The Mayor or, rather, his allies second theme this election was that their opponents, Tommy Craven and Jessie Taliaferro, were pawns of developers. Because they voted against higher Impact Fees.

Last year, Craven and Taliaferro voted to raise Impact Fees 72%. But the Mayor said at the time he wanted more and during the election his allies – Nancy McFarlane and Rodger Koopman – attacked Craven and Taliaferro for not giving him more.

But this time – unlike the Mayor’s opposition to the $75 million subsidy for North Hills – there’s a seed of duplicity in his attack.

Mayor Meeker talked a lot about how he wanted higher Impact Fees – but in fact he did very little to get them. For example, he never made a motion on the City Council to raise Impact Fees above 72%. Now, if he really wanted to raise them 200% – and wasn’t just posturing – shouldn’t he have done that?

Koopman and McFarlane blasted away at their opponents for opposing the Mayor – but wouldn’t it have been just as fair for Craven and Taliaferro to say (when it came to Impact Fees) Mayor Meeker was all talk and no action?

Koopman and McFarlane also framed the debate on managing growth this way: You’re either with Mayor Meeker or you’re with the developers (who are about as popular as Atilla the Hun).

But, despite his rhetoric, the Mayor isn’t really a bulwark against developers. His political career (at least since he was elected Mayor) has been steadfastly supported by developers downtown.

The Mayor and his allies may run against developers on Election Day but between elections the Mayor doles out favors – and cold hard cash – to hotels, restaurants and supermarkets downtown. That’s hardly being anti-developer. In fact it seems safe to say that’s Charles Meeker’s done more to help developers than the last two Mayors combined.

Click Here to discuss and comment on this and other articles.