Americans are recoiling from the Democratic Party, and even in blue states like Colorado, Democrats are feeling the burn.

With Republicans fielding the best candidate for governor they’ve had in a decade – Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer – liberal politicians would be wise to address the root causes of this dissatisfaction publicly, frequently and head-on. The reality is that Americans are struggling — our politics are becoming more violent, everything is more expensive, and the job market is tightening.

After years of enjoying popularity, Colorado’s top Democrats are now showing a remarkable drop in their approval ratings among voters. President Donald Trump remains deeply unpopular in the state, but Gov. Jared Polis, Sen. Michael Bennet and Sen. John Hickenlooper are failing to break a 50% approval rating, meaning more of those asked than not said they were unhappy with the politicians’ work.

Unaffiliated voters claim outright majority of Colorado electorate

/*! This file is auto-generated */!function(d,l){“use strict”;l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&”undefined”!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll(‘iframe[data-secret=”‘+t.secret+'”]’),o=l.querySelectorAll(‘blockquote[data-secret=”‘+t.secret+'”]’),c=new RegExp(“^https?:$”,”i”),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);

These results from a poll conducted in early August of 1,136 registered Colorado voters by Magellan Strategies mirror what we are seeing across the nation. Americans are dissatisfied.

According to a New York Times analysis of available voter registration numbers, the Democratic Party is hemorrhaging voters across the board and particularly in swing states. Meanwhile, the Republican Party is gaining voters after years of losses.

Part of the shift is voters simply changing their affiliation to unaffiliated, but the Magellan Poll clearly indicates that there is more afoot than voters just looking to participate in open primaries.

Magellan, a conservative-leaning Colorado firm, found that among voters who supported Kamala Harris in 2024, 47% have unfavorable opinions of the Democratic Party.

To be clear, voters who were polled still said they were more likely to support a Democrat for governor next year. Only 38% of those polled said they would likely support a Republican for governor. Kirkmeyer has an uphill battle to be certain, but her opponents are weakened.

We’d hazard a guess that the non-existent Democratic primary in 2023 to challenge a sitting president who was showing cognitive decline while in office is part of the reason voters are upset. It will take time for voters to forgive – and no one will ever forget – the disastrous presidential debate.

But national politics can’t take all the blame.

Gov. Jared Polis has served almost eight years in office and 52% of voters told pollsters that they had an unfavorable opinion of his work, and 35% strongly disapprove. That is softened only by the fact that 56% of voters polled strongly disapproved of the job President Donald Trump is doing, but Colorado has rejected Trump three times in general elections and the Republican Party rejected him in the 2016 caucus.

U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet is doing slightly better with 44% of voters reporting disapproval of him, and U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper was at 49%.

Bennet is going to face Attorney General Phil Weiser in the Democratic Primary for governor. Weiser wasn’t included in the poll and neither were any of the Republican candidates.

The bottom line is that Democrats cannot spend this election talking about Donald Trump, and pretending that voters don’t have real concerns about the governance of both political parties. Voters may still put many or even most Democrats into office, but if the party wants to recover, its top leaders must start this election cycle with something more than fear and loathing.

Coloradans are concerned. The Magellan poll found that 54% of voters anticipate the economy will decline in the next 12 months (with more Democrats expressing this fear than Republicans), a pessimistic view that requires our politicians to articulate a plan for the worst-case scenario.

Similarly, 54% think Colorado is headed in the wrong direction (with more Republicans unhappy than Democrats), and the high cost of living, public safety, and homelessness were mentioned frequently by voters as top concerns, according to Magellan. These issues will only be harder to address given the decline in federal, state and local revenue sources. Our next governor will articulate a feasible plan.

Finally, Democrats will win safe seats in 2026 with their heads in the sand, but if the party wants to gain ground in swing districts, its politicians are going to have to step up to the challenge at hand – restoring faith in and favorability of the party. Can that be done without rehashing the many missteps of the past four years? We would like to see elected officials be accountable and transparent.

But Colorado must move forward, as must the nation.

If Democrats want to stop losing ground, they’ve got to appeal to voters as far more than an alternative to Trump.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

The Broncos are poised to stay in the heart of Denver, and that is an announcement that all of Colorado can celebrate, even if they’ve never cheered for the orange and blue.

Greg Penner, CEO of the Broncos, announced Tuesday morning that the football team’s ownership group plans to spend billions of dollars transforming an abandoned railyard just southeast of downtown into a new stadium and entertainment district.

In an exclusive interview with The Denver Post, Gov. Jared Polis, Mayor Mike Johnston and Greg Penner shared a vision for Burnham Yard that is far more than just another billion-dollar stadium project in a country that financially, and often emotionally, supports 32 teams in the National Football League.

“Sometimes you need constraints,” Penner said, explaining that his team was drawn to Burnham Yard by the possibility of using some of the existing buildings, rusted equipment, and even the old switchyard.

Those constraints include contaminated land, historic buildings, a working rail line, and acquiring splotches of land one at a time to reach about 100 acres that Penner and his group have quietly spent the last year acquiring in a city where less than a quarter acre of land sells for about a half-million dollars. We can see how the constraints on the site will lend themselves to an authentic project that feels less like a privately owned utopia and more like a natural extension of the city’s core.

If everything comes together the Broncos stadium at Burnham Yard will give Denver a state-of-the-art venue that can compete for tourism-generating events year-round, a transit-oriented development that offers visitors alternative means of fast, easy transportation, and a revitalized part of the city that is now a blighted brownfield.

Our biggest concern with this location was the need for Denver Water to move some of its operations, including brand new buildings, and sell the land to the Broncos as part of their 100-acre footprint. The CEO of Denver Water, Alan Salazar, assured us early on that he would not let the project increase water rates.

Fortunately, Penner and Johnston said the final agreement will make Denver Water whole. The new Denver Water headquarters building will remain where it is, but the Broncos will acquire new land for Denver Water’s operations equipment and repair facilities, and pay for the new buildings on the site.

“This was a good outcome,” Penner said. “But also Alan (Salazar) and his team were very tough, so it was not an easy one to get to resolution.”

We appreciate everyone’s diligence in getting to this point where Burnham Yard — despite and because of all the complications and constraints — is the preferred location for the new Broncos stadium.

Penner’s vision is that the new stadium and entertainment district will embrace the history of Burnham Yard, maintaining some of the existing buildings and even some of the historic equipment to make this project so much more than another mixed-use development. Too often, developments of this size that pop up on virgin ground get lost to boring cookie-cutter street scaping and architecture. But the Broncos’ owners aren’t building a Disneyland an hour south of Denver where the “Mainstreet” will look just like the one outside Orlando.

Polis and Johnston deserve credit for bringing 58 acres of state-owned land to the table. The project supports urban infill and it will capitalize on the existing light-rail station at the location and future plans for a Front Range Passenger Train that drops off commuters from north and south of the Denver Metro Area.

“This is a chance to showcase transit-oriented development in a very special place,” said Polis, who has used his influence during his two terms in office to champion our fledgling rail system and public transportation.

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston emphasized the win for Colorado that not only will the 58 acres of Burnham Yard be reborn after having sat vacant for 10 years, but also the 80 acres under the existing Empower Field and Mile High Stadium will revert to city ownership, creating a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the city to direct its own development, including providing affordable housing in a city where all but the most affluent buyers have been priced out.

All three men cautioned that there was a risk the project could not move forward as envisioned. Some parcels of land still must be acquired and obviously the Broncos’s owners need to finalize their design and architectural plans.

But we would rather celebrate too early than let the moment slip by.

The preferred alternative, should this plan be stymied by environmental remediation costs, neighborhood opposition, or bungled land sales, is in Lone Tree. That is about an hour south of the city center, but Lone Tree is a small town that will continue to thrive even without a multi-billion-dollar investment from the Broncos.

Finally, we would like to celebrate that the Broncos’ plans expose the public to much less risk than other projects. For example, Las Vegas financed almost half of the Raiders’ $2 billion stadium with a hotel room tax.

Both Polis and Johnston emphasized that the Broncos’ owners did not want a taxpayer-funded stadium and that the redevelopment project would not require a tax increase of any sort.

But we do urge some caution and restraint as this project rolls forward with an aggressive timeline that could have the Broncos playing their first game in the new stadium in 2031.

Polis and Johnston can be extremely transparent about the subsidies for this project. Are the Broncos going to pay fair market value for the state-owned land and the nearby parcel owned by Denver Water? Will the Broncos’ owners be granted taxing authority to levy higher property taxes and sales taxes on future homeowners and businesses in Burnham Yard? How many tax subsidies will the Broncos receive from the city and state?

Penner, Polis and Johnston said it is far too early to answer those questions, as there isn’t even a site plan for the development yet. Long before a special district or metropolitan district gets approved, the Broncos’ owners must begin the planning process for zoning approvals. Tax increment financing won’t be an option until the Department of Urban Renewal completes its assessment of the land. It has become a given, however, that every developer on the Front Range be given taxing authority by the city or county, and it is likely that this project will also qualify for tax breaks due to the nature of the remediation needed on the land.

Those concessions to the Walton-Penner Ownership Group could transform Burnham Yard into a vibrant community that fits seamlessly with the existing neighborhood, while freeing up 80 acres at the old Mile High site for a housing project directed by the City of Denver. The benefit will far outweigh the costs and the Broncos will remain right where they belong, only a few miles from the historic Mile High location and close to the beating heart of the city.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

College amateur hour is dead. Long live the revenue-sharing arms race.  

Starting this fiscal year, colleges and universities are now able to directly pay their student athletes thanks to the so-called House settlement. The multibillion-dollar settlement ended three antitrust lawsuits against the NCAA that claimed the organization was limiting the earning power of college athletes. 

Along with the 2021 name, image and likeness changes that allowed players to be compensated by third parties for their personal brand, the House settlement is helping to address the historic exploitation of the talents of college athletes. CU Boulder made nearly $35 million in football ticket sales during the 2024 season — that’s not possible without these student-athletes. 

But for all the positives that NIL and the House settlement are bringing to college athletics, they have also opened a financial can of worms. Running an athletics department was already an expensive endeavor; now, if schools are keen to compete, they must rustle up tens of millions of dollars to pay their players. 

In other words, the cost of glory just got a lot more expensive. 

So, as we hurtle into this new frontier, CU Boulder must refrain from throwing caution to the wind. There may be money to be made and bowl games to win, but our state’s flagship university must remember that, first and foremost, its mission is one of education. 

Schools that opted into the House settlement’s revenue sharing can now spend up to $20.5 million paying athletes this year. That figure will increase annually by 4% until it hits $33 million in 2035. 

That $20.5 million cap is designed to prevent wild overspending by the richest schools in order to maintain the semblance of fair play. But there is no obligation for a school to spend that much paying its players. For its part, Colorado State University says it is going to ramp up to the cap. CU, though, is planning on going all in.  

For an athletic department that has run a deficit for five of the last seven years, that is a big ask. 

It is worth pausing here for a moment to make clear that CU’s revenue sharing will include all of its sports. The school’s revenue-sharing equation will align with how much revenue a given sport generates. As such, football is likely to get 77% of all revenue sharing money, with basketball claiming another 11%. 

So, while CU will be paying athletes from all sports, it is worth focusing specifically on the lucrative — but costly — football program. 

CU made its ambitions clear when it hired Deion “Prime” Sanders. His name brought record donations ($35 million in FY 2025) and a national spotlight. ESPN came to Boulder and the Buffs started playing in primetime games. That money and attention made it possible to make statement recruitments and bring some of the best players to Colorado, including Heisman Trophy winner Travis Hunter. 

But for a school striving to level up, this is a precarious balancing act. 

Right now, CU needs Prime to keep the money flowing and the recruits coming. And it needs star recruits who can help win games to keep Prime and the money. If CU can’t compete financially, the players could stop signing. If the best players stop signing or stop winning, Prime — and the spotlight he brings — could leave. (He will, of course, inevitably leave at some point, no matter how successful CU becomes.) 

Keeping all these plates spinning comes at a cost. Despite record donations and ticket sales, the CU athletic department required direct institutional support of $54.9 million over the last two years. Between 2017 and 2022, the department required just $49.3 million. The Prime Effect, for all the good it has done for CU, has been extremely expensive. 

The hope, of course, is that CU’s drastic increase in investment in the department will help the school level up so that it can compete with the best schools in the country — and make money. 

But for now, the House settlement has only added to the cost of staying competitive. 

For its part, the school says it is going to get creative to cover its new $20.5 million expenditure to pay athletes. 

“(That $20.5 million) will come from the different things that we do,” CU athletic director Rick George told the Denver Post, “like concert revenue, our multimedia rights partner, our conference distributions, our donors that support our program.”

Astroturf was installed at Folsom Field to make it easier to have concerts and events there. The school’s student athletic fee for undergraduates was tripled to $90. And, of course, there will be a push for more donations. 

What CU won’t do, according to George, is cut any sports. Nor will ticket prices see any “big increases.”

Whether or not the department will be able to cover this new expenditure without direct institutional support will likely tell us a lot about how CU’s journey into this new financial frontier will go. 

Naturally, we hope to see the school be able to fairly compensate its athletes, compete on the big stage, and become financially self-sustaining. Watching Buffs football compete these past two years has been a welcome reprieve from years spent in the wilderness of mediocrity. A winning team that can keep the limelight on CU and raise the school’s profile is ideal for everyone. Not only can success on the football field provide financial incentives, it can also drive school pride and give prospective students a little extra incentive to enroll. 

But the price of winning can be steep. And CU must approach this new frontier with reasonable expectations and responsible decision-making. Direct institutional support of athletics must have a limit — and CU must approach all decisions with its mission as an educational institution at the fore. 

We want to see the Buffs succeed as much as any fan. But more important than that, we want to see CU students succeed. That goal must remain top of mind, no matter how fierce the competition gets on the field. 

— Gary Garrison for the Editorial Board

President Donald Trump gave two reasons for why he is stripping Space Command from El Paso County in Colorado and moving the headquarters to Huntsville, Alabama – neither of which was true.

First, he said voters in Alabama supported his re-election in 2024 by 47 points.

Second, he said that Colorado’s mail-in ballots allow election fraud.

The president of the United States held a press conference on a major decision and told Americans that it was based on his political popularity in one state and a gross lie that he has perpetuated since he lost his first bid for re-election and tried to illegally remain in office.

So we will set the record straight.

Trump won Alabama by almost 31 points in 2024.

Funny thing is that he also won El Paso County in 2024 – by almost 10 points.

Guess that wasn’t enough to sway the president’s decision as he callously explained.

“We love Alabama. I only won it by about 47 points. I don’t think that influenced my decision, though, right? Right?” Trump quipped with Alabama Sen. Katie Britt standing to one side and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth standing on the other, sharing in a laugh because we all know the answer to that rhetorical question.

We’ve detailed all the ways that keeping the Space Command in El Paso County at Peterson Space Force Base makes sense. It would save time and money by not moving the temporary headquarters out of state. It allows for vast efficiencies because of its proximity to other key military bases in Colorado Springs – the National Space Defense Center, the U.S. Northern Command, North American Aerospace Defense Command, Cheyenne Mountain Space Force Station, and the U.S. Air Force Academy.

The Air Force Academy is producing new cadets for the Space Force every year, and Space Force also has a significant presence at Aurora’s Buckley Space Force Base.

Trump isn’t the first president to make a politically motivated decision like this, but he is the first to gloat openly about using his power to punish a state for not supporting his re-election. The message the president is sending is clear — get on board with team Trump or he will try to hurt your state. Trump could have instead lauded Huntsville’s infrastructure or mentioned “Rocket City’s” low cost of living (the main reason Huntsville was selected as the new home for the command during his first term in office). Trump highlighted the political reasons to move the command to send a warning.

And this is par for the course. Since taking office, Trump has flouted long-held ethical standards meant to protect the American people from a president who is full of anger and wrath, and to prevent corruption of our great nation.

We hope this decision and his attack on Colorado will help sway voters in places like El Paso County when Trump tries to retain office in just a few short years.

“The problem I have with Colorado — one of the big problems — they do mail-in voting. They went to all mail-in voting so they have automatically crooked elections and we can’t have that. When a state is for mail-in voting that means they want dishonest elections,” Trump said. “That played a big factor also.”

Colorado’s mail-in ballots are secure, and despite Trump’s claims, repeated audits done by hand have shown that the 2020 election results in Colorado were not fraudulent. The list of voters who participated in the election is public, and despite hours of scouring the list, there is no evidence that any of those voters are fake.

Ballots are tied to individual voters and were audited in counties across the state.

There is simply no evidence that Colorado’s mail-in elections allow widespread fraud, and certainly no evidence that the ballot machines were rigged as Trump continues to claim, supporting his unconstitutional bid to remain in the White House after he lost in 2020.

But Coloradans should not despair at the unfortunate turn the executive branch has taken.

This bad decision has at least united our entire congressional delegation. Our Republican elected representatives, Jeff Hurd, Jeff Crank, Lauren Boebert and Gabe Evans, joined our Democratic representatives, Diana DeGette, Joe Neguse, Jason Crow, and Brittany Pettersen, in denouncing the move.

U.S. Senators John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet also joined the letter, making the sentiment unanimous.

“We are united in fighting to reverse this decision,” they wrote. “Bottom line – moving Space Command headquarters weakens our national security at the worst possible time. … Colorado Springs is the appropriate home for U.S. Space Command, and we will take the necessary action to keep it there.”

Well done.

Such a united front gives us hope that, as President Donald Trump continues to exceed his constitutionally granted authority, our elected representatives will stand strong. For now, it is about Space Command, but soon we will need both the House and the Senate to affirm that states are allowed to hold their elections as they see fit without dangerous federal meddling.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Scott Gilmore was among 169 city of Denver employees laid off this week. We know this is a difficult time for those individuals and their families as they face the loss of income and unsettling uncertainty in a job market that is tightening amid federal layoffs and reductions in funding.

We are sympathetic to Gilmore’s valid concerns: Was he targeted for a layoff because of his wife’s role on City Council? Why lay off someone who is 4 years from retirement rather than offer a buyout? And will the city’s stellar work with the indigenous community grind to a halt without his advocacy?

However, we are concerned about the behavior of City Council Member Stacie Gilmore – Scott’s wife who was elected to council several years after Scott first started working for Denver Parks and Recreation.

Stacie Gilmore expressed her dismay that her husband lost his job during a recent City Council meeting and inferred that perhaps Gilmore was targeted by Mayor Mike Johnston because of her vocal opposition to some of the mayor’s decisions. We are not privy to the private disputes that may have existed between the mayor and Stacie and Scott Gilmore, so we’ll merely say that if she has that concern, she should absolutely bring forward evidence. We are certain other employees in the Parks Department would support her claim if it is true.

But we think Gilmore crossed a line when she began sending out mass emails from her City Council email address advocating for her husband’s job and encouraging others in the community to do the same.

This is a use of her official position that she didn’t exert on behalf of a single other person who was part of the layoffs this week. We know for certain that other valuable members of city government were let go during this layoff cycle, and yet a member of City Council used her position to only assist one of those individuals — her husband.

“History repeats itself unless the oppressed raise their voices,” Gilmore wrote, noting the good work her husband has done in the Parks Department to advocate for projects with many indigenous communities. “As the elected representative for District 11 it is my duty to be transparent and accountable to the people I serve, and I serve the American Indian Community of Denver, my residents in District 11 and anyone else who implores my assistance to navigate the bureaucracy of government.

“I ask that every individual on this email, share their thoughts with the media because this story deserves to be told and we have worked so hard to heal ourselves and come together for the community that we will not give up getting what is right and just.”

Many members of the community did share their thoughts with The Denver Post and others who were included on the e-mail.

Their concerns were valid. Without Scott Gilmore would the city continue core projects that are important to their communities?

There is a big difference between raising concerns that your husband was politically targeted for a layoff and making the public argument that your husband is so indispensable to the city he should be immediately rehired. Worse she used her position to pressure members of the community to also advocate for her husband’s job.

The good news is that the City of Denver is committed to the projects that Stacie Gilmore feared could get cut.

Denver Parks and Recreation Executive Director Jolon Clark, who is also a former Denver City Council member, said that the parks department is 100% committed to projects like the Buffalo Return Home Program that uses Denver’s mountain herds to provide bison for free to tribes looking to establish or grow their own herds.

“They are priorities for us as a department. They are priorities for us as a city, and they are not tied to any one person,” Clark said, noting that while Scott Gilmore was a deputy in charge of special projects, the projects on the list were not directly under his chain of command.

We are glad to hear that commitment to these projects will continue.

Hopefully, the decision to layoff Gilmore will not strain relations between the city and the indiginous community. Fortunately, Stacie Gilmore is still in a prominent position to help assure the community that commitment remains strong to rebuilding trust.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Producers and sellers of recreational nitrous oxide are giving this dangerous product a false sheen of safety and regulation when the harsh reality is frost-bite injuries, irreversible brain damage and even death. And these bad actors in retail stores and event parking lots across the state are not alone. Colorado has documented problems with illegal psilocybin-laced products that made customers sick, THC products sold outside of licensed and regulated stores and kratom, an addictive drug, being sold openly at kava bars.

Denver Post reporters John Aguilar and John Wenzel chronicled this week the easy availability of nitrous oxide — laughing gas — across the Denver metro area. Colorado lawmakers and municipal leaders must take action.

Khalil Simon, leader of a brass band that frequents concert venues to busk for tips, spoke out bravely in The Denver Post about the problem he sees growing at every event.

“I know Colorado’s drug-friendly, but I didn’t know it would blow up like this. Kids are losing their brain cells now that it’s been rebranded,” Simon said. “It’s way worse than weed or anything like that. It straight up makes you dumb.”

Because these products are being marketed and sold by retail stores, users often overlook the dangers, assuming the drugs must be regulated by one of America’s consumer protection agencies like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Aurora City Council took the first step this week by cracking down on the open market for nitrous oxide. Convenience stores, vape shops, and head shops sometimes have open displays of nitrous oxide canisters for sale with clever marketing names that are clearly targeting abusers of the product.

Even before the new ordinance passed, The Denver Post followed city officials who were confiscating products suspected of being marketed for illegal use or containing regulated substances from several shops.

This is an important step to protect Coloradans.

Denver City Council should follow.

Lawmakers across the nation have long regulated nitrous oxide. The intent of Colorado law is that laughing gas only be sold to medical professionals and to those wishing to use it for non-consumptive use, like cooking.

Police can save lives and protect teens if they enforce these laws by confiscating canisters of nitrous oxide and issuing tickets. This will be a good start to sending a signal to users and sellers that this dangerous drug will not be tolerated in Colorado.

Officials also shouldn’t stop with nitrous oxide. Although laughing gas poses the most imminent danger to users – death by asphyxiation – kratom is addictive and can also be dangerous for users, causing liver toxicity and seizures, according to the FDA. Yet it is a product openly advertised for sale across the state.

Colorado Senators Kyle Mullica, Byron Pelton and Representatives Mandy Lindsay and Matt Soper passed clear and comprehensive regulations of kratom this year that fell short of banning the sale of the plant-based product, but did at least notify users of the risks and create common dosage requirements.

Coloradans have long held libertarian views of drug use, and our liberal laws make it more important than ever to keep dangerous products out of the hands of teens and to make certain that users know the risks. And some drugs simply should not be abused recreationally because the risks are too great.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Mayor Mike Johnston, as always, has an aggressive plan to give Denver a boost even as federal funding and state funding recede and the city begins massive layoffs to plug a gaping hole in the budget.

Instead of waiting the typical 10 years to ask voters to approve a slate of big infrastructure projects, Johnston and the Denver City Council will ask voters this fall to approve almost $1 billion for dozens of projects big and small across the city.

The Denver Post editorial board met with the mayor and was skeptical about the need and wisdom of a bond, as well as some of the proposed projects. Why take on more debt now, as the city is about to make painful budget cuts? What about the risk of the economy going south? Wouldn’t it be more prudent to pay for maintenance needs out of the general fund?

We were convinced, however, by the arguments: A city struggling to recover needs investments in its infrastructure. The city has the debt capacity. Failing to seek this bond will not forestall layoffs and budget cuts. A shaky economy is the time Denver most needs an influx that could bring work and development.

Despite the tight time frame, the mayor and council engaged the community to help select projects and provide feedback on proposals, a shortened version of the work that has gone into previous bond proposals.

Denverites also won’t suffer a property tax increase because of the bond issue. Johnston plans to use revenue raised by the existing 6.5 mill levy for past bonds, including the 2017 Elevate Denver Bond. The mill levy usually floats up and down with Denver’s property values to make sure revenue is just the right amount to pay the debt service on historic bonds. Because of booming values, the mill levy has dropped from 8 mills in recent years to service the same debt, and now Johnston would use capacity under the 6.5 mills to take on new debt.

If voters say no, Johnston said the city would not float the mill levy down to reduce taxes, but would instead pay off old debt faster.

The city will get roads and bridges, upgraded recreation centers, repaired library buildings, investments in our many cultural facilities, and a 155-acre park where the old Park Hill Golf Course had operated.

“This represents a balance of things. A lot of them are unsexy projects like rehabbing old recreation centers and libraries that don’t have air-conditioning that works or reading rooms that are accessible,” Johnston said. “But those are deeply important to those places and people in neighborhoods who rely on them.”

For example, two of the city’s outdoor pools — Cook Park and Harvey Park — would get much-needed rehabilitation dollars.

A few shiny new projects will interest voters regionally, such as a new $1.9 million bike park to be located somewhere in southwest Denver and $20 million to acquire and build a skate park in southeast Denver that could one day also house a new recreation center. An American Indian Cultural Embassy, a project for which there are still few details, will get $20 million to begin planning.

The most controversial part of the proposal is also the most expensive. Two separate projects will add connectivity to the towering 6th Avenue and 8th Avenue bridges east of Interstate 25 to support some future proposed development at Burnham Yard. Currently, both bridges “fly over” a huge section of undeveloped land just west of downtown, which made sense when it was an industrial rail yard, but will hinder any future development in the area.

By now, most Denverites know that the Denver Broncos’ ownership team is highly considering acquiring the dilapidated and contaminated Burnham Yard site from the state to build a new stadium and entertainment district.

The plans to lower the portion of the 8th Avenue viaduct down to grade-level through Burnham Yard is the single most expensive item on the list, coming in at a cool $89.2 million for a road that sees about 14,000 vehicles a day.

Meanwhile, on-ramps and off-ramps will be added to 6th Avenue to “improve connectivity, capacity and efficiency” on one of the city’s busiest thoroughfares, where 64,000 vehicles pass into and out of the city on a daily basis.  The cost will be about $50 million.

Even if the Broncos decide not to call Burnham Yard their new home, these projects need to be done. Both bridges need repairs, and unless the land under these overpasses is connected to the city, development may not occur for decades. If the Broncos do buy Burnham Yard, the team should share in the costs of these needed infrastructure investments for their project.

The Vibrant Denver GO Bond projects will accomplish much for a city that is struggling due to an onslaught of external and internal factors. Money flowing into our local economy will help create jobs and Johnston said some of the funding will help save city jobs by creating more work for internal departments to handle.

We don’t love everything on the list – but Denver City Council did a good job of parsing through and setting priorities as best they could.

We hope voters say yes, this fall.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Following reports from a University of Utah student that she was fed soggy bread and other mush while she was detained for two weeks in a privately run Aurora detention center, U.S. Rep. Jason Crow thought he’d check out conditions at the facility himself with a surprise visit.

Employees for the GEO Group who were working at the facility on Sunday refused to let Crow inspect the facility.

One small problem: A federal law requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities – even those privately owned and operated under contract with ICE – to allow members of Congress to enter the facility for regular, unannounced inspections.

GEO needs to make sure its employees are trained to comply with the law.

And if the company has nothing to hide, complying with the law should be easy.

Crow’s previous political opponent and former ICE official, John Fabbricatore, called the visit to the GEO facility “performative,” after all, it was a weekend, and likely few managers or personnel with ICE would be present to handle the congressman’s request.

We don’t really care whether it was performative or not. The law exists for good reason – these facilities need oversight. Particularly today, when ICE has exponentially increased its detention of noncriminal individuals for immigration violations, leading to young college students getting picked up by immigration officials and detained with hardened criminals. Conditions in these facilities must meet a minimum standard of decency and safety. Conditions will only deteriorate, as they do at all facilities, as ICE officials try to meet untenable goals set by President Donald Trump to detain and deport millions of people from the United States. Overcrowding often results in unsanitary and unsafe conditions both for those detained and those who work in the facilities.

The Denver Post editorial board has long supported securing our borders, and we know that ICE officials do important work keeping our communities safe by apprehending violent criminals and drug dealers who are in the U.S. illegally.

However, even those who have come here to cause us harm deserve to have their human and constitutional rights, which apply to everyone regardless of immigration status, respected. We fear too many people in power have lost sight of this basic American value.

In Florida, reports of conditions at a new facility dubbed Alligator Alcatraz are concerning. The Associated Press reported that those detained suffer worms in their food and wastewater on the floor.

President Donald Trump touted the facility as intentionally being “the worst of the worst” as a way to get people at risk to “self-deport.” Consider for a moment how many hardworking families have come to America seeking asylum in recent years, and now consider that all of them are at risk for detention because of their pending immigration status. ICE has shown zero qualms with detaining first and asking for legal documentation after.

Crow’s diligence on this issue is outstanding. He was just as committed to making sure the GEO facility was operating soundly when President Joe Biden was in office as when Trump started his second term. He is not new to this issue and has been fighting to make sure Coloradans – regardless of their legal status – are treated with decency and respect.

If only all of this great state’s members of Congress could say the same thing.

Crow should return to the GEO facility, unannounced, and try again to see how this private company is treating detained individuals.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Aurora City Council and Mayor Mike Coffman made the right decision on Monday not to ask voters for pay raises, but the question before them lingers over many growing cities across the state and deserves an honest answer and assessment.

We know that many city council members in Aurora, one of the nation’s 51 largest cities, are working far more than a part-time job representing thousands of constituents across the sprawling municipality. For many Aurora residents who would consider running, the part-time salary of $22,000 makes it impossible to do the job well because holding a second job would be a necessity. Conditions are even worse in Colorado Springs, where city council members still earn what is essentially a $6,250 stipend, and in Greeley, where voters recently rejected a pay raise, keeping the salary at $12,600.

We want public office to be open to everyone, not only to the independently wealthy.

Still, we applaud the Aurora mayor and city council members for rejecting this particular pay package.

Pay raises must be commiserate with work expectations.

Voters in these cities should be asked two questions at the same time: should the job description for their city councils change to full-time with more frequent meetings and more expectations, and should the pay be increased to go along with those new hours?

City Manager Jason Batchelor, who requested the raises for his bosses, is right that the job overseeing one of the nation’s largest cities is no longer part-time, but the City Charter must change first to make the positions full-time before salaries jump from $22,700 to $75,000 for council members.

There are many issues with Aurora’s City Charter – particularly how it handles discipline, hiring and firing in the police department – and we don’t think the city should be afraid of asking voters to amend the document. In an election in 2023, voters approved several fixes to the charter.

We know many city council members work more than just the two public meetings a month, but we are also certain that many do not. The pay increase must be commiserate with an official increase of hours worked. Even elected officials need accountability. If the charter changes and council members are working a full-time job every week then we think an annual salary of $75,000 would help attract qualified and committed candidates without attracting people who are in it for the money.

As for the mayor’s salary, which would have increase from $98,500 to $150,000 annually, we have to agree with Mayor Mike Coffman that it is inappropriate.

Coffman, perhaps one of Colorado’s most honest and forthright politicians, pledged to oppose putting the measure on the ballot unless his salary increase was removed from the proposal.

“Public service is, by itself, supposed to be a sacrifice,” Coffman said.

Amen.

We appreciate the selfless people who step into the limelight to serve their community, often taking on public scrutiny and uncomfortable situations in addition to late-night meetings and campaigning. We agree that making the job full-time will generate more economically diverse candidates who can hold the position without trying to also hold a full-time job, something that today is hard to do with any kind of position that doesn’t have extreme flexibility.

The last thing we want is for public office to only be available to the affluent.

But, in the case of the mayor, we think $98,500 is a full-time salary that a person in Aurora could live on without having to maintain a second job.

We’d also like to point out that in many of these cities, elected officials are already getting cost-of-living increases annually.

People, whether elected or at-will, should be paid for the work they do. These cities are booming, and we no longer think part-time council work is sufficient to meet the needs of the community. Once the roles change, their salary should increase as well. But not before.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Gov. Jared Polis’s pedestrian bridge is not without merit, nor does it have to be an assault on the historic district, as some critics have claimed. Adding an interesting and functional architectural feature and tourist attraction to a struggling part of the city is a good idea for an entire state that relies on tourist dollars.

The problem with the project, intended to memorialize the state’s 150th birthday, is that it jumps a long list of unaddressed capital improvement projects, and skimps on artistry and historic value. The state has a process for spending its limited dollars maintaining everything from the magnificent Gold Dome to ancillary storage buildings. While it is unclear if the money will come from some other source or not, it is true that all dollars are fungible. Cutting in line for a project only released to the public a few short months ago is very bad form.

We don’t blame the members of the Capital Development Committee for balking at the request for about $10 million toward the $28.5 million price tag.

Rep. Tammy Story, a Democrat who chairs the committee, struck a sound note when she wrote to The Denver Post: “This $29 million ‘art installation’ is financially irresponsible and completely tone-deaf.” Indeed, the state has some financial problems, and our economy is slowing.

But let’s not scrap the Colorado 150 Pedestrian Walkway. Rather, let’s tip the scales of the public/private investment more heavily toward donors.

Asking the committee for a few million dollars that will be used to leverage $20 million or $30 million in private donations is much more palatable than the current 60/40 split that has the state picking up most of the tab.

There is a price to cut in line of a carefully curated and considered list of projects, and the current plan to only raise $11 million for the project is not enough.

We appreciate that this state’s civic leaders are ponying up millions of dollars to invest in art, culture and, yes, pedestrian safety at one of the state’s busiest intersections — Colfax and Lincoln. We’d love to see this bridge completed with Colorado artists getting paid for their work.

The state’s Capitol complex is a true gem. From the steps of the Capitol looking west, visitors see a panoramic view that includes our iconic skyline, art museum, Central Library, Denver’s beautiful city hall and our majestic mountains. Adding an architectural marvel at the ugly intersection will only enhance the view of Lincoln Veterans Memorial Park and Civic Center Park.

Several times a year, these parks are filled with visitors coming for festivals and protests. And while our unhoused neighbors do spend time in the park, gone are the unsanitary and unsafe encampments that for a time after the Black Lives Matter protests and COVID shutdowns took over the area.

Tammy Story is right to question the appropriateness of spending public dollars on something that is nice-to-have while deferred maintenance and other needs go unmet.

And John Deffenbaugh, president and CEO of Historic Denver, is right in his call for the bridge to conform to the design principles of the Denver Civic Center Historic District.

“We welcome change and believe that with sympathetic design and under the right circumstances, preservation and progress go hand in hand,” Deffenbaugh wrote in a scathing letter that picked apart the design of the bridge as an affront to the “formal order, symmetrical balance, and neoclassical expression,” that dominates the district today.

We are shocked that the architectural firm employed for a portion of the $1.5 million already spent on design and planning didn’t take into consideration the district’s design guidelines, which have been in existence since 2009. Given this gross oversight in their performance, we are certain they will redraft plans that will mesh seamlessly with the neoclassic architecture that dominates the park. Imagine a marble bridge spanning from the Capitol to the City and County building in undulating waves like Colorado’s white water rapids.

These are not insurmountable obstacles, but Polis needs private donors and a visionary architect. Time is short before the state celebrates its birthday, and Polis leaves office. We wish him luck.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.