 On Point Vincent Carroll, editor of the editorial pages, writes his On Point column most weekdays. He is also an author and freelance writer. Reach Vincent Carroll at carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com. |
Carroll: Bullied by the majority
If Bill and Paula Leake were counting on a white knight to rescue them from the aggressive designs of the Metro Baseball Stadium District, they may have to look somewhere other than the mayor’s office.
In remarks quoted in Saturday’s Rocky, John Hickenlooper said the Leakes’ attempt to sell their property near Coors Field for development of a 140-feet building pits “two important values against each other: Private property rights against communal shared values. This is like historic preservation — just because you own something doesn’t mean you can tear it down because it has a shared communal value.”
The mayor is obviously correct that shared communal values are important. However, they are not mentioned in the Constitution while property rights and other individual rights and freedoms are. For a very good reason: A majority of citizens has much less difficulty protecting its interests than a single person. And once a pushy, righteous majority starts overriding individual dreams in the name of the greater good — in other words, communal values — you can pretty much kiss liberty as we know it goodbye.
The stadium district is backing an ordinance establishing a “view plane” from inside Coors Field that would block the Leakes’ plan to sell their property for development. The ordinance would indeed protect shared communal values because few Coloradans — myself included — relish the prospect of a new building marring part of a mountain view for even a limited number of fans.
But a law crafted for no other purpose than to stop a single rezoning and sale of property owned by a couple whose family business has been part of a neighborhood for 30 years smacks of a classic example of the tyranny of the majority.
It’s an ugly mistake, in other words, however worthy the stated goal.
Hardly a throng
In a blunt broadside we published last week (“Rocky off base in critique of museum in Civic Center,” Oct. 10), the chairman of the Colorado Historical Society noted that the Colorado History Museum’s “programs and exhibits attracted nearly 150,000 visitors last year alone . . . .”
W. Bart Berger’s point: Relocating the museum onto Denver’s downtown Civic Center would “activate and repopulate” the rundown area.
Maybe so, but let’s at least do the math in considering the claim. “Nearly 150,000” divided by 365 (the museum is open seven days a week) equals 410 visitors a day. That may amount to a nice turnout for a state history museum, but the word “throng” hardly springs to mind.
Berger is confident the museum could attract more visitors in a plum location such as Civic Center. No doubt about it — although the effort would depend in part on a major upgrade of some museum exhibits, and no one can credibly guess what the ensuing turnout might be.
Berger is less persuasive when he contends that Civic Center “isn’t a ‘park,’ it is a civic gathering place.” It is actually both, which is why concern for its grass and open space is not driven by editorial opportunism, as he implies. Rather, it’s the most obvious objection to the historical society’s proposal, one appreciated even by most of those who believe the plan’s merits outweigh its drawbacks.
Vincent Carroll is editor of the editorial pages. Reach him at Carrollv@RockyMountainNews.com.
Stadium management wants to protect the view-plane INTO Coors Field, just as the Chicago Cubs sued neighboring bars that allowed customers to watch games from their rooftop patios. We can't have people watching baseball for free.
The Colorado History Museum is a better use of Civic Center land than another Starbucks would be. I don't see what the objections are about, unless it's money.
Posted by David Hakala on October 17, 2007 12:09 PMThis column has the same ambiguity issue that the other articles and op-eds have had: if this view protection being driven by the stadium district, which is a public entity, by the owners of the Colorado Rockies, which is most definitely a private for-profit entity, or both? This matters. Are the owners of the baseball team on the record about the view protection ordinance? Because of course if the property owners are to be compensated for the reduction in property value, the public entity can and will say they don't have any money to do so, and the private entity can and will say that this isn't really their deal--it's "the other guy's" deal (the Stadium District).
Posted by Rocktober Town on October 17, 2007 08:29 PMI thought this was going to be an article about Christians forcing their beliefs into government.
Posted by on October 19, 2007 10:22 AM