Guest Post: An Office of Public Private Partnership Denver Doesn’t Need

Denver skyline

NOTE: The Colorado Independent occasionally runs guest posts from government officials, local experts and concerned citizens on a variety of topics. These posts are meant to provide diverse perspectives and do not represent the views of  The Independent. To pitch a guest post, please contact


At a time when the city could use more oversight, more public regulation of development and major real estate projects from the city council and auditor’s office, from all appearances, the Denver City Council seems to be going full steam ahead in the opposite direction. By way of example, the Council’s recent barely noticed nod to Mayor Hancock’s request to create an Office of Public Private Partnership.

Let us say outright, that we oppose the creation of the Office of Public-Private Partnership.

They’re called “Public-Private Partnerships” – PPPs or P3s for short. The term “partnership” applied to these arrangements is a euphemism. With the creation of an Office of Public-Private Partnerships, the management, regulation and oversight of PPPs has passed from public institutions (city, state, federal) to the corporate project managers themselves, developers and the financial interests hoping to profit from the projects.

In many ways P3s been around for a long time.

But in the last decade or so, they have become little more than the private sector using public infrastructure to maximize their profits – often times with the public taking the risks. Large scale projects often running into billions of dollars, P3s are common today, in Colorado, and throughout the country. Two of the most recent here in Colorado are the D.I.A-Ferrovial deal and the renovation of the Great Western Stock Show complex. There is also proposal to fund what could be a Denver 2026 Olympics bid with PPP to avoid state funding.

Without careful research and formulation, P3s have a tendency to be little more than the private sector drinking from the public trough, private gain with the public taking the risk. They’re a mechanism for giving away public funds with which to gobble up public property. Unfortunately, already, Denver has a long and ignoble tradition along these lines, going back several administrations of city officials cozying up to developers and selling off public property at bargain basement rates.

The quiet – virtually stealth – creation of this office leaves us increasingly uneasy.

Unregulated, uncontrolled development just got ratcheted up another notch. The Mayor’s office has already spent close to a $1 million on the project, with the City Council voting on the last phase, of $500,000 with little or no discussion as to its implications. By all indications the project as already been pushed through Council, as a line item. Its members are chosen and answerable only to the Mayor. The Office of Public Private Ownership – has already been approved for more than $ 1 million ($1.2-1.4 million) in the 2018 budget

It smacks of irresponsibility for the city council to so blithely surrender its political powers to an unaccountable bureaucratic and politicized entity, whose proceedings will inevitably be held behind closed doors. We see its creation as yet one more way that public oversight of massive public works projects is disappearing and that public funds are being used to support and offload risk onto taxpayers. It reduces the City Council to little more than a rubber stamp for decisions that have been formulated and decided beforehand. In going along, Council, seemingly willingly, is sidestepping its responsibility to examine, approve and manage such projects. Nor does there appear to be much oversight by the Denver auditor in the matter.

Shame on the Denver City Council for letting this happen with hardly a peep of protest.

Photo credit: Larry Johnson, Creative Commons, Flickr


  1. Lisa Calderon and Rob Prince are spot-on! An official Denver City Hall office of public/private partnership, is a terrible idea. Developers and their lobbyists have ample access to Hizzoner and the council. It’s time to open the Fortress to the public, not give the fox the master suite in the henhouse!

  2. Lisa Calderón opposed to something proposed by Hancock. I’m shocked. Shocked!

    If Hancock said the sky was blue, Calderon would hold a rally saying it wasn’t and blame in on developers.

  3. First of all, this is full of grammatical and spelling errors. If they can’t put in the time to proofread, we can assume they probably didn’t put in the time to research. I’m surprised it was published. Secondly, this is just another grump complaining about new ways to grow the city’s infrastructure responsibly. Hancock was very open about the idea and the whole point of the office is to ensure that we ARE NOT taken advantage of by private entities. Colorado has a proud history of making unconventional concepts work and work well. (Legal cannabis??) At least give it a chance. Lord knows Denver voters have a pretty decent say over what happens in the end.

  4. If, as you say, Denver voters have a pretty decent say over what happens in the end…then I truly wish they exercise said vote in ousting those in City Gov’t that do not head their desires….I call on all Denver voters to think of a representative that has their best interest at heart and to start now in garnering support. It is never too soon to separate the wheat from the chaff

  5. Concise and spot on. Any government function needs accountability and the light of day. Adding a profit motive to a role previously filled by government drives up costs for constituents. Personally, I am looking forward to different leadership. Leaders who listen, consider the well being of citizens, and thoughtfully keep Denver livable and beatuful.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.