< PREVIOUS ]   [ 1998 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >


Why candidates avoid talking about growth

Published 16 August 1998 in the Denver Post
Copyright ©1998 by Ed Quillen. All rights reserved.

The other night, a friend called from the Front Range. Did you notice anything about the primary, Ed? she asked.

The main thing I noticed about the primary was that it came when I was busy with other matters, like remodeling a rental house and promoting a book, and this pre-occupation with mere personal pecuniary matters regretfully prevented me from exercising all the duties of an informed citizen.

This explanation did not dissuade the caller. You notice how they all talked about abortion, highways and education, but skirted the main issue?

I pressed to learn the main issue.

What is it that Colorado people talk about in the cafe every morning, or at the post office when they're getting their mail?

Aside from gossip about the sex lives of public officials, the main topic is growth, I told her.

Precisely, she said, and has any candidate even mentioned it?

I pointed out that Colorado was a politically competitive state as recently as 1992, but we've since imported hundreds of thousands of white suburban Texans and Californians who are mostly Republicans.

This gives the GOP a big edge, and so you can't really expect a conservative candidate to actually want to conserve anything about Colorado -- the more sprawl in Jefferson County, the more ranchettes in Douglas County, the more development in El Paso County, the more those alleged conservatives profit politically.

You're not going to hear anything from Colorado Republicans about growth, except maybe about how we need to build more highways to accommodate this wonderful expansion of opportunities, I said.

But what about the Colorado Democrats? she asked. Aren't they supposed to care about what we care about?

They've all been busy trying to attract the national convention, I observed, adding the hope that we might hear from them once that settles down.

But hope is a fragile thing, and so I offer, in a spirit of public service, the following speech for any candidate of any party who wants to speak honestly about growth.

Fellow Coloradans, I share your concerns about growth and how it is affecting the quality of life that we all cherish.

However, that's about all I can do, now or if I should gain office this November. Let us candidly address what government can do, no matter who is or is not in office.

For one thing, we have to respect private property rights -- or certain rights, anyway. If we find someone cultivating marijuana for his own use, he's a threat to society and we'll confiscate his home and car after shooting his dog.

But if he wants to build a shopping mall that will congest our traffic and pollute our air while putting our ma-and-pa shops out of business, we have to allow him to do this. If we don't, he'll take us to court under the 'takings' clause, and since his lawyers get paid more than ours, guess who wins.

Some studies have shown that every new resident costs existing residents about $7,000. This suggests that since we seem forced to subsidize growth, we should have a say in how we spend our money, say by requiring narrow streets, small lots, alleys, broad sidewalks, neighborhood commercial zones, etc. These may appear to be decisions that a local government might properly make.

But if we tried that, we will be accused of 'social engineering,' even though the usual method of californication -- freeway offramp commercial strips, broad streets, no sidewalks, huge lots -- is also a form of 'social engineering,' even if they call it 'natural forces of the free market.'

The terms of the debate have already been defined, my friends, and until we change that, we will lose.

Further, if I were to attempt to stop the subsidization of this madness, perhaps by making the state's tax structure fair by eliminating enterprise zones, I would be accused of raising taxes, and my political career would end about 20 seconds later.

And finally, throughout the course of American history, the United States government has always sided with the invaders who want to destroy your communities and their social fabric, not with the protectors -- whether they be cohab Mormons or indigenous Utes, the feds have always supported disruption, not protection.

So I must conclude, regretfully, that there isn't really a damn thing that I or any other Colorado politician can do about this invasion that threatens you and all that you cherish.

I suppose you could move, but then you'd be somebody else's growth problem.


< PREVIOUS ]   [ 1998 Index ]   [ Ed Quillen HOME ]   [ SEARCH ]   [ NEXT >