Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

Home › News › Local News

Council nearer to referring impound initiative to voters

By Daniel J. Chacon, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)

Published May 12, 2008 at 8:53 p.m.
Updated May 12, 2008 at 11:43 p.m.

Text size  

More Local News

More stories »

Map my news

An initiative that would require Denver police to impound the vehicles of unlicensed drivers - a measure aimed at illegal immigrants - is one step closer to appearing on the August ballot.

The City Council voted 9-3 on first reading Monday to refer the initiative to voters. It is up for a second reading next week.

The three who voted in opposition - Rick Garcia, Chris Nevitt and Judy Montero - violated the city charter in the process.

By charter, the council has only two options when dealing with a citizen's initiative: refer it to voters or adopt it by ordinance.

Montero said she couldn't vote any other way because the proposal goes against her moral conscience.

"I feel so strongly because I feel that the intent is unfair," she said. "The intent is to target a certain group of people and I think that that is inherently wrong."

Some of the other council members who voted in favor shared a similar sentiment but said they had no other choice.

Council members have been in a similar predicament before.

Last year, for example, council President Michael Hancock abstained from voting on whether or not to refer to voters an initiative that would make adult possession of less than an ounce of marijuana Denver's "lowest law enforcement priority."

The initiative was approved by voters, but police are still making arrests under state law.

The council may be able to skip the ministerial duty in the future under a proposal by Councilwoman Jeanne Faatz, who has asked Assistant City Attorney David Broadwell to draft a referred charter amendment that would take the council out of the process.

"This has been building," she said.

Comments

  • May 12, 2008

    9 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    The_Punnisher writes:

    Note the last names of two of the councilpersons....

    They have shown that they are loyal to the Red, White and GREEN.

    Maybe they should make a " run for the border "...

  • May 12, 2008

    9:40 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    happymike44 writes:

    Well I think it is a fair law to enact having been hit twice by uninsured motorist.Also what is fair to me when I have to pay for insurance to be legal.If it is good enough for me to be insured why not them.It is not against one group it is against many of the uninsured drivers.This means if you are uninsured red,purple,green no matter what you color it is the law.What was fair when I got hit and my cars was totaled and I had to ride a bike to work because my insurance refused to pay a settlement on the loss of my car.The second time it was a old african american woman who said it was my fault I'll pay for everything.Then her nephew called and threatened me and said I would die if I did not leave her alone.So what was fair about that.The law is more fair no insurance lose your car seem fair to me.Also how about a law against old junky smoking cars to.I always seem to be following some low economic person in a smoking heap.How about take that one off the road and save the enviroment and my lungs.

  • May 12, 2008

    10:01 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    280Pagoda writes:

    So, they debate water bottles for weeks, and s-l-o-w-l-y come to the conclusion over a period of months that $117,000 a year for bottled water isn't green, so they buy reusable bottles.

    Meanwhile, about those pesky voters wanting something done about all those uninsured cars (estimated up to 30%) and cars without licensed drivers (estimated at 10%)... Gee, I guess if you make me I will vote to let the voters vote. That's leadership? With three of the "decision-makers" violating the City Charter to preserve the status quo? Montero declares it goes against her moral conscience?

    Maybe there is something in the water. These folks are all wet.

  • May 12, 2008

    11:03 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    gethoht writes:

    I like the idea of letting the voters vote on these initiatives. It seems to make for good law. I don't see the harm in impounding unlicensed motorist's cars. Other places I've lived had similar laws. I guess it doesn't bother me because I'm an insured, licensed motorist. As for it "targeting a certain group of people"... this law most certainly is targeting a certain group of people, it's targeting people who drive without a license.

  • May 12, 2008

    11:14 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    Coloheart writes:

    Are they to be considered unlicensed if they have a Mexican drivers license?

    Are we talking insurance here or licenses?

  • May 13, 2008

    5:34 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    vudumom writes:

    Isn't having a Mexican drivers license sort of like having a Kmart credit card? It's only good at one place.

  • May 13, 2008

    10:20 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    airbornebigfoot writes:

    you can make all the laws you want, when these targeted people dont speak, read, or write in the english language, it really doesnt matter.
    I wish they would impound all of their vehicles when they are caught.
    then the state could have vehicle auctions, and use the revenue
    to hire more officers to enforce the law.

  • May 13, 2008

    12:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    redwhiteandBLUE writes:

    On the spot ..impound / tow.