Other ways Pretti’s and Good’s lives could have been spared
Re: “Follow federal officers’ orders, and stay alive,” Feb. 13 letter to the editor
I suppose it is true that if Alex Pretti and Renee Good had obeyed, they would be alive. How about some other ifs?
If the officers who killed them were trained in the appropriate use of force and de-escalation, Pretti and Good would be alive.
If the federal government would stop putting on a violent show intended to suppress opposition and entertain their true believers, Pretti and Good would be alive.
If the federal government were smart enough to find more effective and less expensive ways to manage immigration rather than conducting a reign of terror, then Pretti and Good would be alive.
No doubt history would be very different if a citizen’s duty were simple obeyance. However, what we have seen and are experiencing is real Americans being Americans. The Bill of Rights is not just a collection of “thou shalt nots” directed at the federal government. It is also a citizen’s call to duty. A “well regulated Militia” is not the only necessity to the security of a free State. A free and thriving press and a loud and vocal citizenry willing to assemble in the public square and shout their grievances are required too. That is our duty, and if we want to preserve the spirit of 1776 in 2026, we must exercise our rights. Use our rights or lose them.
No doubt history would be very different if a citizen’s duty was simple obeyance. The problem with obeyance is that it becomes a habit. Before you know it, one is no better off than a sheep.
Len Esparza, Fort Collins
Trump has the power to end the war in Ukraine
Re: “Both nations suffering as Russian invasion enters its fifth year,” Feb. 14 commentary
Regarding Saturday’s essay on Ukraine, remember how Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz had the power to go back to Kansas by clicking her heels? Similarly, Trump, who said he would end the war on Day One (which was always a lie), always had the power to end this war. He could click his ankles together, re-arm Ukraine with the weapons they need, and end this Russian crusade.
I know Ronald Reagan would have armed Ukraine in a heartbeat. Make no mistake; Ukraine is our ally. They deserve our support. Russia’s Vladimir Putin is weak, has lost hundreds of thousands of troops, his economy is a wreck, and he is not our friend, nor will he ever be.
If Trump did this, he would likely receive his coveted Peace Prize.
Why is it so expensive to live in our liberal blue state? Look no further than the Post’s front page Saturday. Every liberal Democrat (is there any other kind?) has a pet project. To implement pet projects, one needs money. The only way to get it is through more fees and more taxes.
Your front page tells us these liberals want to tax property owned but not occupied year-round. Don’t these property owners already pay property taxes? Sounds like double taxation to me.
Or, liberals will now put produce companies out of business by requiring overtime for farm workers. If this happens, can you imagine the cost to us for produce grown locally?
These liberals have ruined this state.
Jack Inderwish, Aurora
U.S. Attorney General has been convicted before
Re: “Epstein files: Bondi clashes with Democrats,” Feb. 12 news story
Perhaps Attorney General Pamela Jo Bondi should be reminded that in 1975, President Richard Nixon’s Attorney General, John N. Mitchell, was convicted of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, and perjury, imprisoned for nineteen months, and disbarred from the practice of law.
Dona and Dan Chilcoat
The acting U.S. Attorney General has a burn book on every sitting member of Congress. Who knows what she has on you and me? Let that one sink in, folks.
Last summer, hunters and anglers stepped up in a huge way to help defeat a proposal by Utah Sen. Mike Lee to sell off millions of acres of public land.
In the end, public land defenders won. Confronted by an outpouring of grassroots opposition, Senator Lee removed his amendment to the Trump administration’s “Big Beautiful Bill.” But the struggle demonstrated that we need to act sooner.
Four elk hunters in Wyoming showed us what stepping up can look like. Instead of sitting back and looking sadly at a huge chunk of prime elk country blocked by a billionaire’s ranch, they built a special ladder. By climbing over it, they crossed from one corner of public land to another, setting in motion a legal process that freed up millions of acres of public land in six states.
They also shot some nice bulls.
The hunters’ creativity in the field has become an inspiration. That’s why the two of us — state legislators in Wyoming and Montana — are teaming up to fight for public land access, just as the hunters on Wyoming’s Elk Mountain did.
Across the West, millions of acres of public land are still legally open but practically inaccessible. At checkerboard corners where public and private land meet, a person can stand on public ground, look directly at more public ground just an inch away, and still be told they cannot step from one to the other.
In Wyoming, the question of corner crossing dragged through the courts for years. Last October, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case challenging a lower court decision allowing corner crossing. The ruling establishes that crossing between public land corners without touching private property does not constitute trespass.
In Montana, Gov. Greg Gianforte and the director of Fish, Wildlife and Parks say that corner crossing remains unlawful under state law. That declaration puts political clout behind the status quo, where public land remains accessible to those who can buy control of key parcels and hire fancy attorneys.
The consequences are not abstract. For working families in Montana and Wyoming, access to public land is a necessity, not a luxury. It is how people put meat in the freezer as grocery prices rise. It is how parents take their kids outdoors without paying fees. It is how rural communities hold on to traditions that are increasingly out of reach.
We, as elected leaders, need to act. We can’t let confusing court decisions or laws that don’t serve the people be the last word on any issue dealing with public land.
That’s why the two of us support state legislation in both Wyoming and Montana that will clarify the law and protect public access. The stakes are high and rising. Land prices have become astronomically out of reach for most people, outside wealth continues to pour into our states, and politicians in Congress and our state legislatures increasingly side with wealthy landowners.
Unless public land supporters in office act to clarify corner crossing in law, access will continue to shrink. The result will be a two-tiered system: a West for people who can afford exclusive access, another West that’s diminished for everyone else.
Corner crossing may be ingenious, but it is not radical. It is a straightforward affirmation that public land needs to be available to the public. We don’t think this is a partisan issue. Hunters, anglers, hikers, conservationists, landowners, and working families span every political stripe in our states. Fair access to public land for future generations is a shared value.
The choice ahead is simple. We can defend public land as a public right for our children and grandchildren, or we can allow the West to slide toward a situation where those with wealth continue to block vast swaths of public land.
As legislators from Montana and Wyoming, we know which side we are on.
Karlee Provenza is a Democrat serving House District 45, Laramie, in the Wyoming House of Representatives. Democrat Joshua A. Seckinger serves House District 62, Bozeman, in the Montana House of Representatives. The writers are contributors to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conservation about the West. The Wyoming Legislature convenes Feb. 9 and plans to consider corner crossing.
A time to reflect on the words and works of past presidents, and the ‘honored dead’
As we approach the “250th birthday” of our nation, it is my hope that this Presidents Day is truly a day of remembrance of the great words and works of past presidents, rather than being distracted by companies and corporations that would rather have us all making it a day for buying a new mattress, or furniture, or whatever.
The works and words of Abraham Lincoln are especially meaningful at this time in our nation, and in particular those words spoken at Gettysburg in remembrance of those “honored dead” who gave their lives in the struggle to preserve this nation.
Now it is again a time that we here need to highly resolve that the now millions of persons worldwide that have died in struggles to protect freedom have not died in vain, that this nation under God shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.
So help us God,
William Sherrell, Lafayette
Rodent poison is dangerous for our children, pets and wildlife
Have you seen a black box with an opening sitting on the ground outside a local store? For clarity, I encourage you to Google images of “Rodenticide Bait Boxes.” If these look familiar to you, they should make you uneasy — they’re boxes filled with poison.
While the idea is that the poison targets only rodents, that’s not the reality. Rodenticides affect animals that help control rodent populations (i.e, hawks and coyotes), curious dogs, and even young children who accidentally mistake bright colored pellets for a tasty treat.
According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers’ National Poison System, in 2023, there were nearly 5,700 cases of rodenticide poisoning in children 12 and under in the United States.
Rodenticides are also found in the ASPCA’s “Top Ten Toxins of 2024” list for pets. Additionally, a study tested the livers of five coyotes in the Denver metro area and found second-generation anticoagulants in all five.
Rodenticides are not safe for our children, pets, or local wildlife. There are safer alternatives. Please ask your local government official to support Senate Bill 62.
Lindsay Hoppestad, Parker
Lawmakers are back at work, so expect cost increases
This is a very scary time of year for all of us.
Whenever our legislators are meeting, expect everything to become more expensive when they finish. It does not matter if you are a homeowner or a business. They will figure out a new way to grab money from us, whether it’s natural gas mandates or delivery fees. (Does anyone know where the delivery fee money goes?)
I can see why many people and business owners are leaving this place.
Neal B. Cully, Colorado Springs
How would we even field a team of Trump-loyal Olympians?
Re: “U.S. athletes speaking up about politics face backlash,” Feb. 9 news story
I read that some folks say that if someone plays for a national team, they should agree with all federal policies. I don’t know if those folks are Americans or not, but it seems like a rather un-American position, partly because it would be impossible to send a team of athletes most loyal to the president unless we assume that lie detectors are accurate, so we could weed out the athletes that Trump calls “losers.”
Minneapolis concerns for GOP: Human toll or political cost
The response from many Republican politicians to the violence committed by federal immigration agents in Minnesota has been telling. The loss of life has prompted large protests across Minneapolis and is spreading to other parts of the country. Yet for many Republican officials, recognition of these deaths has been cursory at best. Their focus seems less on the human toll and more on the political cost. Rather than directly addressing the violence or the federal policies that have contributed to it, they worry that their messaging isn’t resonating with the public.
They seem to perceive the issue as a communication and public relations problem, not a policy issue. They ignore accountability and the prevention of future violence. They prefer to blame others, including the victims. They appear to think that they just need to reclaim the narrative and the problem will disappear. This is what happens when messaging becomes a priority, and real-world impacts become secondary.
We must demand more from our political leaders. It is time for accountability and solutions that work.
John Wells, Leadville
Slowed growth is a good thing if it’s slowed immigration
Re: “State’s growth slowest since ’90.” Jan. 28 news story
There was a lot of good news in The Post’s article on growth. Colorado’s growth rate dropped by two-thirds! Less illegal immigration means more jobs for legal workers, along with a lower number of workers willing to work for slave wages. That also could translate to lower car insurance rates.
It’s no surprise that California, of course, leads the exodus along with Vermont and New Mexico. Florida had one of the largest gains, along with Texas and North Carolina.
Other good news is that with the decrease in the growth of migrants, the birth rate has increased. Win-win.
The story reports “Slower growth should allow the state to catch up on its housing shortfall, and if population gains are weak enough, reduced demand could even push rents and home prices lower.”
Now for the bad news. “More established and wealthier households were picking up and leaving.”
One would think that any governor or legislator with a room-temperature IQ would look at that, wake up, and consider changing policy; unfortunately, we have neither one!
Larry Fries, Aurora
DENVER, JANUARY 25: Colorado Senator Michael Bennet walks through the crowd talking to protesters outside the Colorado State Capitol, Sunday January 25, 2026 in Denver. Crowds came out in response to protest against ICE in light of the death of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. (Rebecca Slezak/Special to The Denver Post)
Glad to see Sen. Bennet representing in the protest crowd
I attended the demonstration at the Capitol last Sunday. I was extremely heartened to see Sen. Michael Bennet in the crowd. I have written to his office, as well as to other elected officials in Colorado, asking them to attend these demonstrations. It was the first time I had seen an elected official in attendance (and I have been to seven such events).
Unfortunately, a young man harassed the senator and ruined a good opportunity for him to witness how, generally, the crowds are very respectful (excepting, of course, the expletives directed towards Trump and ICE). We, the people, are increasingly reaching a boiling point in our frustration at the current administration’s destruction of the norms of our society. While it showed a high degree of disrespect on the part of the heckler, I am hoping that Sen. Bennet will take note of how impassioned the crowds are and will come again.
Even though there isn’t much they can do right now, Democratic representatives do need to see what is going on out in the streets. I hope Sen. Bennet saw that and will not only come to the next rally, but also encourage his Colorado colleagues to come too. We, at these rallies and protests, are the people, and maybe Sen. Bennet can use some of our energy to continue to fight for our democracy in D.C.
Mark Edward Geyer, Denver
Readers debate how to make taxation of residents fair
“The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” ― John Kenneth Galbraith
Mirla Coronado de Low nailed the problem with TABOR: “TABOR is failing our families. TABOR requires a flat tax rate for every income earner in the state. That means that the majority of the families in Colorado who are barely making ends meet and those who are not are carrying a heavier tax burden than those who make $500,000 or more! How?”
TABOR exemplifies Gailbraith’s comment on morally justifying selfishness. Like too many Republican financial laws, TABOR was and always will be a Trojan horse. Those yearly state refunds sound nice, but they only keep the state of Colorado from needed funds to provide needed services, while enriching the wealthy. Does the term “trickle down economics” ring a bell?
TABOR has to be repealed.
Here is another Trojan horse, courtesy of Donald Trump. Remember those $2000 rebate checks we are supposed to get? Last month, the president gave a new timeline on when those payments could arrive for Americans, giving it “toward the end of the year.”
Yep, those checks will come in time for the midterm elections. Another Republican bribe.
Mike Filion, Lakewood
While I agree with the author regarding Washington’s unreliability of late, I disagree with their defense of the graduated tax proposal. This initiative uses childcare as a sympathetic front for a simple state revenue increase.
Regarding the “fairness” of the flat tax: the author’s argument overlooks the reality of the tax burden. Mathematically, a flat tax ensures that those who earn more already pay more. Under the current 4.4% rate, an earner at $500,000 pays $22,000 in tax, while someone making $50,000 pays $2,200. To suggest this isn’t a “heavier burden” ignores the $19,800 in additional revenue provided by the higher earner.
While childcare challenges are real, navigating funding within TABOR’s framework is exactly what we elect state legislators to do. We can debate the social utility of taxing the wealthy, but we should not confuse “ability to pay” with “fairness.”
Buzz Davis, Wheat Ridge
There’s one sure-fire way to effectively address, if not resolve, Colorado’s persistent budget woes, and that is by restoring a graduated income tax in Colorado’s tax code.
We now have a Democratic (DINO?) governor who talks openly about cutting income taxes. And I ask: Whatever happened to a fundamental plank in the platform of the Democratic Party since the days of Woodrow Wilson? That is, a graduated income tax, even a severely graduated tax. That’s right. The rich, who gain most from our economic and political systems, pay more and the rest of us pay less. The poorest among us pay nothing (but, like all of us, they pay sales taxes and a host of fees often designed to fill budget gaps).
Before supporting a candidate for state office, either financially or otherwise, ask them this question: Do you support and will you advocate for restoration of a graduated income tax in Colorado, either by legislative referendum or by citizen initiative? If the answer is “no” or an equivocation, look elsewhere for a candidate to support.
Allan Ferguson, Denver
You don’t fight bullies with name-calling
Re: “No one can do it alone. We all must stand up together against our bullies,” and “Hepatitis B is a terrifying virus with life-long consequences. The vaccine saves lives,” Jan. 25 commentaries
I agree with the writer about needing to address the bullying that is happening in our current political scene. Needing to maintain “our calmness and resolve in the face of the chaotic physical and mental threats” is stated as a way to address bullying. Also, it is stated that “we must use public assertiveness against the nasty bullying words and actions.
Three types of bullying behavior are described: verbal, social/relational and physical.
Then, in the body of the piece, he negates the proposed appropriate responses by proceeding to use two of those three bullying types by using words such as “coterie of quacks”, “angel of e-death”, “Bully-in-Chief”, and “Horcruxes” to talk about members of the administration.
It is not helpful to address bullying by bullying back and stooping to the behavior level of the ones you are complaining about. We need to respond more appropriately and respectfully, even when others aren’t. Additionally, in the article right next to this one (regarding hepatitis B vaccinations), some of the same name-calling tactics are used (blockheads & dumpster 47).
We need to respond more appropriately and respectfully, even when others aren’t.
Ellen Staton, Castle Rock
Candidates need to fight the ‘federal school voucher scheme’
I’ve been waiting weeks for reader response to the news that Gov. Jared Polis will opt Colorado into the federal school voucher scheme. Finding none, I’ve concluded that readers aren’t aware of the threat this decision poses to public education.
This scheme comes directly from the Project 2025 playbook. Polis said it would be foolish to leave the federal money on the table. Millionaires have never met a tax credit they couldn’t support, but the governor is foolish to believe this is free money. The nonpartisan Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy estimates the annual cost could be nearly $51 billion. Those are federal education dollars that won’t be available to support students with the greatest needs, through Title I and IDEA.
You only need to look at these so-called “tax-credit scholarships” in other states to realize the intention. They are overwhelmingly used by students already enrolled in private schools. They also are used at schools that openly discriminate against LGBTQ students and families. They exacerbate the growing divide between rich and poor.
Attorney General Phil Weiser, a candidate for the Democratic nomination for governor, is on record saying that he would not opt the state into this program if elected. U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet has said he disagrees with vouchers but refusing the money could be short sighted.
Polis needs to back off this dangerous course, and Bennet should oppose the tax-credit scholarships. Going along with Trump to get along has not worked well for Colorado.
More than 30 years on I can still remember pealing back the tinfoil. There was no sour cream, avocado or other adornments, just spicy meat in a soft tortilla. Every night we watched for a little, elderly woman with a cooler. We also watched for the security guards who would chase her from the mall.
The burrito lady spoke no English. None was required for that surreptitious exchange– two dollars for a warm burrito neatly wrapped.
This legislative session, those burritos could at long last be legal. If House Bill 26-1033 passes, it would add the sale of homemade foods that need refrigeration such as burritos to the Colorado Cottage Foods Act. The current law only allows the sale of homemade bread, jams, spices, honey, pickles, nuts, and other foods that do not need to be refrigerated. Under the law, sellers must take a food safety class and label their kitchen-made foods as such.
By broadening the types of food covered under the Colorado Cottage Food Act, the legislature will enable more small-scale entrepreneurs to sell their wares. Other states have done so without compromising food safety.
Colorado passed its Cottage Foods Act back in 2012. I know because it was the first opinion piece I wrote for The Denver Post. Back then only 26 states had cottage food laws. Today, every state has adopted one.
Some of these states allow cottage venders to sell the kinds of perishable foods HB 26-1033 would allow. A study that examined the safety record of the seven states with the most permissive cottage food laws (California, Iowa, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming) where is legal to sell perishable items such as tamales, pizza, and cultural street foods, found not a single case of foodborne illness from foods produced under the law. There were no incidents even in states like Wyoming that have had such laws on the books for more than a decade.
Over the past five years, I have been a seller under our state’s cottage food act. Later this week I will print out labels for wild plum jam, chokecherry jelly, pine syrup, and sumac spice. Some years I sell homegrown sunchokes made into curry spice pickled torshi. Sometimes I sell fresh eggs. The lean days of the Pandemic taught me to monetize my gardening, foraging, and cooking hobbies. Selling this fare gives me the opportunity to make a little money and wax enthusiastically about native plants. I maintain the highest standards of taste and cleanliness because my little enterprise depends on the trust of my buyers.
I am also a buyer of cottage foods. The homespun honey I bought last year ostensibly for a gift sweetens the rosehip tea I’m sipping at this moment. I also love to patronize Ruby’s Market on Denver’s Pearl Street, a multi-cultural artisan food shop that specializes in refugee and immigrant entrepreneurs some of whom got their start under the Cottage Foods Act.
Commerce isn’t just about sales. It’s the exchange of ideas, goods, and services that ends with both parties saying “thank you.” It’s connection and creativity. For the many of the venders at Ruby’s Market, the chance to sell their unique, handmade foods is the beginning of the American dream. House Bill 1033 will give more new entrepreneurs the opportunity to connect through trade.
Earlier this month, the Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) released the Colorado Wolverine Restoration Plan, one of the final steps required by law to reestablish a wolverine population in the state. It’s a case study in how best to restore a native species that’s been gone for a century.
Wolverines are beagle-sized carnivores related to weasels, ermines, badgers, martens, otters, and black footed ferrets, all of which are native to this state. Colorado’s high alpine environment can support 100-180 wolverines, a species considered threatened under the Endangered Species Act, without posing a threat to livestock or the state budget. CPW has successfully reestablished viable populations of elk, lynx, moose, bighorn sheep, black-footed ferrets, grouse, and wild turkeys in Colorado.
Unlike the wolf reintroduction debacle, thrust upon the state by a narrowly passed ballot initiative, wolverine reintroduction comes after decades of careful consideration by wildlife experts and lawmakers with input from ranchers and the broader public. This is how it should be done.
In the late 1990s, scientists with the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (now Colorado Parks and Wildlife) met to discuss the restoration of lynx and wolverine in Colorado. These reclusive mid-sized predators share the same high alpine forest. While lynx subsist primarily on snowshoe hare, both species eat marmots, squirrels, pika, birds, and occasionally larger animals that are young or injured. Wolverines especially favor carrion which they cache for later. Thanks to their high alpine habitat, solitary nature, and small size, neither species present a threat to livestock or humans.
Wolverine and lynx were both common throughout the Rocky Mountains until overhunting, trapping, and poisoning severely diminished their numbers a century ago. Thanks to state and federal conservation efforts, populations are slowly being restored. There are now around 400 wolverines in the contiguous US.
Having successfully established a breeding population of lynx, CPW began looking at restoring wolverines to their native habitat. Unlike highly migratory species, wolverines are unlikely to reestablish here on their own. It’s an anomaly that lone wolverine male wandered into Colorado from Wyoming in 2009. Wolverines, females in particular, don’t roam far from where they were born.
In 2024, after hearings and amendments, a bipartisan bill to reintroduce wolverines passed and was signed into law. Senate Bill 171 was introduced by then-Sen. Perry Will (now Garfield County Commissioner), a Republican with a wildlife biology degree, a family background in ranching, decades of wildlife management experience and a singularly impressive wild west mustache. Since then, CPW has worked to meet each of the obligations set by the law. The agency is currently producing a plan for communicating with stakeholders on proposed release sites and working with the federal government to get a needed waiver.
Altogether, the process has been driven by scientists and elected officials, supported by compromise, inclusive of the public and those potentially impacted, bipartisan, and transparent.
Contrast this with the process of wolf reintroduction which was driven by advocacy groups, dismissive of ranchers’ concerns, supported by the barest majority many of whom are rethinking their support, highly partisan, and far from transparent.
Advocates said it would cost taxpayers $800,000 a year but the price tag has exceeded $8 million. Much of the increase is because the cost to reimburse ranchers for depredated livestock is much higher than advocates anticipated. For last year alone, taxpayers will pay more than a million dollars to cover the costs of killed and injured cattle and sheep. Ranch and pet dogs have also been attacked. This should have been foreseen; of all the Rocky Mountain states, Colorado has greatest human population density and the highest number of sheep and cattle. This is not Montana.
When critics blame CPW for the slain livestock and the 12 dead wolves, they should be reminded that the choice to reintroduce wolves was taken out of the hands of the agency’s wildlife experts and removed from the representative lawmaking process. It isn’t just time to rethink wolves but the initiative process that put them here. Ballot box biology isn’t.
Sure, they lost. It’s a game. Someone wins and someone loses. But, with a backup quarterback, they only lost by three points. Depending on who wins the Super Bowl, they lost to the Super Bowl runner-up or the eventual Super Bowl winner. In my book, that makes them, at worst, the fourth-best team in the NFL. And 2025 Division winners!
And the Broncos’ backup quarterback, Jarrett Stidham? Not bad at all for someone who got thrown into the fray at the last minute — 54.8% completions for 133 yards compared to the Patriots’ Drake Maye’s 47.6% for 86 yards. And how many quarterbacks don’t throw an interception in a game once in a while? And even more, Stidham is not the only player on the team, so don’t anyone give me “He lost it for us.”
The team won the division but lost the conference championship, a darn sight better than they’ve done in the last 10 years. We saw Bo Nix do extremely well for a second-year quarterback, we saw Sean Payton do extremely well as a great coach; we saw Stidham do extremely well as a first-time starter in a playoff game; we saw the Broncos do extremely well all season long, so what’s to cry about? All the Broncos are champions in my book. I wonder what this team can do next year?
Jon Sutterlin, Aurora
Hurting Nuggets — NBA needs to reduce games per season
With so much attention on the Broncos, we often hear little about the Nuggets’ ongoing injury situation involving key players, including superstar Nikola Jokic.
The league simply plays too many games, contributing to injuries throughout the league. There should be no back-to-back games, and, excluding the playoffs, there should be a maximum of 65 games played. Fans buy tickets in advance expecting to see superstars playing and much of the time they’re injured and don’t play. It’s time for the NBA to demonstrate it cares about fans and the health and well-being of players.
David Ryan, Salida
‘The effect the government has on the price of housing’
Neither limiting corporate ownership nor placing limits on new single-family detached housing will provide a lasting affordability solution. This would be more government distortion of the housing market, restricting the already tight supply of a very desirable type of housing, and add more upward price pressure.
Affordability has two parts: Purchase price and interest rate. During the mid-1980s, interest rates were almost 15%. The real estate market survived and thrived. Today’s interest rates are about half that. Interest rates are not the problem. The root of the problem is the total cost of housing.
The effect the government has on the price of housing, a basic necessity, deserves more attention. Our nation’s housing finance system, unfortunately, allows for housing to also be treated as a speculative investment, thus pushing up the price of this basic necessity. With readily available financing, it is not unexpected for housing prices to outpace income growth.
Government deficit spending since the 1990s continues to exacerbate this problem by way of devaluing our currency. Combined with increasing demand and upward price pressure on limited supply due to regulations, zoning restrictions and cumbersome permitting, and you have the current situation: Housing inflation due to too much money chasing too few goods.
Developers affirm that the cost of single-family detached housing would be greatly reduced if regulatory and permitting costs were less and zoning would allow for compact, factory-built housing on smaller lots with higher density.
Reform construction roadblocks and reduce the distorting effect of government on the residential housing market.
We are former senior Department of Homeland Security officials with experience in immigration enforcement, counterterrorism, and national security. Our public service was shaped by September 11, 2001, grounding us in the twin obligations of security and constitutional restraint. Today, we are deeply alarmed by what we are seeing from our former department.
Let us be clear at the outset: we support strong borders and lawful immigration enforcement. Law enforcement deserves respect; society cannot function without it. But enforcement that treats the public as the enemy and abandons constitutional limits does not make us safer. It puts the entire system at risk — legally, operationally, and morally.
Over the past year, we have watched repeated violations of Americans’ First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights.
Free expression and peaceful protest are core to our Constitution, and the government has a duty to protect those rights even — especially — when speech is uncomfortable or critical of authority. At the same time, protections against unreasonable searches and seizures must be honored; law enforcement should not bypass judicial oversight when entering private homes or conducting operations.
And in just the last three weeks, federal immigration officers have been involved in three shootings, resulting in two deaths — an unprecedented pattern in modern immigration enforcement. Any serious law enforcement institution confronted with that record would pause operations and reassess training and tactics.
That has not happened, and it raises legitimate questions about proportionality, judgment, and respect for constitutional limits.
These outcomes did not occur in a vacuum. Over the past year, DHS leadership has driven a dramatic shift in tone and culture. Federal officials publicly labeled Renee Good — a mother and U.S. citizen — and Alex Pretti — a nurse who cared for U.S. veterans and also a U.S. citizen — as “terrorists” before investigations were initiated and without evidence of terrorist ideology or motive.
Official DHS social media accounts routinely post inflammatory content glorifying paramilitary enforcement. This rhetoric has influenced operations, encouraging escalation rather than restraint against American citizens.
When senior officials treat Americans as adversaries — not as neighbors and citizens with rights — it poisons the workforce. Officers are taught to see the public they serve through the prism of fear rather than duty, and that mindset can become self-fulfilling. Law enforcement that views the public as the enemy, rather than as fellow citizens to protect, and that abandons constitutional limits, does not make us safer. It normalizes escalation, erodes legitimacy, and increases the risk of violence for civilians and officers alike.
History offers a cautionary lesson: when enforcement institutions lose accountability and are insulated from meaningful oversight, their use of power tends to expand rather than contract. That reality should concern all Americans, regardless of where they stand politically.
Equally concerning is the lack of independent accountability. The administration declined to open an investigation into the shooting of Ms. Good and indicated it would investigate the shooting of Pretti internally. Across the country — in red states and blue states alike — officer-involved shootings are reviewed by independent authorities for a reason: public trust depends on it.
As tensions with protesters have escalated, it is essential to remember where responsibility lies in a constitutional democracy. Citizens have a duty to exercise their First Amendment rights peacefully. But the greater burden of restraint rests with the state. Whistling, shouting, filming arrests, or verbally criticizing officers is not violence. It is annoying — but it is protected speech. Courts have been clear for decades: speech does not become violence simply because it provokes irritation, anger, or discomfort in law enforcement. The public has a right to expect that officers will respond to lawful protest with professionalism and restraint, not force.
Mission of Homeland Security
DHS argues that officers are simply doing their duty by enforcing immigration laws during these operations nationwide to detain immigrants; that they have no choice. That framing is misleading. The executive branch exercises discretion in whom it prioritizes and how operations are conducted. Their choices are directly tied to the outcomes we are seeing. Officials also claim these operations target “criminals,” yet as of late November, roughly 73% of those detained had no criminal conviction, according to an analysis of publicly available ICE data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC).
Having immigration officers walk residential or commercial streets in broad daylight is not how violent criminals are apprehended. Rapists, murderers, and drug traffickers do not announce themselves or surrender voluntarily. Identifying dangerous offenders requires investigative work, intelligence, and coordination — capabilities ICE already possesses. If the objective were to focus on genuinely dangerous individuals, the executive branch could do so. The outcomes suggest something else: an emphasis on meeting numerical targets, regardless of the human or constitutional cost.
Federal agents deploy tear gas and other munitions into a crowd of people near the intersection of 27th Street and Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis after a federal officer shot and killed 37-year-old Alex Pretti on Saturday, Jan. 24, 2026. (Ben Hovland/Minnesota Public Radio via AP)
Colorado could be a target for enforcement
Some may wonder why events unfolding hundreds of miles away should matter to Coloradans. The truth is that federal enforcement priorities and tactics that are normalized in one place tend to spread unless checked. Throughout history, unchecked power has expanded and carried out similar or worse activities elsewhere — first here, then there. Colorado already sits among the metropolitan areas experiencing one of the highest rates of immigrant arrivals per capita behind only a handful of U.S. cities.
Colorado’s state and local policies have also drawn federal scrutiny. The U.S. Department of Justice has targeted Colorado and Denver in litigation challenging local immigration-related laws, framing them as inconsistent with federal enforcement priorities.
This combination of factors means that Colorado could be next on the list. If so, it is critical that protestors and citizens do two things: document law enforcement actions in line with the law and remain peaceful. The latter, in particular, is absolutely vital. There can be no violence against law enforcement. That will undo all that has been sacrificed.
The executive branch does not have unfettered power, and Congress is not a bystander. It is a co-equal branch with a constitutional duty to conduct oversight and set limits.
Members of Congress must act. Yes, they should immediately hold oversight hearings, demanding accountability from DHS leadership, and using the power of the purse to impose conditions tied to constitutional compliance. But we need more. CBP, ICE, and DHS are no longer agencies with the credibility to keep the nation safe. Congress should create a blue ribbon commission to both hold them accountable and issue recommendations of how the agency should be reconstituted. Nothing short of that will be trusted by the American people.
We continue to care deeply about the mission of DHS and the professionals who serve there — many of whom cannot speak publicly without risking their careers. When leaders promote escalation over restraint, they endanger both civilians and officers.
To our fellow Coloradans: If this can happen in Minneapolis, Chicago and Portland, it can happen in Denver, Durango and the Western Slope. Call your senators and representative and demand that Congress insist on the rule of law. Law enforcement and liberty are not opposing values. In America, they must stand together.
Eric Balliet is a retired Homeland Security Investigations special agent who spent over 15 years on the Arizona/Mexico border combatting international drug and human smuggling organizations, he worked under five administrations and served as the law enforcement advisor to Department of Homeland Security secretaries Jeh Johnson and John Kelly. Elizabeth Neumann is a former DHS assistant secretary for counterterrorism and deputy chief of staff who served in national security roles across three administrations, including the Trump administration.
Colorado cannot remain dependent on the federal government to support the child care needs of Colorado families.
Colorado families are already doing everything they can to stay afloat. Parents are juggling two or three jobs. Caregivers are burning out, barely making minimum wage. And child care providers — especially those trusted family, friend, and neighbor caregivers — are being pushed past the breaking point.
Now, just when support is most needed, the Trump administration tried to hit pause on billions of dollars in child care, family assistance, and social services funding to five states, including Colorado as a punishment for Colorado upholding the law.
The cuts included federal funds for the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program (CCCAP), Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and Social Services Block Grants — lifelines for working families across Colorado.
President Donald Trump’s goal of sewing chaos in Colorado is only successful, not because of his efforts, but because Colorado is unable to invest what we should in our own childcare infrastructure. Colorado’s child care budget, the funds that go to families who need tuition assistance, the funds that support centers in remaining open, the funds that support professional development, early intervention, home visiting, are 80% reliant on the federal government.
This should be a lesson to every Coloradan that the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) makes it impossible to invest in our own. We are unable to responsibly budget to the real needs of families to support making child care more affordable, or health care. We are unable to pay teachers a livable wage where they can afford child care so they can go to work and teach other people’s kids.
TABOR is failing our families. TABOR requires a flat tax rate for every income earner in the state. That means that the majority of the families in Colorado who are barely making ends meet and those who are not, are carrying a heavier tax burden than those who make $500k or more! How?
Besides having more discretionary funding, the wealthy can take advantage of many tax tools that help them pay less in taxes than someone who makes $75,000 a year. With this flat tax system, we are leaving billions of dollars on the table that could be used to invest in our own child care infrastructure.
The graduated income tax proposal that the Protect Colorado’s Future coalition is working to get on the ballot would raise more than $2 billion for child care, health care, and K-12. Importantly, it would cut state income taxes for everyone making less than $500,000 a year, and raise income taxes for people making above that. A graduated income tax system, which Colorado had until 1987, is fairer and will help pay for the things Coloradans need.
Child care is not a luxury. It is how single moms keep jobs, how low-wage families stay housed, how children with disabilities receive care, and how our smallest businesses — child care providers — survive. It’s what makes our local economies prosper. Over reliance on the federal government puts Colorado families at risk to vendettas and grudges. Freezing these funds doesn’t just stall support; it rips the rug out from under communities already hanging by a thread.
And the damage spreads quickly:
• Parents are forced to choose between work and caregiving.
• Employers lose reliable workers overnight.
• Providers — mostly women of color — face closure, laying off staff and displacing children.
• Children lose critical early learning and safety.
At Colorado Statewide Parent Coalition, we see this every day. We work with hundreds of families and friend, family and neighbor providers who rely on these programs to keep going. These are not numbers — they are neighbors, teachers, grandmothers, and essential workers.
Let’s also be clear about what this funding freeze is not: It’s not about fixing fraud. It’s not about fiscal responsibility. And it’s not about improving services.
It is about punishing families — especially immigrant, low-income, and communities of color — for political disagreements they had no part in creating.
This moment demands more than technical solutions. It demands moral courage.
The moral courage to change TABOR and create a graduated income tax in Colorado so we can reduce our reliance on the federal government and generate the funding we need to take care of Coloradans.
Mirla De Low Coronado is the director of early childhood programs at the Colorado Statewide Parent Coalition.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife employees are in the crosshairs, caught between mountain lion lovers on the left and anti-wolf advocates on the right. The news this week that CPW employees are facing a variety of threats from radical elements in both groups of Coloradans strikes us as ironic sad — and frightening.
But in the face of unnecessary radicalism, we urge policymakers not to entrench themselves in their positions but to take a moderate approach that accepts the reality that, on both sides of the issue, there is ground to give.
CPW acting director Laura Clellan told The Colorado Sun that her staff has received anonymous threats over two mountain lions who were euthanized following a fatal attack on a runner. And after the release of 15 gray wolves into Colorado, CPW staff were followed during operations and threatened with violence.
We expect healthy and robust debate about Colorado’s wildlife management practices, but both sides of these issues have gone crazy. This outlandish and harassing behavior must stop.
Hunting is a vital part of our wildlife management, our economy and our Western culture as is Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s ability to euthanize animals who pose a threat to humans. The Denver Post editorial board opposed a ban on mountain lion hunting in 2024’s Proposition 127. But we also supported the reintroduction of wolves in Colorado in 2020’s Proposition 114. The wolves are native to Colorado and could help our ecosystems find the right balance between predator and prey.
From this middle-ground position, we can call for both sides to simmer down.
Because from our vantage of impartiality, we can see plainly that mountain lion hunting needs much more regulation to protect the apex predator from being overly culled. The ban simply went too far.
And we can see plainly that the reintroduction of wolves has not gone well for the wolves or for the ranchers whose livelihoods have been impacted by wolf depredation.
Neither of those realizations requires a revolution. A strongly worded letter to state officials or reintroduction of ballot measures to change state law could suffice in both instances of policy failure.
Accusations that CPW staff is acting inappropriately or that they are out to get Coloradans who have different ideas for how our wildlife should be managed are both inappropriate and inaccurate. There is no conspiracy to protect mountain lion hunters or the guides who make money pursuing the big cats for clients. There is no conspiracy to chase Colorado ranchers off of public lands with marauding bands of gray wolves.
What we do know is that a Colorado woman was recently killed by a mountain lion while on a heavily used trail near an established neighborhood in Estes Park. The tragic death followed months of reports of mountain lions that appeared to no longer fear humans. Euthanizing those animals was the right decision.
Hunting lions can contribute to the animals retaining a natural fear of humans and dogs. Not banning hunting was the right call. However, the tragic death also shouldn’t lead to vehement anti-lion sentiment like we are seeing with gray wolves.
Apex predators are a critical part of our ecosystem, and while they always pose a risk to humans, managing them, not eradicating them, is the right path.
Gray wolves were naturally entering Colorado’s northern territory before voters decided to accelerate their reintroduction in 2024. Last winter 15 wolves were released in Colorado, and since then, 11 have died. Of the 10 wolves that were released in 2023, an unknown number have survived. The state tracks 19 wolves via collars and knows of at least four packs that are having pups. The mortality of introduced wolves is unacceptable, but so are the continued threats to hunt and slaughter the wolf population. We support hunting lions because the population is stable and needs to be managed. Until the wolf population stabilizes, the animals must be protected.
Colorado Parks and Wildlife officials are doing their best to manage our wildlife and protect our ecosystems. Any conversations about wolf and lion populations and protections must start and end with that truth.
