Re: “Dueling policies for data centers,” March 1 news story

The Denver Post article about two competing bills in the legislature regarding new data centers in Colorado seems to start with the presumption that we want the data centers.

Why do we want them and who wants them? Is it the politicians wanting bragging rights about our state becoming another Silicon Valley? Perhaps they want more businesses so they can collect more taxes from the new residents. Alternatively, they just want more power in Washington by increasing our population. Has anyone stopped to ask why we want to attract more people to our state?

Colorado is in a fight with other Western states to obtain more water for our growing population. Our wildlife is being crowded out by the increased urbanization. The roads are so crowded that it is not uncommon to come to a complete stop on our interchanges during rush hour. We have a serious housing shortage. The air is being polluted by the increased number of cars. These are all the result of a growing population. Did anyone stop to ask why we want more people?

During my 53 years living in Colorado, I have never heard anyone (other than politicians) say, “We need more people.” On the contrary, the conversation is more often about how we are becoming overcrowded. I would like the politicians to explain why we need more businesses and more people in our state. It should not be a presumption that more is better! Are our elected representatives truly reflecting the wishes of their constituents?

Doug Hurst, Parker

Anger and disbelief were our reactions when we read about House Bill 1030, which is under consideration at the statehouse. This outrageous corporate welfare bill would provide some of the world’s wealthiest corporations with massive state tax reductions to build monstrous resource-thirsty data centers. Analysts projected a $92.5 million tax loss in just three years if a bunch of these data centers are built. Just one 160-megawatt facility would gobble up as much power as 176,000 homes once completed. Consider for comparison that the entire DIA airport uses around 45 megawatts of power!

As the state legislature grapples with bone-deep budget cuts, we cannot afford to exempt data centers from paying their own way nor allow their unregulated construction. Taxpayer-funded corporate handouts would entail massive hits to tax revenue that should be used for our schools, roads, infrastructure, and valid state needs. What essential services will potentially be cut or axed to cover the lost revenue to the state from this corporate giveaway?

These data centers also demand massive amounts of our water. A CoreSite data center in Denver alone will use approximately 805,000 gallons of water per day to air-condition its computers. That is the same as the average daily indoor water use of 16,100 Denver homes.

I pray our state legislature will condemn HB-1030 to the corporate welfare hell where it belongs in. Instead, they should support Senate Bill 102 that will hopefully properly regulate these tax-eating, water-wasting, and electricity-gobbling monstrosities.

Terry Talbot, Grand Junction

As a pediatrician, I’ve noticed one key issue missing from the data center debate: public health.

Data centers are extraordinarily energy- and water-intensive. Nationally, they already consume about 4% of U.S. electricity — a figure expected to more than double by 2030. Much of that power still comes from burning fossil fuels. Without strong safeguards, that growth means more air pollution. In my clinical practice, I see firsthand how health is shaped by the air we breathe. More pollution means more asthma attacks, heart disease, and premature deaths, especially in communities already burdened by poor air quality.

Water use is another concern. Large data centers can use enormous amounts of water for cooling. In a drought-prone state like Colorado, this raises serious questions about long-term drinking water reliability and heat resilience.

Energy affordability is also a health issue. When infrastructure is built to serve massive corporate users, costs can shift to households. I see the effects of energy insecurity in families forced to choose between cooling their homes, buying medication, or putting food on the table.

Colorado has an opportunity to get this right. Senate Bill 102 would establish guardrails to protect ratepayers, limit pollution, and ensure large electricity users pay their full infrastructure costs. Other states, including Michigan and Virginia, are reconsidering generous tax incentives after seeing how quickly public costs can outpace public benefit.

Colorado can welcome innovation without sacrificing clean air, clean water, affordable energy, and community health. Public health must be a priority, not an afterthought.

Clare Burchenal, Denver

As the story makes clear, data centers in our communities have real impacts on our health, our pocketbooks and our quality of life. I’m a mom of two small children who are counting on the adults in the room to make responsible decisions that impact their futures. It’s dizzying to see the pace of data centers sweeping the country and confusing as to why leaders are rushing to accommodate them without taking into consideration all of the impacts these massive industrial complexes have on communities.

It’s critical that data centers are powered by clean-burning renewable energy, not fossil fuels. We are in a no-snow winter in Colorado, and we have no safeguards in place against data center water use. Energy infrastructure should be paid for by the billion-dollar big tech companies that will profit from it, not by unfair rate increases for our families and small businesses.

There is a way to do this right. Senate Bill 102 has some important protections for our families and communities while still allowing for the responsible construction and operation of data centers built in appropriate places in our state. It is unacceptable that our leaders do nothing to protect us from big tech excesses. SB-102 will protect all Colorado kids – and their parents and communities. Join me in urging our legislators to pass this important bill.

Sara Kuntzler, Arvada

U.S. women’s hockey players above the game and politics

Re: “Trump tore athletes down on the world’s stage,” March 1 commentary

Dear Megan Schrader,

Thank you for your column on how the president disrespected the U.S. women’s Olympic hockey team. Your excellent commentary hit and sent the puck into the back of the net, so to speak.

To take it a step further, I believe the women’s choice not to visit the White House was more than meets the eye. Ostensibly, they declined the invitation because of the timing, specifically the resumption of play in the professional women’s hockey league.

Yet, I would like to believe it was more an expression of contempt for the president and his policies.

The women were smarter and braver and truer to their values than were the men’s Olympic hockey team, who, with the same timing issues, chose to accept the invitation to the White House. That visit and the visit to the State of the Union Address only helped bolster the president’s optics. An exception was the Colorado Avalanche’s own Brock Nelson, who declined to accompany the men’s team because he valued his family time more than a public charade.

In sports — as in life — we need more people like the women hockey players who will elevate their values above the games and politics.

Bill Allegar, Denver

Backing up to park for safety?

Re: “Do you back into a parking spot or back out?” March 1 feature story

I read this with slight amusement. For someone who has traveled a bit, and especially in Asia (Japan in particular), backing into a parking space is a very common practice (not a new trend) and has been for decades. On my first trip to Japan, around 1992, I was told it was what most people did.

As for the company Imminent Threat Solutions recommending “tactical parking” because they should “prevail against all threats,” seems like marketing hype of the biggest kind, building fear into your daily life of running errands and going to work. Has there been bad behaviour, shootings, and whatnot in a parking lot? Sure, but let’s not build fear for something that happens rarely to the average individual.

Randy DeBoer, Denver

To add to the parking procedures article in Sunday’s paper, there is another option, one that I use and recommend; it’s the “drive-through” to an open space.

After having been hit and having a rental car damaged (a three-month hassle to resolve) by a driver who backed out of an opposite space without looking, I don’t drive into a parking space if I can help it. What I do instead is find an open space where I can drive in straight and continue to a back-to-back adjoining space where I can park and then drive ahead to depart. These parking spots are typically a longer walk to my destination, and I benefit from the additional steps.

G. E. Cole, Centennial

I enjoyed your article on discussing whether to back in or pull straight into parking spaces. Our oldest son is a backer-inner, and I am starting to be one too. What is missing from your analysis, though, is the grocery store, much less Costco or Home Depot. Almost nobody is a backer-inner in these places, since you’re typically loading stuff in your backseat, hatch, or pickup bed. I guess the backer-inners are just not going to be able to escape as quickly once they’ve picked up 50 pounds of dog food, 25 rolls of paper towels, or five sheets of 4′ x 8′ plywood. Hope they survive.

Tim Hickisch, Highlands Ranch

You can support immigrants and the law

Re: “Faith communities show support for immigrants,” Feb. 22 news story

Faith communities do show support for immigrants. I don’t agree with those who stand against the law and ICE. While we may support all people made in the image of God, we should not be for illegal immigrants. They have broken the law, and some are doing great harm while living here. Legal immigrants, please come. Illegal immigrants, please go home and come here legally.

Deanna R Walworth, Brighton

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.

You might call this unusual because Durango has access to a backup supply. In 2011, voters approved spending $6 million to buy 3,800 acre‑feet of water storage in a reservoir called Lake Nighthorse. The rationale was simple: The town could build a pipeline and ship that water into its system whenever dry times occurred.

But since then, not much has happened.

Former city manager Ron LeBlanc tried to move the project forward before retiring in 2019. An engineering study in 2023 concluded that the town should connect Lake Nighthorse to its system using one of three possible pipeline routes. Still, no construction began.

Durango’s mayor, Gilda Yazzie, says the city paid for its share of a pipe at the base of the dam, along with what’s called a manifold — a device that would split water among the four users of Lake Nighthorse. But nothing has been built to connect that manifold to Durango’s water system.

Lake Nighthorse itself is the scaled‑down result of the Animas–La Plata Project, authorized by Congress in 1968. That project would have covered the Animas and La Plata river valleys with canals, pumps and pipelines. Instead, the final plan built just one dam and one pumping station, leaving the Animas River free‑flowing.

That decision helped protect the area’s natural beauty while also attracting more people to Durango. Some of those new residents have since moved into fire‑prone areas. Many Western cities have learned the hard way about not securing enough water to fight wildfires. Fires racing through Los Angeles in 2025 wiped out entire neighborhoods. Water storage ran out and hydrants went dry.

Durango water engineer Steve Harris has 52 years of experience in the field and is known for promoting water conservation. He thinks Durango is making a serious mistake by not connecting a pipe to Lake Nighthorse.

“The city has a century of the Animas and Florida Rivers being so good to them with steady year-around flows that they don’t even know they need storage,” he said. “They may only find out during a water crisis.”

Right now, Durango has 10 to 30 days of water stored in its Terminal Reservoir, which holds 267 acre-feet. That’s annual water consumption for about 600 households; Durango has over 9,000 households. The city depends mainly on the Florida River, with large draws of summer water from the Animas River. When the two rivers flow normally, the taps run. If both rivers dry up or clog with debris from fires, the city could run out of water within weeks.

Climate change and a 25‑year drought highlight this risk. In the last eight years, on 34 days, the Animas River averaged less than 100 cubic feet per second, a low level reached only twice in the previous 120 years. Close calls have already happened. In 2002, the Missionary Ridge Fire filled both rivers with ash and debris and forced the city to cut back pumping. In 2015, the Gold King Mine spill sent millions of gallons of waste into the Animas River, stopping city pumping for a week.

When Harris spoke at a Durango Neighborhood Coalition meeting last year, residents expressed overwhelming support for more water storage. That message hasn’t reached city leaders. Mayor Yazzie said voters were happy to support a $61 million sales-tax–funded municipal building and popular new recreation projects. But she said raising taxes for a major water project would be difficult.

“We are looking at a potential water and sewer fee increase to keep the toilets flushing,” Mayor Yazzie said. As for building a pipeline to Lake Nighthorse and a much-needed new water treatment plant–an investment water engineer Steve Harris estimates at about $100 million—“it all depends on how much the citizens are willing to pay for water. “

Durango’s reluctance to invest in its water system stands out in the West, where water storage is usually characterized as urgent. Las Vegas for example, built three separate intake tunnels into Lake Mead to make sure it could keep taking water even as the reservoir dropped.

Durango’s Lake Nighthorse pipeline remains a paper concept. This winter, with snowpack in the San Juan Mountains the lowest recorded in generations, it’s time the town acts to guarantee more water. Fighting flames with empty hoses would be a sorry sight.

Dave Marston is the publisher of Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He writes in Durango, Colorado.

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.

That should not be allowed in any circumstance.

Public notice exists to protect the public. It informs residents about zoning changes, property tax increases, special district elections, annexations, construction bids, water rulings, foreclosure proceedings, and other actions that directly affect property, neighborhoods, and taxes. It is not simply about putting information somewhere online. It is a carefully constructed legal safeguard built on independence, permanence, verifiability and accessibility.

At the heart of public notice law is a simple principle: governments must inform the public through independent platforms they do not control.

Allowing a government entity to declare its own website legally sufficient turns that safeguard upside down. It puts the fox in charge of the henhouse.

Colorado has well over 4,000 governmental entities. Each may operate its own website, with its own navigation, formatting, search tools and retention practices. If notices are allowed to move solely onto government websites, residents could be forced to search multiple separate platforms just to stay informed: one for the county, one for the city, one for the fire district, one for the school district, one for a metropolitan district, one for parks and recreation, one for sanitation, and so on.

That is not transparency. It is fragmentation and obscuration.

Even well-intentioned governments make mistakes. In a recent Colorado example, a major municipality’s website returned 404 errors on crucial budget documents at the very time officials were asking voters to approve publishing notices exclusively on its website. Websites change vendors. Pages are reorganized. Links break. Content can be altered or removed, whether intentionally or not. A printed legal notice cannot be quietly changed once published. It becomes part of a fixed public record and is uploaded to a centralized, statewide online repository that aggregates notices across Colorado.

Colorado already has a modern system. Legal newspapers publish notices in print and online, and every notice is uploaded to a free, searchable statewide website. That system combines local visibility, digital access and independent verification.

The provision in HB 26-1095 that allows government-only publication is being described as a narrow fix for rare situations. That framing is misleading. Colorado law already provides structured solutions for situations where no legal newspaper is based in a county. In fact, during this very legislative session, the Colorado Press Association worked closely with counties and other stakeholders to modernize those provisions and expand placement options within the independent system.

Compounding the problem is the language of this provision. The proposal allows bypassing newspapers where the government deems a paper “unavailable” or where an adjacent-county publication would not provide “adequate notice.” Those terms are undefined and subjective. Under this language, the same government that is required to give notice could declare an independent publication insufficient and substitute its own website.

That is not how public notice law currently operates.

Public notice statutes are detailed, structured and precise. They regulate formatting, type size, frequency, duration and proof of publication through sworn affidavits that courts rely upon. Notices intersect with hundreds of statutory provisions involving elections, property rights, tax sales, zoning approvals, creditor claims, and special district actions. The law creates clear standards because due process depends on certainty.

Allowing government website posting to satisfy “all publication requirements” sweeps aside that structure with a vague override.

In 2023, Florida allowed limited government-run website publication for certain notices. A major academic study from faculty at the University of Chicago, Texas A&M University and Yale University, released in January of this year, examined the results. It showed that when notices are removed from newspapers and placed only on government-operated platforms, civic engagement declines and fewer people show up at public meetings.

When notices left independent newspapers, fewer people saw them and fewer people showed up. Moving notice off independent platforms does not increase awareness. It reduces it.

Colorado residents trust local newspapers and their websites as primary sources of public information. A statewide survey in 2022 found that 80% of adults cite local newspapers and newspaper websites as their most trusted source for public notices, and nearly two-thirds report reading notices in print or online local publications. Public notice works because it appears where people already look for information.

Reform may be appropriate as technology and usage evolve, as we have demonstrated repeatedly over the years. But reform must always preserve independence, aggregation, permanence and clarity. It must not allow the government to replace independent publication with self-publication based on vague and subjective standards.

Public notice is too important to let governments control how and where it reaches the public.

Tim Regan-Porter is CEO of the Colorado Press Association, which represents print and digital newsrooms throughout Colorado.

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.

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.

Tom Sabel, Lakewood

Liberals’ pet projects have ruined Colorado

Re: “Legislators banish ‘ghost tax’ proposal,” and “No agreement on OT for farmworkers,” Feb. 14 news stories

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.

Scott Stoddard, Aurora

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.

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.

That means corner crossing remains legal in the 10th Circuit states of Wyoming, Colorado, Utah, Oklahoma, Kansas and New Mexico.

In other states, a legal gray area remains.

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.

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.

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.”

Don Reckseen, Broomfield

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 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

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

Re: “We need a graduated income tax because Colorado can’t rely on Washington anymore,” Jan. 24 commentary

“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’

Re: “Polis all in on Trump’s tax-credit scholarship,” Dec. 10 news story

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.

Karen Francisco, Littleton

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 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.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

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.

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.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist.

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.

Congrats to the Broncos (period).

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.

Douglass Croot, Highlands Ranch

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.