Why I’m Voting No in Centennial
Take a minute and consider this with me, even if you don’t live in the affluent, tree-lined Denver suburb of Centennial where neighbors are duking it out over the June 10 vote on a new city charter. As one more symptom of how Republicans across the country have lost their way, it’s relevant no matter where you reside.
Centennial was established in 2000 as a whole new kind of municipality with low taxes, minimal government, and “virtual” administration. But since then, taxes have gone up, mission creep has occurred, and the virtual stuff is largely forgotten. We’ve become just another status-conscious little city keeping up with the Joneses.
With a huge margin of registered Republicans, you’d think Centennial could have either (a) kept to its vision for a few short years, or failing that, which it has, you’d think Centennial could have (b) written a home rule charter to recover the forsaken vision. Sadly, it has done neither.
Charter proponents are strangely silent about the noble vision of eight years ago. Their case is phrased in glowing generalities about self-determination and soothing assurances that the charter is just like most other cities. But that’s just the problem: lots of us want to be different from other cities. We thought that’s what we were signing up for when approving incorporation in 2000. Bait and switch isn’t nice.
When and if our well-meaning charter commission (with its notable over-representation of Democrats) can bring forth a charter that takes us back to the low-tax and minimal-government “city different” of yesteryear, I will eagerly lead the campaign for its approval. But for now, since the document we’ve been presented is more likely to lock in all the disappointing trends of recent times, I’m voting No.
My Denver Post column on this issue, along with a number of related articles, is in the Local Government category of our site. Scroll down to menu in right column.
My radio interview with Cathy Noon, who supports the charter, and Betty Ann Habig along with Chris Raab, who oppose the charter, is in the Backbone Radio section of our section. See nav bar or radio box at top of home page. The time frame in our 5/18 podcast was 550pm to 7pm.
The author can be reached at John@BackBoneAmerica.net
Hi John:
This is such interesting news about the city of Centenniel. It’s too bad that the national media and talk show hosts (O’Reilly & Rush) have not covered it. It appears that this country has quickly gone down the tubes.
Why isn’t there a third party candidate? The time is ripe for all of us disgruntled and disgusted Republicans. Oh, for another Perot who had the ‘backbone’ to tell it like it is, and of course no one listened and made fun of him. He was a man ahead of his time, and most everything he said has now come to be.
I appreciate hearing from you and your stand on principle.
by Lillian Nawman | Thursday, May 29, 2008 | 7:29 amA friend who admires you, Lillian Nawman
As a commissioner I would like to say that by the fourth meeting, we left our political labels at the door and went to work to write a charter with the only concern being what is best for the city. I am sure that a city with more than Uncle Festus working out of his van being the only city employee is not acceptable to you. If you would examine all the other cities of the front range, you would see that Centennial is the most efficiently run city by far.
by Don Strickland | Tuesday, Jun 3, 2008 | 7:01 pmWhile writing the charter we would have loved to have input from you, Betty Ann Habig, and Chris Raab. Your thoughts and views would have been appreciated and we would have discussed how they should affect the charter. Betty Ann and Chris never showed up to our many meetings and I noticed that you came and stayed only about 45 minutes and did not bother to comment. Remember that if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.
dstric2@hotmail.com
Hi John,
I was not a resident of Centennial (nor of Colorado) when Centennial’s taxes were raised, but I understand that the tax increase was voted on and passed. Shame on us, I guess. It’s hard to blame the charter commission for that. But I did participate in the commission’s formation of the charter by attending and speaking at their public sessions, and by forwarding comments to them via their interactive website. I believe that the charter commissioners have given the citizens of Centennial a full opportunity to participate in the charter development process, and that as a result the charter contains much (but probably not everything) that the citizens want in their “city constitution.”
I remain disappointed, however, that charter opponents have not chosen to provide any significant debate on the elements of the charter itself. Rather, I continue to hear the anti-charter folks toss barbs at the City of Centennial as it now is, and at the folks we elected to represent us in running it.
I would have really enjoyed it if the campaign focused on the issues and elements of the charter per se. I think that type of debate would have gone a long way toward developing a more informed citizenry. As it is now, if the charter does not pass, it will be because of negative “sound bites” rather than because of a reasoned discussion of the pros and cons of the document itself. Shame on us again for not being able to force the discussion to focus on the charter itself.
Tom Kocialski
by Tom Kocialski | Tuesday, Jun 3, 2008 | 7:54 pmJohn,
I agree with your political philosophy of not creating big government. Your stand on this, as well as preferring partisan politics, is made very clear in this latest blog. However, I’m uncertain from re-reading it what issues you have with the actual provisions of the charter?
This latest blog, as does the opposing voice, remains curiously silent in providing language from the charter wherein is found the slightest evidence of anything but “low-tax and minimal government” as well as maintaining the original “noble vision” of Centennial? Please provide the provisional charter text that does not sustain those ideals.
I think it is significant to remember that the charter is like a constitution. It is a framework for government, not the nuts and bolts. Those are, fortunately, left to the intelligent and engaged constituency.
Feel free to visit http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html to see how the framers of this country created our national charter, so to speak, and it may provide clearer understanding of the difference between framework and nuts and bolts.
Oh, and for the record, I think it’s a little embellished to say that the charter commission had a “notable over-representation of democrats.” The commission was comprised of 10 democrats, 10 republicans and 1 independent.
by Shannon M. Gish | Wednesday, Jun 4, 2008 | 7:05 amCentennial currently has a sales tax of 2.5.. It would be a great deal higher if GV annexed the shops and stores we use. So our taxes are still lower than other cities around us.
by Vorry Moon | Wednesday, Jun 4, 2008 | 11:39 amThe Charter commission was made up of 10 Republicans, 10 Democrates and one unaffiliated. All were elected by the citizens in a NON-PARTISAN, free election. Mr. Andrews not only cannot get his facts correct but wants to change the democratic process to elect only those he approves.
Centennial currently has 45 full time employees for a city of 103,000 citizens. That qualifies as small government by any measure except Mr. Andrews. That might be the reason he is “The Former President of the Senate.”
It seems to me that a commission that was 10 democrats, 10 republicans and 1 independent is perfect representation. I can only assume by your statement above that you are upset that the deck wasn’t stacked in your favor.
by Dave Hanna | Wednesday, Jun 4, 2008 | 7:22 pm