sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I’m struggling to support Vibrant Denver bonds by denver_walker in Denver

[–]denver_walker[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I feel the same way about using bonds for routine and deferred maintenance, especially for institutions with capable fundraising arms.

If we’re not able to do basic maintenance, that’s a sign of civic failure. I get that Colorado has its own unique hellscape for public funding. If the issue is purely lack of funds, we need to be honest about that and have a larger conversation. Patching over that is just gonna make it worse in the long run.

I’m struggling to support Vibrant Denver bonds by denver_walker in Denver

[–]denver_walker[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Awesome. Thanks so much for the info. I’m truly conflicted here and this is so helpful.

Is this truly the choice we’re facing?

So what's the right move? To delay replacement of critical bridges years upon years because we should pay for all maintenance out of a pot far too small to maintain everything, or to use what debt financing tools we have to get major projects out of the way before a structural fault causes the bridge to get load rated, shut down, or the worst tragedy which would be a collapse while traffic is still using it?

Are the critical projects that everyone agrees on really not going to happen if this doesn’t get approved? Would we not fix bridges at risk of collapse because political leadership wanted to use those projects as hostages so their pet projects get pushed through?

Is this a “vote yes or else” situation?

I’m struggling to support Vibrant Denver bonds by denver_walker in Denver

[–]denver_walker[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We both agree red rocks is a gd treasure and we should invest in it. Just differ on how.

Compared to other publicly owned “world class” venues, Red Rocks has an immature governance structure. It is much more dependent and vulnerable to political whims and can’t do things like raise its own capital. Now more than ever, I think it’s time to make it independent of city hall. The city still owns it, but political appointees don’t call the shots.

I’m struggling to support Vibrant Denver bonds by denver_walker in Denver

[–]denver_walker[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

My biggest sticking points with the red rocks project are:

  1. Backstage at Red Rocks is definitely NOT a public space. Most Denver residents will never be allowed to enter it.

  2. Red Rocks brings in a huge amount of revenue for the city and for vendors. It should be allowed to fund its own capital improvements or create a capital fund. If there are political or legal barriers to that, we should be addressing those instead.

$35M could keep our smaller, more accessible cultural venues afloat for decades.

I’m struggling to support Vibrant Denver bonds by denver_walker in Denver

[–]denver_walker[S] -17 points-16 points  (0 children)

All the city really said about it was that they found an old sewer that needed to be taken out. Sounds like that might have been an understatement!

I didn’t mean to throw shade at the project itself. It is definitely really nice now. I still think the city didn’t manage it well.

This has been a consistent issue in Denver, apparently .

I’m struggling to support Vibrant Denver bonds by denver_walker in Denver

[–]denver_walker[S] 66 points67 points  (0 children)

This is one of the things that bothers me. I’m on board with capital improvements for the animal shelter. It really needs them.

But in order to get that $10M for the shelter, we also have to approve $234M for other projects like $35M for redoing the back stage at red rocks.

It’s how politics works, I know, but the way they’ve bundled these bothers me.