catch-22.  We make it look like we have a homeless problem, to get moneys.  The system, as it is, simply serves to justify federal budgets.

We need to find pragmatic situations to move our homeless off the streets and into programs that will get them off drugs, and prepare them for work. In Our Denver Metropolis, we make sure every kid has pre-k, and ensure that our neighbors in trouble have a pathway back to success.

Homelessness can be eradicated here, but Mayor Michael Hancock’s approach is driven by federal programs rather than focused support and training.  We need a pragmatic, comprehensive regional solution that is good for business, good for the community, and increases safety for all.

Denver needs legal spaces for individuals to consume marijuana responsibly. In my opinion these rights are guaranteed by Colorado’s constitution thanks to the passage of Amendment 64.

We restrict the public consumption of alcohol and tobacco.  I would consider exploring cannabis rooms if they were set up in a way similar to the “Tap Room.”  We also need to require ID so use could be strictly enforced.

There should be an special area or medical station that homeless residents can go to take legally obtained cannabis medicine. This area could be a mobile vehicle that Homeless Shelter Residents can go to or it should be done under the supervision of a trained medical professional.

Let’s talk about homelessness.

Officially, homelessness doesn’t exist in families. We are perpetuating homelessness in the name of eradicating homelessness, it’s crazy, and really we are creating a catch-22 to administer federal moneys, and not dealing with the problem.

In 2007, I had a deadly diagnosis. The surgery was going to cost $250,000.   They told me that I made too much money to qualify for Medicaid and that I was uninsurable because of my now “pre-existing” condition.

I was homeless for two months; with my  wife and kids. The city tried to take my kids from me and keep me homeless.  They tried to break up our family to put my kids with my wife in a battered shelter (nobody was battered) and put me in the men’s shelter program with drug users and alcoholics (no drug abuses, either).  I was homeless because of the fact that I had to be poor in order to qualify for Medicaid.

We ended up in Samaritan house, and there I investigated this issue from the inside out.

Here is the issue as I see it. You don’t set out to eradicate homelessness and create a multi-million dollar homeless shelter right next to the ballpark, one of the most prosperous and visible areas of town.  The problem with the homeless is that we keep them right in the middle of our city.  It’s a catch-22.  We make it look like we have a homeless problem, to get moneys.  The system, as it is, simply serves to justify federal budgets.

We need to find pragmatic situations to move our homeless off the streets and into programs that will get them off drugs, and prepare them for work.In Our Denver Metropolis, we make sure every kid has pre-k, and ensure that our neighbors in trouble have a pathway back to success.

Homelessness can be eradicated here, but Mayor Michael Hancock’s approach is driven by federal programs rather than focused support and training.  We need a pragmatic, comprehensive regional solution that is good for business, good for the community, and increases safety for all.

I find this to be questionable as a matter of policy and practice. Without treating the underlying issues, simply banning people from certain areas of Denver is not a real solution. I am against any ordinance that is designed to displace people who are simply exercising their right to exist in public spaces.

I am hesitant to support such bans because I am not sure how it could be enforced without reducing our public safety resources needed elsewhere, such as to address our growing gang problem.  I am also concerned about restricting access to public spaces and the “profiling” that would inevitably accompany such an action.

We do not  know how many people have been banned. These figures would be helpful in order to assess whether the policy of banning is being overused or whether the problem of frequent offenders on the mall is growing.

We must have support in place to get to the root problem of banning in the first place. Is it mental issues, lack of jobs or lack of transitional housing if we have the data on crime, on referrals then maybe we can get to the center of the problem.

Let’s talk about homelessness.

Officially, homelessness doesn’t exist in families. We are perpetuating homelessness in the name of eradicating homelessness, it’s crazy, and really we are creating a catch-22 to administer federal moneys, and not dealing with the problem.

In 2007, I had a deadly diagnosis. The surgery was going to cost $250,000.   They told me that I made too much money to qualify for Medicaid and that I was uninsurable because of my now “pre-existing” condition.

I was homeless for two months; with my  wife and kids. The city tried to take my kids from me and keep me homeless.  They tried to break up our family to put my kids with my wife in a battered shelter (nobody was battered) and put me in the men’s shelter program with drug users and alcoholics (no drug abuses, either).  I was homeless because of the fact that I had to be poor in order to qualify for Medicaid.

We ended up in Samaritan house, and there I investigated this issue from the inside out.

Here is the issue as I see it. You don’t set out to eradicate homelessness and create a multi-million dollar homeless shelter right next to the ballpark, one of the most prosperous and visible areas of town.  The problem with the homeless is that we keep them right in the middle of our city.  It’s a catch-22.  We make it look like we have a homeless problem, to get moneys.  The system, as it is, simply serves to justify federal budgets.

We need to find pragmatic situations to move our homeless off the streets and into programs that will get them off drugs, and prepare them for work.In Our Denver Metropolis, we make sure every kid has pre-k, and ensure that our neighbors in trouble have a pathway back to success.

Homelessness can be eradicated here, but Mayor Michael Hancock’s approach is driven by federal programs rather than focused support and training.  We need a pragmatic, comprehensive regional solution that is good for business, good for the community, and increases safety for all.

I would like to make use of social impact bonds and other available financing methods to accelerate creating the housing, addiction treatment, counseling, and training services that will bring Denver’s indigent population out of the cold. This will reduce expenditures on emergency room treatment and incarceration and save taxpayer money in the long run.

I would like to explore locating satellite offices of agencies that serve the homeless such as the Veteran’s Administration, Medicaid and a Community Health Clinic, perhaps at  the former Silverado Building near Denver Health at Sixth Avenue and Broadway.  I would also like to consider placing transitional housing suitable for families, men and women on the upper floors at this location.

As a former psychiatric social worker, I will be watching closely the administration’s new initiative to use social impact bonds to expand support services for the chronically homeless who typically suffer from mental health diagnoses, including drug and alcohol addiction.  We need to address these prevention and treatment services as well as expand access to transitional and permanent housing on a regional and statewide level. I’m concerned with the deep cracks in our mental health system.  Our jails should not be a substitute for needed mental health services, for instance.

We need to have more mixed use development that includes transitional and short term housing. We need to monitor supply and demand and act accordingly and we must think outside of the box for funding opportunities and partnerships.

Let’s talk about homelessness.

Officially, homelessness doesn’t exist in families. We are perpetuating homelessness in the name of eradicating homelessness, it’s crazy, and really we are creating a catch-22 to administer federal moneys, and not dealing with the problem.

In 2007, I had a deadly diagnosis. The surgery was going to cost $250,000.   They told me that I made too much money to qualify for Medicaid and that I was uninsurable because of my now “pre-existing” condition.

I was homeless for two months; with my  wife and kids. The city tried to take my kids from me and keep me homeless.  They tried to break up our family to put my kids with my wife in a battered shelter (nobody was battered) and put me in the men’s shelter program with drug users and alcoholics (no drug abuses, either).  I was homeless because of the fact that I had to be poor in order to qualify for Medicaid.

We ended up in Samaritan house, and there I investigated this issue from the inside out.

Here is the issue as I see it. You don’t set out to eradicate homelessness and create a multi-million dollar homeless shelter right next to the ballpark, one of the most prosperous and visible areas of town.  The problem with the homeless is that we keep them right in the middle of our city.  It’s a catch-22.  We make it look like we have a homeless problem, to get moneys.  The system, as it is, simply serves to justify federal budgets.

We need to find pragmatic situations to move our homeless off the streets and into programs that will get them off drugs, and prepare them for work. In Our Denver Metropolis, we make sure every kid has pre-k, and ensure that our neighbors in trouble have a pathway back to success.

Homelessness can be eradicated here, but Mayor Michael Hancock’s approach is driven by federal programs rather than focused support and training.  We need a pragmatic, comprehensive regional solution that is good for business, good for the community, and increases safety for all.

All public servants should be held to a high standard and should be accountable for their actions.

My brother served on the police force in Washington D.C., and I gained a lot of insight into the challenges the police department faces as a result.  I believe we need to give officers adequate training and hold them to the highest standards.  We need to build public trust, and that includes stronger citizen oversight and accountability from both sides.  As an attorney, I’m cognizant of the fact that a complaint is not a conviction, but I do support removing repeat offenders who have shown a lack of respect for standards of conduct on the police force.

A system and policy need to be in place. We have placed our trust in police leadership to address these issues. I am in support of the Office of the independent monitor to have more authority and investigative powers and work in conjunction with the District Attorney’s office.

Of course.

Not only should repeat offenders be removed, but the city should have a policy of suspension and training for first offenders.  This is a matter of the public trust.  It doesn’t matter how many officers you put on the streets if the commmunity doesnt’ trust them.

Safety in Our Denver Metropolis depends on a powerful relatioship of trust between protectors and the community.  Kids should love the police.  Citizens should welcome them.  Our Denver Metropolis can be the safest city in the world, but brutality like we have seen on Mayor Michael Hancock’s watch will never allow law abiding citizens to be the true allies of law enforcement that they can and should be.

I believe law enforcement should be trained to fire their weapons as a very last resort in the event of extreme peril to officers or other citizens, and that all use-of-force incidents should be investigated thoroughly.

Whenever possible, law enforcement officers should shoot to main, not shoot to kill.

I believe all avenues should be pursued in order not to use deadly force, however it really comes down to the officer’s Judgement.  The question is did we do everting in our power to have the right officer from recruitment, training and support.

No unarmed citizen should ever be shot in Denver.

Yes.

We need a strong City Council that can provide the necessary checks and balances our city charter calls for.  I believe that the investiation of misconduct incidents will help build public trust.

More power is needed by the Office of the Independent Monitor. Also there should be community advisory boards for each council district that meet. I know there are monthly meeting that are held in communities.

I also believe the Sheriff of Denver should be an elected office that will bring more accountability to the sheriffs department.

Yes, and the Mayor should champion the cause.

All officers should have the benefit of adequate training to address these cases.

As a former pschiatric social worker, I deplore the lack of mental health funding.  We are forcing our police department to be the first responders on mental health issues.  We certainly need to offer adequate training for them to be prepared for the types of mental health issues they face on the job, and the ability to de-escalate these situations is a vital part of the process of ultimately getting the individual the mental health help they need.  I believe we could take a lesson from our military training, including training in cultural sensitivity and in de-escalating potentially explosive situations.  The public needs to know that law enforcement will always take the high road.

More training is needed in the field of recognition, de-escalation. Police officers act upon their training and make snap judgement decisions from this training.

Denver peace officers should keep the peace.  We should never brutalize our citizenry.  The standard continuum of force should always be adequate:  presence, verbal engagement, empty hand submission, hard control, intermediate weapons, deadly force.  In Our Denver Metropolis, Five-Star service means that every peace officer is well trained to determine and administer the right level of force for the right situation.

Again, deadly force with firearms should never be used on any unarmed citizen.

I intend to use the oversight and budget authority of the City Council to ensure that Denver’s police officers are empowered to do real police work rather than making up quotas or extracting revenue from citizens.

City Council controls the budget, and we can sure that funds are allocated appropriately without using law enforcement officers to augment our budget.

The Denver Police Department follows policies and procedures. Crime prevention is important but also what is important is community policing. Making sure you have officers that reflect the values of your neighborhoods.

As Mayor I would relinquish the power to appoint a Sheriff and hief of police and let Denver voters hold those officers accountable.

The City and County of Denver should elect its Sherrif and Chief of Police like thousands of other cities across the country.

God Bless America!

Denver’s population is expected to grow by up to 100,000 people by 2020, and the City Council doesn’t have the authority or resources to counteract this without making housing even less affordable than it is already. As a member of City Council, I will work hard to guide development to create a diverse mix of housing options while maintaining the unique character of Denver’s neighborhoods.

Gentrification, when it happens, affects the availability of affordable housing.  We need to do a better job of closing the gap between availability of and need for housing that’s affordable to teachers, fire fighters, and those on fixed incomes.  Resolution of this issue is complicated and limited by state statutes that effect construction of new units, the ability to control rents, and the balance between landlords and tenants in Colorado.

We see gentrification in neighborhoods such as the Highlands, Central Platte Valley with possible effects in West Denver. These areas have been homes to many ethnic and migrant groups.

To prevent gentrification you need a mixture of mixed use development that includes housing for all economic levels. You must also have neighborhoods that have a strong base, vision and identity that as people move in they buy in to the lifestyle and culture of that community.

If a neighborhood has the economic capacity to hold high-income jobs and housing then that neighborhood should grow.

As long as residents are paid a greater amount than market value it is in the interest of the city to grow as zoned.

The City should ensure that developers pay fair market value for the value created by our neighbors who have worked to pay the mortgage for 30 years.

Our Denver Metropolis is a living, breathing place.  Neighborhoods change, homes are bought and sold. Buildings replace houses.  The critical role of planning requires that we take a long look at how we can grow as a region together over the next fifty to one hundred years and ensure that we can balance the interests of what is good for business, good for the community and increases safety for all.

Denver should continue to discourage reporting of undocumented immigrants that seek essential services and should not participate in programs like ICE’s “Secure Communities”.

Yes, it is the humanitarian way to behave.

Yes Denver should be a sanctuary city. After much thought, we want to portray the best Denver has to offer in terms of  opportunities in education, work and entrepreneurship. We currently support many immigrants and refugees from other countries. So let us make it official.

Officially, no.

I do however believe that it is inappropriate for local law enforcement to enquire after an individual’s immigration status.  If we want to deinstitutionalize racism, this seems an excellent place to start.

No. I believe that Denver’s citizens deserve and should expect the highest quality public services we can afford. Restricting the pool of applicants for municipal jobs would likely lead to retaliation by other municipalities, could undermine regional cooperation on a variety of issues, and will ultimately negatively impact public services.

It will be hard to go back to a residency requirement.  As described above in my response on gentrification, affordability issues helped to spur the long- ago request of school and city employees to be given the freedom to live in the communities of their choice

No, I believe we should recruit the best and brightest from the region. The exemption would be Police, Sheriff and Fire who should live in the communities they serve.

Our city government should pursue a policy of Five-Star Service across all departments. We need to pay our first responders and city employees well, and ensure that we can attract the best talent possible.

If we can pay employees well enough to live in Denver, that’s great, but we shouldn’t force employees to take housing they can’t afford.

Given that marijuana businesses cannot currently deduct their expenses from their federal taxable income, their effective combined tax rate is enormous. I am concerned that the combination of sales, excise, and income taxes have allowed the unregulated market to continue. In addition, taxes may even be high enough that revenue could be increased by lowering tax rates. As retail marijuana has been legal for less than two years, it’s difficult to know what the optimal level of taxation is but I will pay close attention to this as the industry matures and (hopefully) the ambiguity at the federal level is resolved.

Triggering the TABOR refund was certainly an unexpected consequence.  The number of Coloradans who may be maintaining medical marijuana licenses as a means of avoiding igher taxes on recreational marijuana is another unintended consequence.

Not that I know of at this time.

The biggest trouble with the legal cannabis industry is the issue of banking.  Dispensaries have to handle immense amounts of cash and it is becoming a serious safety issue.

As your Mayor, I will instruct the City Attorney to file suit against the Treasury Department to allow legally licensed dispensaries to hold and administer bank accounts.

No. Given how much economic activity and tax revenue is generated by oil and gas firms headquartered in Denver, and the fact that there is no fracking within Denver, banning fracking would antagonize a major industry with no obvious tangible benefit.

Yes, due to concerns about our air and water quality.  When I was in the state legislature, I helped usher in the state’s landmark regulations on fracking.  I will remain vigilant in looking out for public health and safety with regard to fracking.

I am not in favor at this time of banning fracking at this time. I would like to see a gradual change from oil and gas to renewable energies. The market may dictate this policy faster. At the moment  the CIty and County of Denver operate about 80 wells at DIA and I understand that this money is used for operating costs and renewable energy projects at DIA.

Yes.

There are too many unanswered questions.  Let the fracking companies prove that fracking does not destabilize water tables and bedrock.  PROVE IT.

Let the industry show that they can frack organically without threat of poisoning our water table, and with a clear focus that Denver must be a zero mercury zone.  Then and only then can we can have a conversation about this.

This is a question of the common good, and business interests can not be placated at expense of our community health and safety.

Peaceable protest is advocating for social change without going to extremes, including violence. The First Amendment sets us from other nations, and it is very important to me. I would always stand by the rights of anyone who chooses to organize and protest.

Our US and Colorado Constitutions lay out the right to protest.  The right to peaceable, non-violent protest – and to perform acts of civil disobedience, for that matter — is in the DNA of our country and our state.  It is essential that our citizens retain the right to express their grievances publically and vocally without endangering public safety, and I would defend those rights should they come under attack.

We must look at past protest and see what has worked and not worked. The Denver Police Department has made great strides in forms in dealing with protest and we know we have a great  more we can do.

Peaceable protest do not include trying to incite arrest by destruction of property or harm to other protestors or the police.

Protest is important.

The idea of a “free speech zone” is an insult to America.  America is a free speech zone.

As your Mayor, I will institute the most open government in the nation.  I will call together an annual meeting of one thousand citizens to discuss the issues we face and present a vision for the future to policy makers.

Denver citizens do not feel that Mayor Michael Hancock hears their concerns, as your Mayor I will change that forever.

No, and I do not engage it courtesy zoning. I judge each case based on the record and pubic testimony.

HELLS NO!!!

All zoning issues should be considered on their own merits, especially large-scale projects that affect the entire city. As a practical matter, the council member in whose district a proposed re-zoning resides is the one who best understands whether it would be beneficial. Without deferring to anyone, as a Council member I would weigh the opinion of that member of council heavily, and would expect the same from my colleagues for a proposed re-zoning in my district.

During my time as a State Representative, I learned that you can’t know everything on every topic and that you need to rely on your colleagues to inform you about their area of expertise.  This does not mean, however, that a council member should give up their responsibility to act in the best interests of their constituents.  It is every Council member’s responsibility to make informed votes that best represent the interest of one’s own district and the city.  As Denver continues to grow, more than ever, City Council’s decisions demand thoughtful planning and creative solutions involving all stakeholders at the front end rather than trying to sell solutions after the fact.  I can’t imagine a situation when it would be appropriate to forego those vital processes and simply fall in line with a given Council member’s wishes for his or her district.  My legal and legislative experience will lend itself to mediating these complex and often conflicting issues.

I believe that Courtesy Zoning depends on the quality of your City Council member. Because the City Council member is elected to represent your community he or she should advocate for the values and vision of that community. Therefore because there is an accountability to the community I am for courtesy zoning.

Courtesy zoning is an affront to democracy.  I am in favor of growth and I am in favor of driving the future of Denver on sound economic principles, but we still must follow the laws and respect the rights of our citizens.

It is reprehensible for any program or project to go forward simply based on the acquiescence of the local city counselor.  REPREHENSIBLE.

We are a nation of laws and courtesy zoning creates too many opportunities for our laws and the rights of our citizens to be ignored.

As an employee of a transportation agency, I’m well aware of how Colorado’s weather patterns make it a real challenge to accurately predict the timing and intensity of snowfall and therefore be proactive about deploying resources to remove it. Similarly, the fact that we’re a low-tax city in a low-tax state with severe freeze-thaw cycles means that funding for adequate street maintenance is in short supply.

I am concerned about many streets in District 7 that are in need of resurfacing. Low-income neighborhoods are disproportionately ignored. I challenge anyone to go to the 1200 block of South Alcott St. and justify the condition of the roadway to the residents of that street. This is just one of several examples that would never exist in areas like Cherry Creek or Wash Park.

I know that everyday issues like snow removal, potholes, and parking are often the issues at the top of our residents’ agendas.  When residents call me withconcerns about snow removal and street repair, the issue will go to the top of my agenda. Responsiveness to the everyday needs of our residents is the No. 1 jobof a City Council member.

In my Community it has been adequate for snow removal. I will check and see on how other neighborhoods are dealing with this. I am for more transportation and Street infrastructure Building and Repair. I will look at what current materials are used and what material are necessary for proper maintenance. Public Works should have a special fund for projects that are needed.

Denver should aspire to Five-Star Service in all functions.

On snow removal, we need a bit of work on how we do things.  I would like to use 311 reverse calls system to warn people to pull their cars up in their yard before a storm so that snow plows can clear the streets.  We’re sick of having our cars plowed under by snow removal.

On street repair, people are just sick of potholes and tired of the inconvenience of road repair.  A comprehensive road repair plan should include an overhaul of the impact of both decay and repair and how to best limit the effects of both long term.

Michael Hancock wants to take $47 Million to revitalize one neighborhood , I would repair some of the real problematic areas like on Quebec outside of Johson and Wales.  How many sidewalks could that money fix around the city?

I’m very concerned about the effect of neonicotinoids on beneficial insect populations. At this time, I don’t know enough about the effectiveness of bans in other jurisdictions to definitively say I would support a ban in Denver but am eager to learn more and would likely support measures to eradicate their use.

I am a bee-friendly gardener.  Before voting on a total ban of this pesticide, I would want to work with the City to curtail its own usage of insecticides and pesticides on our parks and parkways.  I believe an education campaign about available alternative products and practices that do not harm insects, such as bees, will be an effective second step.

I am in favor of a temporary ban until a study can be made in Denver about what impact this would have in our neighborhoods.

Mercury should be banned from use in Denver.  Our Denver Metropolis should be a zero mercury zone.

Public goods as I understand them are things like fresh air and street lighting where individuals can’t be effectively excluded from use and where use by one individual does not reduce availability to others. The fact that congestion exists and that parking is scarce means that Denver’s streets are – by definition – not public goods. I think they are better understood as a (perhaps not well-regulated) public utility than a public good, and under state law Denver’s streets and their associated rights of way are owned collectively by Denver’s citizens.

The City Council does have the power and responsibility to curb noise and light pollution, and the effects of this pollution are greater than many people realize. I would be open to measures to rein in this kind of pollution. In addition, Denver’s parks are basically a public good or are at least intended to be, and I will work to ensure that our parks are adequately funded and used appropriately.

(skipped question)

I believe in the public good as a Denver City Council member I have an obligation to make sure that I advocate and support the best interest of my community. But we also live in a new world where you need partnerships with the private sector to achieve the public good.

The concept of the “common good” seems to have vanished from our public discourse.  We are stewards of creation.  We are responsible for our actions and for the future of Our Denver Metropolis.  When we ignore the common good and our responsibilities as stewards, we sacrifice the rights of the voters and the great legacy of our City Beautiful for gain.

I believe in business.  I believe in free markets.  I believe that by respecting diverse voices, we can find pragmatic solutions to the issues we face and increase what is good for business, what is good for the community, and safety for all.