Some thoughts worth considering before city folk vote on the “Vibrant Denver” bond

By Michael Whitcomb | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice

The Denver Mayor and City Council are pushing the borrowing of $950 million—not including interest costs of up to $1 billion over the life of the loan—for a total cost approaching $2 billion. I and other interested residents are urging Denver not to take on any new debt, including this proposed bond issue, at this time. Here are a few reasons why.

Before creating a $250 million budget deficit, the Mayor and Council had already cut services to taxpaying citizens while continuing to overspend. Now, faced with this deficit, further services and operations will be reduced. With this kind of undisciplined spending and lack of accountability, what prevents further budget problems—or a perpetual upward spiral of tax and fee increases? Giving city leaders a large new pot of money only rewards poor stewardship.

Within the proposed bond package are the following projects (among others):

• $70 million for a new park at Park Hill. Our existing parks are already being poorly maintained, so why add more?
  
• $44 million for additional affordable housing. This comes after voters rejected a 2024 ballot issue for more housing tax money—yet that voter sentiment is being ignored.
  
• Cultural facility funding. The Scientific and Cultural Facilities District (SCFD) already distributed $84 million in 2023 to entities such as the Museum of Nature and Science, the Center for the Performing Arts, and the Botanic Gardens. The Vibrant Denver bond would borrow tens of millions more at double the cost to give to these same entities.
  
• Tax impact. Claims that this borrowing will not raise taxes are misleading. These bonds are paid from property tax revenues. Property owners already know that, with rising values, our tax bills keep increasing. If this bond is not approved, property tax bills would actually decrease through a mill levy reduction or refund. The bonds are created and financed by banking entities that charge interest—costs not yet clearly disclosed.
  
• Population and business decline. Denver is losing population and sales tax revenue, while small businesses are struggling with high taxes, fees, crime, and a poor governing environment. How many more streets could be paved or services improved using the existing budget, rather than borrowing $20 million (plus interest) for a skate park?
  
• Administrative costs. The bond package includes $112 million for administration and contingency. This comes from the same administration that has more than tripled the cost of improvements still unfinished at Denver International Airport.
  

Out of a voting population of roughly 500,000, fewer than 10,000 people weighed in on the city’s request for community input on spending $2 billion. Input overwhelmingly came from those seeking to spend taxpayer money, not those urging restraint.

Denver’s leaders should show more discipline before asking voters to approve new debt. Vote No on Vibrant Denver bond ballot issues 2A through 2E.

Michael Whitcomb has been a Colorado resident since 1953 and a Denver resident since 1982. He is a longtime business owner, employer, and property owner with decades of civic involvement in the Denver community.

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.