As next-door neighbors, Colorado’s first- and third-largest cities have a lot in common. Their municipal governments, however, are a study in contrasts.

Denver City Hall is a forum for drama. Too much rhetoric; too little focus on local government’s essential duties — stuff taxpayers actually care about, like patching potholes and policing streets. Maybe that’s inevitable with so many posturing progressives in local office. 

Aurora’s City Council and mayor, by contrast, have shown a penchant in recent years for rolling up their sleeves and getting things done. They’ve gone to work tackling real concerns that matter to Aurora citizens, like crime and chronic homelessness. Action, not talk.

Until, that is, the recently elected, avowedly progressive new majority on Aurora’s council indulged in decidedly Denver-like behavior earlier this week. And it doesn’t bode well.

As The Denver Gazette reported, Aurora council members voted 7-3 to approve a “statement of empathy and mourning” for those who have lost loved ones to officer-involved shootings. The resolution seemed so untethered to any discernible council business, it might as well have been adopted a dozen miles away at 1437 Bannock St. 

So, what was the point?

An activist supporting the resolution, MiDian Shofner, put it like this: “While this resolution is an opportunity for you all to engage in thoughtful language … the resolution is not structural change … This is an opportunity for you as a council to simply say ‘we hear you’.”

It does nothing, in other words.

It reportedly was a response in particular to the shooting death of an attempted-murder suspect by Aurora police two years ago. Family members and activists have been protesting at council meetings ever since, demanding charges be brought against the officers involved.

Although the suspect was found later to have been unarmed, police who were attempting to arrest him evidently didn’t know that, and his behavior and failure to comply with their orders culminated in the shooting. After investigation, deadly force was deemed justified by a Critical Incident Response Team, the 18th Judicial District attorney, and an internal police inquiry

Needless to say, the council’s resolution fixes nothing. It may even create the impression the shooting wasn’t justified — when, by all informed accounts, it clearly was.

We’d had higher hopes for Aurora. Hollow “we hear you” gestures masquerading as formal council action are something you’d expect of the nonstop political theater at Denver City Hall.

This same week, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston yet again went out on a limb in defiance of the city’s cherished political target, the Trump administration. This time, it was over the U.S. Justice Department’s suit, filed against the city in federal court Tuesday, contending Denver’s long-standing ban on“assault-style” weapons is over broad and unconstitutional.

It gave Johnston a chance to thunder with indignation — his trademark — going over the top with statements he no doubt will once again retract at some point. 

“Our answer is hell no,” Johnston said at a press event staged in front of City Hall on Monday. 

“No, we will not roll back a common-sense policy that has kept weapons of war off of these city streets for 37 years. … No, we will not go back to a time when folks are worried about walking into movie theaters, grocery stores, or public elementary schools.” Etc., etc.

Sure, it’s all poppycock. There’s no evidence the city’s assault ban ever did a thing to curb gun crime — particularly in all the years Denver’s crime was on the rise. But what a crowd pleaser!

Aurora council members: Don’t go there. You have much to lose — not only your credibility but also all the time you could have spent on the concerns the citizens elected you to address.