No on Denver's 100, yes on 1A
Rocky Mountain News
Published August 8, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
Earlier this week we noted that this November's ballot is likely to be packed with 19 statewide measures. Denver voters, however, will decide two uniquely local questions in this month's primary.
One would modify city policy regarding vehicle impounds. The other would amend the city's charter so that council members wouldn't have to take a position against their beliefs. As we'll soon explain, the latter was inspired in part by the former.
Initiated Ordinance 100 would require the city to impound vehicles of any motorist who is driving without a license.
We opposed the ordinance when it was first brought to City Council for several reasons, and we haven't changed our minds. The city now has the latitude to impound vehicles for a host of offenses - 19, in fact, including operation by an unlicensed driver.
The ordinance would force impounds for that violation without exception - and it would also target illegal immigrants. Its language says cars will be seized "when a driver of a vehicle is an illegal alien or may be reasonably suspected of being an illegal alien."
"Reasonably suspected"? What exactly does that mean? This is a ham-handed attempt to force Denver police to devote more of their time to enforcement of federal immigration law.
We do not minimize the potential danger posed by unlicensed drivers and have no problem with police impounding those drivers' cars in many cases. But Denver can impound the cars now. Vote no on 100.
Referred Question 1A, the second ballot measure, would rectify an odd provision of Denver's charter. When a citizen-sponsored initiative has been certified by the clerk and recorder, City Council has the option of either passing it as an ordinance or placing it on the ballot.
The idea, we suppose, was to give council the chance to save the city the time and expense of holding an election if some noncontroversial measure were proposed. But Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz told us she's not aware of any time council has actually done that.
So the charter forces council members, in effect, to vote yes on proposed initiatives they may detest - or vote no and essentially violate the law.
Indeed, four different council members voted against Initiative 100 this year - Councilwoman Judy Montero opposed it twice. Had a majority of the members rejected the initiative, council would have defied the charter.
Council members can campaign for or against initiatives on their own time. Vote yes on 1A.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
Legislature Blog
Read live updates from the opening of the 2009 legislative session.
-
Rocky multimedia
The news comes alive in our videos and slide shows. Catch up on what's happening today.
-
Who's next?
Complete coverage of the Broncos' search for a new coach.
-
Rocky year in photos
View an audio slide show of staff selections from 2008.
-
Winter Escapes
Your insider’s guide to the copious joys of the coolest season.
-
Sam Adams' Open Mic
Open Mic: Two-man advantage with Avs
-
Shanahan's career
See photos from Mike Shanahan's career as Broncos coach.
-
12 days of Drew
Look back at the year that has been with Drew Litton.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
August 8, 2008
6:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Yes on 100. Where did the RMN miss the word "illegal"? Get off your soap box and promote enforcing the law.
August 8, 2008
6:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike846 writes:
Well, you'd be right, except by executive order and intimidation, the politicians have made it impossible for the police to USE any of those 19 impounding laws. Ordinance 100 isn't about impounding; its about the citizens sending a message to City Council that they are tired of a two-tiered justice system, one for CITIZENS and another for illegal aliens. As usual, the RMN lines up squarely on the side of illegals. And you wonder why ad revenue and circulation is down? Vote YES on 100. Mike
August 8, 2008
8:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
PI writes:
vote yes on impounding the previous two bloggers' computers. no room for back door racism/nationalism on the ballot.
August 8, 2008
9:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
chief writes:
It's not about racism, it's about protecting our country.
August 8, 2008
10:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
wisdomwriter writes:
If it is about protecting the country, bring on the Army. And by the way, I would be interested in knowing your reaction when the police impounds your car under the suspicion that you might reasonably be an illegal immigrant, who come in any shape and color you might think of, and many speak very good if not perfect English. Would you have a problem with this proposal then?
Just a thought...
August 8, 2008
11:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
First you have to be an unlicensed driver, then that might indicate that you are here illegally. And if you are an unlicensed driver you are also not insured and shouldn't be driving on the streets to begin with.
August 8, 2008
12:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
T1anda writes:
What Brain said!! Do you comprehend the WISDOM of those words WRITER??
August 8, 2008
4:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
vendari01 writes:
I haven't read the actual wording of the measure, so I am not certain if the wording requires that the individual stopped must be driving without a license. I'm also not too fond of anything that takes away the officer's latitude. I've seen too many people simply forget their licenses, and having to get your car back out of impound because you forgot your license while running your kid to the hospital might be a bit much. I'm also unhappy with the concept of reasonable suspicion. That is remarkably vague. Semantics can turn a good law into a disaster.
August 9, 2008
6:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
To "PI", when you can't debate the issues then call your opponent a racist. That tactic is getting old, real old. Enforce the laws. Plain and simple.
August 9, 2008
12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
Garcia writes:
Save our jobs!
As a long time Denver Hispanic and citizen why do you turn your backs on us when it comes to cracking down on illegals here.
Sometimes it seems journalists are out of touch and or elitist in that you do not think Americans do hard, dirty work. Many blue collar Americans love to work outside in construction digging ditches or planting trees for our livelihood for decent wages. We hate desk jobs and we want our blue collar jobs back!
These illegal workers are taking our jobs away with "GOP lovin" slave wages. Is that what you want?
Don't turn your back on us like the Democratic party has because Hispanic citizens vote and illegals don't.
What about us? Vote yes. Besides it has created more harmony among us in other cities.
August 10, 2008
1:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Brain writes:
Be it enacted by the Council of the City and County of Denver
City and County of Denver Proposed Ordinance
ARTICLE XV
DIVISION 2
SECTION 1. 54-811(10) amended, Sec. 54-811(20) new, Sec. 54-813(c) new.
Unlicensed driver motor vehicle impoundment and bonding
Whereas unlicensed drivers including illegal aliens are not eligible for auto insurance and pose a significant danger to the people of the City and County of Denver when driving and must be prevented from doing so in every way possible.
(a) Sec. 54-811(10) is amended by an addition to subsection (10) to read: or when a driver of a vehicle is an illegal alien or may be reasonably suspected of being an illegal alien;
(1) A vehicle operator without a valid drivers license but with convincing corroborating identification, vehicle registration, and a valid drivers license of record may, at the discretion of the attending Police Officer, be issued a summons for driving without a license without impounding the vehicle. Such summons along with proof of a valid drivers license shall be submitted within three working days to a Denver County Court for validation or such vehicle shall be ordered impounded.
(b) Sec. 54-811 is amended by the addition of a new subsection (20) to read:
Sec.54-811 (20) When a driver operating a vehicle registered in Colorado possesses a driver’s license from another country and does not possess proof that they are in the country legally the owner of record, if ascertained, or any lienholder, if ascertained, shall be issued by certified mail a notice of pending impoundment requiring proof that such driver was not an illegal alien or such vehicle shall be ordered impounded thirty days from the day the violation notice was issued.
(c) Sec. 54-813 is amended by the addition of a new subsection (c) to read:
Sec. 54-813(c) The release of a motor vehicle impounded as provided in 54-811(10) or 54-811(20) shall require that A two-thousand five-hundred dollar bond be posted within thirty days of impoundment in favor of the City and County of Denver or the motor vehicle is subject to disposal by the city by auction or otherwise. This requirement is not applied when the operator of such vehicle is found to have had a valid drivers license with such vehicle being released upon payment of towing and impoundment charges by owner. This Bond shall be held for a period of one year and forfeited if such vehicle is operated by an unlicensed driver in Colorado within that time. For this section a one-hundred dollar impoundment land acquisition fee shall be paid to the City prior to the release of vehicle.
(d) Legislation may be enacted to facilitate the operation of this ordinance by the mayor and City Council but in no way shall such legislation limit or restrict the provisions of this section or the powers herein granted.
August 12, 2008
2:49 p.m.
Suggest removal
SteveT8 writes:
When a person has no drivers license in his possession, the officer performs a driver's license check via computer to verify that the driver is indeed licensed. Only when there is no record of a license for that individual would the car be impounded under the proposed ordinance. Under the current ordinance the officer MAY impound the vehicle, but is usually forbidden or discouraged from doing so the by police department hierarchy.
An unlicensed driver CANNOT be insured and thus is a danger to every other driver on the road. Vote YES on 100
August 13, 2008
4:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dialtone writes:
Yes on Initiated Ordinance 100 ... I've been involved in 3 auto accidents in Denver - 1 where the illegal alien's car was not driveable but she walked away and never showed up at court, the other 2 where the illegal alien fled ... whose insurance paid for the damages to my car? Who had to pay out of pocket for deductibles and rental cars while my car was in the shop being repaired?
If these people feel that life across the boarder is so bad, they need to follow the due process, and enter the United States legally, or face the consequences for being here illegally.
If we law abiding citizens don't protect ourselves and our property, who will? We have to stand up for our rights - otherwise they will be trampled upon ...
I am sick and tired of these bleeding hearts who say that having thier car impounded for driving without a drivers license will disrupt their family ... or that being put in jail for being here illegally is racial profiling ... if you do things legally - you have nothing to fear ... if you do things illegally - you have to pay the price.
I'd like to see Initiated Ordinance 100 beefed up a bit to include anyone who gets pulled over and is not insured, their license gets revoked ... as it states on Colorado Registrations.
Passing the ordinance is one thing - upholding and enforcing it is another. Something has to be done to get offenders off the roads and behind bars.