Re: “A growing rage on our roads,” Nov. 26 editorial

The Denver Post editorial board mentions the major issue of road rage in Colorado. There are too many incidents where someone’s life is taken due to selfish driving choices. The article provides different solutions to improving this problem, including re-education and public messages on signs reminding drivers to be patient.

I agree with this article because, as a teen driver, I often get nervous that I will make a driving mistake and someone will yell at me or flip me off. Living in the Highlands Ranch community, I have noticed different electronic signs reminding drivers to be patient and avoid road rage. I believe the idea of implementing these signs across Colorado’s major roads and highways would be quite effective. First, it does not take long to read, and second, sometimes all an angry driver needs is a reminder that road rage and death threats are not the answer.

The other solution is to require education for adults to remind them of the rules of the road. This solution would hopefully remind the more experienced drivers that they need to be patient and not jump to extremes just because they’re upset. I feel both of the proposed solutions to improving the road rage in Colorado are helpful and will hopefully lower the number of people dying from upset drivers.

Kailee Larson, Castle Rock

Congress short on solutions

A little over a year ago, Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskyy addressed Congress on the need for continued support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia’s Vladimir Putin. At that time, I wondered what developments might occur if the U.S. and NATO blinked as time passed.

Putin’s hope that the West will grow weary of the war and have its attention diverted elsewhere seems to be coming true. Congress is providing the blink, and, in the meantime, the Middle East has erupted (again). Any guesses when the Pacific and Africa will boil over?

And why can’t our elected officials develop a workable immigration policy? There seems to be a need for workable entry controls and limits. There is a labor shortage that we just can’t seem to address. Is there anybody out there who can connect the dots and move forward without the “my way or the highway” attitude?

As far as the vote to expel George Santos, as well as for other national issues and policies, the lawmakers should always be voting their conscience rather than following the party line. If someone needs to be told how to vote, maybe they should not be holding a public service office.

Arthur David Hubbard, Dacono

I’m responding to Megan Schrader’s rant about Nathan Feldman’s lawsuit. As usual, Schrader wants to uphold the right to free speech — displaying the gay flag — but decry Mr. Feldman’s right to free speech — displaying the “straight” flag. Doesn’t the right to free speech apply to everyone, or does it apply only to those who share her viewpoint?

John Griggs, Evergreen

Editor’s note: To subscribe to The Denver Post’s Sound Off newsletter and read more rants from opinion page editor Megan Schrader visit denverpost.com/newsletter-signup/.

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 ski towns in western Colorado in 2005, risk was everywhere, but in a way that felt exciting. I liked the brag of drinking too much, and I was too naïve to notice harder drugs. Climate change seemed theoretical, and no one I knew had died in the mountains yet.

Corporate entities were just starting to binge-buy resorts while I somehow thought that living in my car was cool and I could exist like that forever.

But myths are complicated things to keep alive, and I eventually left ski towns to work as a writer, already seeing the ski-bum dream changing. I saw friends struggling to build careers, families and community while still chasing the fragile dream that a powder day topped almost everything.

So recently, I went back to see what was going on, to try to track the evolution of what had been my own obsession. I looped through mountain towns across the West, from Aspen to Victor, Idaho and Big Sky, Montana, to assess the current state of ski bums.

What I found was that everyone trying to build a life in those towns was struggling, from my old colleagues who had stuck around and wished they’d bought real estate to “lifties” fresh out of school.

“A lot of people here are living a fantasy I can’t obtain,” said Malachi Artice, a 20-something skier working multiple jobs in Jackson, Wyoming.

At the most basic level, the math just didn’t work. In most mountain towns, it’s now nearly impossible to work a single full-time service job, the kind that resort towns depend on, and afford rent. The pressure shows up in nearly everything, including abysmal mental health outcomes like anxiety and depression.

Ski towns have some of the highest suicide rates in the country, and social services haven’t expanded to meet demand. Racial gaps are also widening in an industry that often depends on undocumented immigrants to fill the poorly paid, but necessary, jobs it takes to keep a tourist town running.

On top of all that, abundant snowfall, the basis of a ski resort’s economy, is getting cooked by climate change.

And sure, you can argue skiing is superficial and unimportant, but ski towns — some of the most elite and economically unequal places in the country — are microcosms for the way our social fabric is splitting.

Ski towns face crucial, complicated questions: Can they build affordable housing and also preserve open space? What happens when health care workers or teachers won’t take jobs because they can’t find a way to live in the community they serve? Will a town willingly curb growth when that’s what supports the tax base?

There are no easy answers because the problems are entrenched in both that slow-moving nostalgia that stymies change, and in the downhill rush of capitalism, which gives power to whoever pays the most: The housing market always tilts toward high-end real estate instead of modestly priced homes for essential workers.

What we value shapes our lives, and so I think we must hold the ski industry to higher standards. If these rarefied places can find ways to support working as well as leisure-based communities, they could serve as lessons for change elsewhere.

During my tour, I saw necessary workers in the ski industry facing hard economic choices, but I also saw positive, community-scale change. In Alta, Utah, for instance, the arts nonprofit Alta Community Enrichment added mental health support when its employees reported an urgent need.

If ski-resort towns are going to survive, the lives of their workers need to matter, and that means caring about them — from affordable housing to accessible mental health support.

Heather Hansman is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. She is the author of Powder Days: Ski Bums, Ski Towns and the Future of Chasing Snow, and lives in Durango.

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: “Denver Archdiocese issues a deeply flawed pastoral letter on cannabis,” Dec. 3 commentary

Most Reverend Samuel J. Aquila, archbishop of the Archdiocese of Denver, wrote a deeply researched, impeccably sourced pastoral letter expressing concerns about the well-documented risks and harms of marijuana commercialization.

Although the Archdiocese of Denver includes about 600,000 Catholics, The Denver Post did not cover this thoughtful letter in its news pages. The Post decided instead to publish a one-sided rebuttal from Ricardo Baca, who runs a company that promotes the marijuana industry. Unsurprisingly, Baca downplays the risks of marijuana and side-steps well-documented harms that the archbishop notes.

The archbishop’s letter accurately notes today’s marijuana products have become highly potent, with unprecedented levels of THC, the mind-alternating chemical. This, in turn, has led to well-documented increases in addiction and marijuana-induced psychosis and schizophrenia. The archbishop also references data showing that marijuana commercialization has driven dramatic increases in marijuana-related hospitalizations, and impaired driving and traffic fatalities. In each case, his claims are backed up by citations to highly credible research.

For a marijuana industry publicist, the archbishop’s pastoral letter was no doubt a buzzkill. Reasonable people can debate the costs and benefits of marijuana legalization. But why on earth would The Post provide a marijuana industry advocate a one-sided forum to take potshots at the archbishop’s thoughtful essay? This feeds the narrative that some media outlets don’t provide a balanced perspective on pressing issues.

Rachel O’Bryan, Denver

Editor’s note: O’Bryan is co-founder & strategic projects director of One Chance to Grow Up, a non-profit that works to protect children “from today’s marijuana through transparency, education, empowerment and policy.”

“Enough with the temper tantrum”

Re: “Colorado’s trolls are unhinged and also empowered,” Dec. 3 commentary

It seems like the United States has become a place where we extol the hissy fit.

Let’s start with freedom of speech. Does any mildly informed person believe that the Founding Fathers intended free speech to include trolling, death threats, smear campaigns, and out-and-out lies? Certainly, free speech has always meant that individuals and groups have the right to debate and promote ideas publically without repercussions from their local or national government or neighbors. In America, you can’t be imprisoned for disagreeing with the president or your school board and saying so. You have the right to criticize capitalism, socialism, affirmative action, white supremacy or whatever war we are now fighting. You have the right to attack ideas with information and other ideas. It is also your civic responsibility to understand that in a democracy, you don’t always get your way, but you have the right to keep pressing, albeit peacefully.

Secondly, when did we, as a populace, become so self-absorbed and immature that we think it is important for the whole world to know how angry we are? Certainly, peaceful protests, sit-ins, and silent vigils have an important place in our democracy. But how does a pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian protest in a city council meeting make sense? How does our city council, school board, or university administration have the power to affect the politics of a country thousands of miles away? Why shout at them?

I say, enough with the temper tantrum. The adults in the room, whatever their politics, have important work to do, and throwing hissy fits won’t get it done.

Lynn Buschhoff, Denver

Teach kids about the danger of drug use

Re: “Dozens of U.S. adolescents are dying from drug overdoses every month,” Dec. 3 commentary

I agree with Ty Schepis in his article on the severity of teen drug use and how it differs from that of adult substance use. His use of facts and statistics emphasizes the specific group that seems to have the most usage and issues with overdose. As a teenager living in a wealthy suburban area, I have witnessed the detrimental effects of the lack of substance education. From kids in my grade overdosing in the school bathrooms to knowing people who have witnessed extreme drug usage, Schepis was right on the money.

It is extremely important for parents to focus on educating their children on the harmful effects of drug use, especially at such a young age. Schools also could put more effort into better classes that focus on student health and reversing the epidemic of drug use in teens. Mental health issues are also extremely prominent in my generation, so with access to drugs becoming easier as well, those who want drugs can get their hands on them without thinking twice. Although not all substance use can be stopped, teaching kids to use them in safe environments and making them aware of the consequences could greatly decrease the number of adolescent overdoses.

Cayden Lanziner, Highlands Ranch

More traffic stops mean more danger for officers

A recent letter correctly noted how common drivers running red lights, speeding, and driving recklessly have become. The author had a simple solution, i.e., law enforcement officers (LEOs) must make more traffic stops. What was not mentioned was that those stops are one of the greatest risks of death for officers, deputies, troopers and marshals.

Just days ago, a Cortez police officer made a traffic stop, and for doing his job enforcing traffic laws, he was shot and killed. Other officers, despite the circumstances, did their sworn duty and pursued the killer. While being shot at, they killed him.

Law enforcement agencies such as Denver are significantly understaffed at a time when serious and violent crimes are on the rise. Recruitment is difficult when there are still cries of “cops are murderers” and “defund the police.” A significant increase in traffic enforcement will not happen any time soon. The real solution is self-enforcement, but that isn’t going to happen.

Vic Reichman, Denver

People of Pueblo need depot cleanup

Re: “Clean up the Pueblo Chemical Depot,” Dec. 3 editorial

As a pilot at a local Denver airport, I’ve heard warnings from other pilots when flying cross-country flights to Pueblo, “You can’t fly over the chemical weapons dump, it’s restricted.” I wondered what was there when I found this article. I agree with the author’s statements that a place holding extinct chemical weapons next to a major Colorado city is dangerous to the population. The threat is the contamination the plant poses to the water, land, and people who have to live and deal with the consequences.

The proposed cleanup may cost the Army $600 million, but to the families and people of Pueblo the cleanup would be essential. The plant also takes up thousands of acres of real estate that could be used for other purposes like housing, recreation, and others. This possibly profitable land is unusable because of leaks of chemicals and even one time a lightning strike that ignited unexploded ordnances. The Army has reduced the groundwater contamination of the area by a small margin yet there are still concentrations of explosive materials that exceed the EPA’s standards for drinking water. Residents south of the plant refuse to drink the well water out of fear of contamination and a local river that’s crucial to the infrastructure runs through the area. The area overall needs this project to go through for the benefit of everyone involved.

Carson Luttman, Castle Pines

Pity for ranchers but not wolves?

Re: “Wolves are coming,” Dec. 3 news story

My excitement over the Sunday headline, “Wolves are coming,” quickly turned to disappointment as I read the article. Instead of celebrating Colorado for the return of a much-maligned species and iconic top predator that is essential to a complete and healthy ecosystem, it is another pity party for ranchers.

Ranching is like any other business with expenses, losses, write-offs, payrolls, insurance, etc. Their livelihood is not at risk as they would have one believe. This is an exaggeration because ranchers will be generously reimbursed for losses, and they can receive government subsidies. Operating a business costs money and non-lethal predator deterrents should have been a rancher’s business expense from the beginning.
The idea that we might lose the “open space” ranch to development is ironic since ranching itself is development. The natural landscape is cleared, the soil diminished, native plants overgrazed, and wildlife driven away.

How could one not view ranchers as “bloodthirsty” considering the barbaric ways wolves were brought to the brink of extinction by ranchers in the past, as well as from comments made by some current ranchers regarding wolves? Ranchers even fought to enact the 10-j Rule of “experimental,” an exception to the Endangered Species List, so they could continue to kill. Haven’t ranchers learned from the past?

Lenny Klinglesmith said it best that ranching and wildlife can coexist, that is if ranchers are willing to take responsibility for their business expenses, practice tolerance, and the best of non-lethal scientific practices.

Katherine Webster, 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.

I am Palestinian. They are Palestinian. I feel helpless.

Even as an elected official, I feel helpless. And my Jewish colleagues have expressed the same feeling of helplessness.

And like many, I have cried for peace — cried out for an end to the violence, an end to the carnage, an end to this cycle of killing. I know I am not alone. And yet – there has been incredible pushback over the calls for cessation of violence, and specifically around one word, “ceasefire.”

And though I have spoken to many, I am left wondering, “Is asking for a ceasefire unreasonable? Is even using the word “ceasefire” unreasonable? Why is wanting an end to the violence so inflammatory?”

This past week, I penned an open letter addressed to the Colorado congressional delegation to urge the administration to push for an immediate, bilateral cease-fire.

The letter, says the “sole focus of the United States should be to facilitate the immediate release of the remaining Israeli and all foreign national hostages and arbitrarily detained Palestinians; the restoration of clean water, fuel, electricity, and all basic services to Gaza; and the passage of extensive humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.”

It is also intentionally brief. We continue to condemn and grieve, as we should. So this was focused on calls to action. This did not reiterate condemnation, it did not talk numbers, it did not point fingers, it did not talk about the past or future. But the purpose of this was to ask for what needs to happen now. An immediate ceasefire.

While many did not hesitate to sign the letter, a few were honest in their reasoning for not signing, admitting they are struggling with the word “cease-fire.”

And this is indicative of the discourse we’re witnessing around the country.

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) said “ceasefire, stop the bombing, cessation of hostilities, are the same thing.”

It’s been said that if people are concerned that a ceasefire will prevent the eradication of Hamas, then we need to come to terms with the fact that you can kill the person but not the idea.

Israel’s choice to inflict the degree of damage and loss of life currently unfolding is ultimately allowing that idea to thrive and fester in generational trauma that is multiplying ten-fold by way of an estimated death-toll of 16,000. Compounded by 2 million internally displaced people within an area that is 25 miles long and some 7 miles wide, within which 60% of homes have been damaged or destroyed across Gaza.

The same generational trauma is happening to Israelis with the deaths of 1,400 people and 240 hostages. But anti-Palestinian sentiment is on the rise and it will also thrive and fester. The Associated Press reports that Israel is “still under rocket and missile attacks on several fronts, they have little tolerance for anyone railing against the steep toll the conflict has exacted on the other side. They have rallied to crush Hamas, which breached the country’s borders from the Gaza Strip, killing more than 1,400 people and taking over 240 hostages in an Oct. 7 rampage that triggered the war.”

We need an immediate cease-fire.

Here at home, the masses have spoken, and they agree. The Hill reports that “Nearly 70 percent of Americans said the Israeli government should pursue a cease-fire, including three-quarters of Democrats and half of Republicans.”

Millions around the world have rallied for an immediate ceasefire from Manila, Tunis, Karachi, Beirut, Tokyo, London, Johannesburg, Quezon City, Milan, Istanbul, Berlin, Jakarta, Santiago, Caracas, Paris, Washington D.C., Chicago, and Seattle to right here in Denver.

Every week, for the past 60 days, hundreds, to thousands have descended upon the state Capitol steps and other places around the state, with one goal, to demand an immediate ceasefire from Washington. And over the past 60 days, the crowds have only gotten larger, the marches shutting down city streets, and their rallying cries growing louder.

“Cease-fire now! Cease-fire now!”

Rally-goers are not just Arab Christians and Muslims marching. On the contrary, rallies are filled with allies that do not share my identity. But they do share a sense of urgency and humanity; they have taken to the streets, universities, and the halls of government demanding that elected officials take action to stop the war — a ceasefire, if you will.

Which brings us back to semantics. If it feels safer using “stop the bombing” or “cessation of hostilities,” why wouldn’t they just use the word ceasefire? Do they worry about winning the war on words, or ending this actual war?

And the response cannot be “yes” to the war on words when constituents who’ve lost 24, 42, 50, 19, and 60 members in each of these respective families are asking to end the actual war, with a ceasefire.

If “ceasefire” has become so taboo in a matter of weeks, what word is next? “Peace”?

Does the use of safer synonyms preferred by our congressional delegation silence their constituents, the masses that rally every week, that are expecting them to represent their will and call for an immediate ceasefire?

The answer is simple – when the people of Gaza face eradication, and others risk being silenced, people will turn to protests, rallies, lobbying, writing, and meetings, and then ask them for their support by appealing to their humanity.

At the end of the day, this needs to stop. So call it “stop the bombing” or “cessation of hostilities,” but at our core, we all have one message — cease-fire.

Iman Jodeh represents the Colorado House District 41. She is a Democrat from 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 an astonishing display of perseverance, Boebert has continued to show up at the U.S. Capitol despite the global humiliation that ensued including a Saturday Night Live skit. A sheer lack of shame, however, doesn’t get anyone out of that kind of trouble. The congresswoman is getting nothing but coal this year, and I don’t mean that as a metaphor for kickbacks from the fossil fuel industry for her unwavering boosterism.

And thus, begins my naughty/nice list for 2023, a year when Coloradans of note shone bright as stars or stumbled like a Jerry on the slopes.

If Russell and Ciara Wilson are half the saints in real life that they appear to be in their public personas, then a Tiffany-trimmed tree is in order. The Wilsons run the Why Not You Foundation (read their kid’s book by the same title for some inspiration) that gave out $1 million in grants this year. Russell also could be the Colorado come-back story of the year if he pulls off a few more win this season.

But for all the Wilsons’ ease, charm, and overperformance, there’s Deion Sanders, a complex man who raised expectations sky-high only to fall back to Earth.

On any given week, Sanders could be found on either list. Santa certainly isn’t the type to reward egomaniacs who push student-athletes out of the University of Colorado, but Sanders also uses his public persona for good, sticking up for the Colorado State University player whose dangerous play received widespread condemnation and asking for mercy for the teens who stole jewelry from his players in the Rose Bowl locker room. Two things tip Sanders to the nice list – the poor man recently lost his fiancé in a very public separation, and he elevated CU superfan Peggy Coppom, 99, in a genuine display of kindness.

Nicola Jokić did let those two epic f-bombs slip at the Nugget’s championship parade in downtown Denver in front of families and children, but somehow it seems like a much more innocent word when delivered in a Serbian accent by a man who just wants to get home to his friends and family. Santa is going to be good to the Joker, his wife, Natalija Jokić, and their darling daughter who stole the hearts of the nation during the NBA finals.

I don’t know for certain, but it seems likely that Avalanche forward Valeri Nichushkin is on the naughty list after a woman was found by the team doctor in his hotel room so intoxicated that she left in an ambulance. There’s no indication of a crime or even of a complaint from the woman. But the whole thing was more than a little suspicious including Nichushkin’s conspicuous absence for the next five games. He’s got work to do on his reputation (he could start by addressing the incident publicly and explaining what happened) before he gets off the naughty list.

District Attorney Linda Stanley is facing a formal complaint that she launched a retaliatory investigation into a judge’s personal life and that she violated seven separate rules of professional conduct for attorneys while pursuing the case of Suzanne Morphew who went missing in 2020 and whose remains were found in September. Stanley’s behavior, which she will address in a formal response to the complaint, puts her on the naughty list, and worse it jeopardizes there ever being justice for Suzanne Morphew.

Don Thwaites, who for two years ran a cheerful little food stand in the shared parking lot with Casa Bonita, goes on the nice list. But whoever was behind his unceremonious ouster from the Casa Bonita parking lot is on the naughty list. Thwaites had a valid lease to sell Sno-Kones and kettle corn and other food out of his shipping container store through May 2024, but his landlords at Broad Street Realty seem to have gone out of their way to terminate the lease just before Casa Bonita’s grand reopening.

Finally, I’m going to put those hard-working strippers I mentioned earlier, far too flippantly, on the nice list. It took real bravery for performers Elyssa Hanley, Vanessa Herr and Rebecca Dolana to speak out about their careers as dancers at Colorado clubs. We hope Santa brings all three what they asked for in The Denver Post story — a way out of the sometimes exploitive, unstable and traumatic work in clubs.

Megan Schrader is the editor of The Denver Post’s opinion pages.

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: “How cold should it be to open shelters?” Nov. 29 news story

I read the recent article in The Denver Post with amazement that a question like this would even need to be discussed. Where is the humanity and compassion in such a question? If it is too cold for you to sleep on the cold ground all night or to consider leaving your pet outside, then it is too cold for an unsheltered person to be outdoors.

I have seen people of all ages pushing, carrying or pulling all their belongings with them, who need food, restroom facilities and shelter in nice weather.

For those of us lucky enough to have a roof over our heads and warmth from the cold, let’s not quibble about when it is too cold to deny another human being that same warmth.

Mary K. August, Lakewood

The value of subscribing

I continue to subscribe to The Denver Post and our Golden Transcript. It seems to me that there is personal and social value in reading the news and the stories from around Denver, the state, the nation and the world. We become aware of the interesting, rewarding, and sometimes heroic or difficult experiences of people and various organizations. However, I often read stories, letters, and editorials that increase my world of thought and community awareness and what I might be able to do to help in the community and for our institutions.

Yes, I often hear that newspapers are more limited and much more expensive than they used to be. With fewer and fewer people actually paying for newspaper delivery to our homes, the price of reporting, publishing, and delivery is bound to increase, and some news stories will be limited. For those who subscribe, we have seen our costs rise considerably. However, as in a third-grade economics lesson, “Everything has a trade-off.” The news stories and Open Forum letters are part of my trade-off for a more interesting and understanding awareness and participation in my small and larger community. So, I’ll continue my subscriptions to the newspapers and my support for their journalists and delivery persons.

Janet Johnson, Golden

Water a limited resource

Re: “As U.S. groundwater dwindles, powerful players block change,” Nov. 26 news story

Thank you, Denver Post, for reprinting a very comprehensive and informative story about how constructive changes in water policy are being blocked in our state capitals by big business and corporate agriculture.

It says a lot when the New York Times sends a pair of top-notch reporters out West to investigate what should have been readily apparent to our area’s politicians and voters all along.

Thus, we have the ongoing development of raw real estate in massive proportions along our Front Range. We see the big development trend extending to my small town of Buena Vista, where our town board is currently under pressure to issue more building permits even as the future viability of our water resources is in question.

We have numerous examples in Arizona and other states where new housing developments have prematurely drained their aquifers. I guess hauling water in by the truckload is cheaper for local authorities than using their common sense to limit unsustainable growth. Then, we have long drought periods in which water becomes scarce despite our efforts to limit our usage.

Mother Nature, not mankind, controls the availability and distribution of that precious liquid we call water. When we don’t take heed of her most glaring and alarming warnings, we will suffer the dire consequences of our ignorance.

Gary E. Goms, Buena Vista

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.

Then on Wednesday a gunman walked onto the campus at the University of Nevada Las Vegas and killed three members of the business school’s faculty, critically injuring a fourth.

To date, 38 mass shootings broke the previous 2006 year record of 36, as defined by incidents in which four or more people have died, not including the assailant. Here, in Colorado, we are all too familiar with the devastating impact of mass shootings.

And, while mass shootings get the most attention, they are simply the tip of the iceberg and a small percentage of firearm-related deaths. Gun violence is a serious public health problem and a leading cause of premature death.

According to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there were more than 48,000 firearm-related deaths in the U.S. in 2022, which translates to about 132 people dying from a firearm-related injury every day. Four out of every 10 were firearm homicides. In Colorado gun deaths reached a 40-year high in 2021, and there can be no doubt that when data for 2022 and 2023 are released the number will be much higher.

While there are many factors driving up gun violence, most experts agree that access to firearms is the primary factor.

This should be a call to action, but we are all familiar with the script. Our elected officials send their thoughts and prayers to victims and communities, but little to nothing is done.

Fortunately, leaders like Colorado’s United States Attorney Cole Finegan are stepping into the void.

In Colorado, some felons may legally possess firearms under recent changes to state law. The crime “possession of a weapon by a previous offender,” with a few exceptions, is now limited to felonies that fall under the Victim’s Rights Act. As a result, police and state prosecutors cannot seize firearms from these felons when they are encountered and the guns remain on the street.

Even when convictions are obtained, inmates earn 10-12 days of comp time per month in Colorado’s prison system, depending on the statute of conviction, and they frequently serve less than 50% of their total sentence in prison before they are paroled.

Under federal law, however, a felon cannot possess a gun or ammunition, and any felony can be a predicate for federal prosecution. There are also greater penalties for possession, with a maximum of a 10-year sentence. Federal law also has mandatory minimum sentences for using a gun to commit violent crimes. And there is no parole in the federal system. In fact, those convicted under federal law generally must serve 85% of their sentence before being eligible for release on probation, although some motivated inmates can receive additional credit if they participate in rehabilitative programming.

Finegan has used the federal law to more aggressively pursue cases but he had a limited number of attorneys and staff to more aggressively prosecute these cases. The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Colorado had approximately 45 prosecutors for the entire state. By contrast, there are over 750 prosecutors in the 22 District Attorney offices in Colorado.

In 2022, Finegan sought to expand the number of violent crime prosecutors in his office who handle federal cases by seeking to partner with local jurisdictions in Colorado where violent crime is most significant.

Denver and Aurora both answered the call and provided a total of five attorneys who are now deputized as federal prosecutors and handling violent crime cases at the federal level. These so-called Special Assistant United States Attorneys, four from Denver and one from Aurora, work in the United States Attorney’s Office, but their salaries are paid by their home jurisdictions. After launching the program in 2023, the SAUSAs have opened more than 66 matters focused on gun crimes in Denver and Aurora.

In addition to prosecuting felons who are illegally possessing weapons, these prosecutors are handling other violent crimes with guns, including take-over style bank robberies, as well as cases where someone without a criminal record illegally buys guns for convicted criminals.

And soon, the number of additional prosecutors handling these kinds of cases could be nine. Governor Jared Polis included a provision in his proposed budget to fund four more SAUSAs. These new SAUSAs will be funded through the Colorado Attorney General’s Office and will be able to work on cases across the state.

Finegan told me that, “a lot of violent crime is perpetuated by a smaller number of people than you think”, and that by using federal laws and tools to prosecute these cases, they are taking these dangerous felons off the streets for longer periods of time.  Finegan added, “we are very grateful that Denver, Aurora, the Governor, and the Attorney General  are such active partners.”

This program is so promising that other U.S. Attorney’s Offices around the country are looking at replicating Finegan’s model.

As the legislature convenes in January, it is incumbent for them to make Colorado safer by approving this budget request and passing stronger laws to address these anomalies.

Doug Friednash grew up in Denver and is a partner with the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber and Schreck. He is the former chief of staff for Gov. John Hickenlooper.

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.

On Monday, the county party’s central committee censured the four Republican plaintiffs in Anderson et al v. Griswold et al, of which I am one. The case, heard this week in the Colorado Supreme Court, examines whether former President Donald Trump is eligible to run for president under the U.S. Constitution.

The censure serves as an object lesson to the importance of civic education. I’ll put my MA in political science to work and examine the document’s “whereas” statements starting with the expectation that party members support the GOP platform and principles.

Presumably, they meant the official 59-page 2016 platform adopted by the Republican National Committee. If so, the lawsuit to force Colorado’s Secretary of State Jenna Griswold to uphold the Constitution and keep Trump off the ballot should check that box for me, not get me in hot water with the party.

The Republican treatise on conservative and free market principles and policies is quite lengthy but it’s worth noting that five sentences into the document, it reads: “We believe in the Constitution as our founding document. We believe the Constitution was written not as a flexible document, but as our enduring covenant.” Was this the principle to which they referred?

The next whereas accuses litigants of attempting to eliminate a candidate from the ballot. No individual or group can remove candidates from a ballot. Rather, candidates are qualified or disqualified to run by their own actions. When I was a candidate I had to meet certain criteria to be on the ballot. If I had not met those criteria, my name would not have appeared there.

Likewise, there are multiple qualifications to hold the office of the presidency under the Constitution. The first three qualifications, stated in Article II, regard age (at least 35 years old), citizenship (natural born not naturalized), and time in the country (at least 14 years). The second two are prohibitions stated in the 14th and 22nd Amendments. An officeholder who took an oath to the Constitution and then engaged in insurrection or one who has already held that office for two terms (or a partial term of at least two years and a second term) is not eligible to run again.

If Americans wish to amend or remove these requirements for the office, they may do so by securing an amendment passed by a two-thirds majority vote in the House and Senate and ratified by state legislatures or through a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the state legislatures.

We cannot, however, ignore constitutional provisions, or pretend they no longer apply as though our foundational pact was a living constitution subject to ad hoc interpretation.

Since the early Republic, disagreements on how to apply constitutional provisions have been litigated in the courts. This is not the first time presidential eligibility requirements have been thus scrutinized. In 2016, a court ruled that Senator Ted Cruz, born in Canada to an American mother and Cuban-born father, was a natural-born citizen and thus eligible for higher office.

Usually calls to ignore constitutional limits come from the left. Republicans are quick to remind Democrats that the United States is a republic not a pure democracy and there are many constraints in the Constitution on majoritarian rule for a reason.

Legislative, executive and judicial offices have different qualifications, length of terms, means of election (direct vote, electoral college, or appointment), and different enumerated duties and prerogatives. Without these restraints on power, a bare majority or powerful faction could disenfranchise the rest of us.

America’s democracy — its government “of the people, by the people, for the people” to borrow Abe Lincoln’s words — is only possible because it is a constitutional republic. To remain so, the provisions of the Constitution must be upheld or else lawfully amended.

Finally, the censure states that plaintiffs’ actions “further encouraged splintering the party instead of fostering unity.” Everyone on this lawsuit has dedicated decades to the Republican cause. The first plaintiff, for whom the case is named, Senator Norma Anderson, was the first female majority leader in the Colorado Senate. The Colorado GOP owes her a debt of gratitude for much of what the party accomplished from the late eighties to the early 2000s when it was ascendant.

Back then we unified around such things as school choice, tax reform, building a strong economy, instituting law and order, and upholding the rule of law. On the last point, Anderson continues to lead the way. It is not we who have deviated from that principle.

Krista L. Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer

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.

But don’t celebrate just yet. The cost of single-family homes is still at an astounding mid-point price of $625,000. That price point is simply unsustainable for hard-working Coloradans.

Colorado needs more condos for sale on the market.

Multi-unit for-sale homes are a critical piece of the state’s affordability puzzle – often selling for significantly less per square foot than single-family homes or townhouses. Land has become so valuable in Colorado that anything less than multi-unit construction is a luxury. The mid-point price for metro Denver condos in October was $418,000.

But construction of condos has long lagged behind in this state. According to a new white paper put out by the Common Sense Institute, a conservative-leaning think-tank, only 515 building permits for condominium projects were pulled last year. The paper notes that for-sale multi-family unit construction has faltered nationwide with the exception of a few markets.

The white paper, written by developer Peter LiFari, blames the dearth of condo construction primarily on builders’ fears of being sued for construction flaws – leaky roofs, crumbling stucco, electrical and plumbing failures, etc. — and the resulting high insurance rates for covering construction liability.

There are of course other complexities driving away condominium builders – the lure of higher profit returns in rental apartment construction, affordable housing requirements, backlogged and dysfunctional building departments in cities and counties, and the rising cost of vertical construction, including a shortage of land zoned for high-density development.

Solving the puzzle of affordable housing in Colorado will take addressing all of these problems and then waiting years for the market to piece itself back together. During that time, it’s critical the state and local governments focus their limited resources on preserving existing affordable housing units through programs that purchase affordability easements and put land in trust for future generations.

We supported two new laws in 2017 with the hope that tort reform would rebound condo construction. That has not occurred. In part, we suspect it is because the reform did not go far enough. LiFari called for a stronger right-to-cure to be written into the law, meaning before homeowners can litigate they must give the developer a chance to correct the construction mistakes.

Tort reform will be politically much easier to sell at the General Assembly next year if proponents come armed with actual data about lawsuits and the types of abuses they are seeing, including nitpicking condos down to the studs to file every single claim possible.

The data and specific examples are critical because while everyone has heard horror stories about new homes with catastrophic failures, hardly anyone has heard stories of lawyers making a killing because they seek damages for sprinkler heads installed out of code and studs installed a half-inch too far apart.

Healthy skepticism must be met with real cases of abuse. Take a moment to Google “Colorado construction defects” and find the teams of lawyers making a living off suing builders and how they describe the work they do on their own websites.

Reforming construction defects isn’t going to solve the condo conundrum. LiFari estimates that insurance premiums account for 5.5% of the “hard” costs of building a condo compared to 1.6% for apartments that don’t run the risk of owner litigation. Could a 4% cost difference make or break a deal? It certainly doesn’t help the calculus.

Construction defect reform, especially a right-to-cure for builders, could finally click into place during the 2024 legislative session as part of a broader effort to bring the cost of Colorado housing back down to reality.

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.

More than 70% of Colorado fire departments are fire protection districts, which means they are almost completely funded by property taxes.

Since the Great Recession, when assessed property evaluations plummeted, fire districts have struggled to rebound from significant revenue losses. In the last decade, our revenues remained flat despite population increases and skyrocketing call volumes. Many fire districts were forced to go to voters multiple times to seek approval for revenue stabilization measures in an attempt to return to where they were a decade earlier. It was never enough.

The only way fire districts can meet ever-increasing day-to-day demands is by planning, training personnel, working out mutual aid agreements with neighbors, maintaining and replacing our equipment to ensure reliability, and building new infrastructure. All of this requires a reliable source of revenue. But these funding roller coasters have made planning and budgeting like trying to grasp a handful of smoke.

As taxpayers, homeowners and renters, fire chiefs and firefighters understand the significant impact of increased property values and support actions to bring those costs down. But as property values have increased so have the demands on fire districts with more residents, visitors and businesses.

Additionally, we haven’t been able to keep up with inflation and the increase in costs for vehicles, maintenance, fuel and insurance. For instance, a fire engine, which has an average lifespan of 15 years, has doubled in price over the last five years, now costing about $1.2 million. The time for delivery has tripled, going from one year to three to four years.

We are already far beyond the point of being able to withstand any more impacts and are grateful legislators heard our calls for help and responded to our emergency the same way we respond to theirs.

To be clear, this was an emergency. Fire departments don’t just fight fires and wildfires. They are the first responders for floods; hazardous materials spills; aviation, train and highway crashes; terrorist attacks; mass shootings and other emergencies such as heart attacks, drownings and home accidents. Fire departments also lead rescues on land, water, and in the air.

Without full backfill, fire districts would have no choice but to cut services, which results in poorer patient outcomes and increased fire spread and damage. This is because of longer response times that are a direct result of fewer crews, faulty or unreplaced equipment and temporarily or permanently closed firehouses, among other things.

Some districts would only be able to respond to one emergency at a time, while others would be forced to rely on a neighboring fire department or district. This means that during a fire, rescue or medical emergency, Coloradans would be waiting longer for a response from a more distant fire station. Whether your house is burning down or your dad has a heart attack, that additional two minutes, five minutes or ten minutes can literally make the difference between life and death.

We appreciate Democratic Senate President Steve Fenberg, House Speaker Julie McCluskie (D-Dillon), Speaker Pro Tempore Chris DeGruy Kennedy (D-Lakewood) and Sen. Chris Hansen (D-Denver) who heard us and fought for us during this special session as well as Gov. Polis for signing this bill into law.

In the long term, fire districts’ reliance on property taxes as their sole funding mechanism is not sustainable. We are eager to work with the legislature in the upcoming legislative sessions to address the urgent need to diversify and stabilize fire revenue. But that is a different conversation for a different day. For today, we appreciate that we have the resources necessary to continue protecting and serving our communities.

Kristy Olme is the president of the Colorado State Fire Chiefs and the fire chief for the North-West Fire Protection District (Park County).

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.