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.

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.

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.

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.

Simply put, this small inholding, known as the “Kelly Parcel,” should never be privatized — never. It is one of the most awe-inspiring and important pieces of open space remaining in America.

Within Grand Teton National Park, its borders include the National Elk Refuge and Bridger-Teton National Forest. Its value was appraised in 2022 at $62.4 million. However, the director of the Office of State Lands and Investment just recommended a starting bid of $80 million.

But its real value isn’t about money: The land is a vital migration corridor for elk, moose, big horn sheep antelope, pronghorn and mule deer travelling into and out of the national park. It also hosts 87 other “Species of Greatest Conservation Need.”

And the annual, 200-mile-long migration corridor known as the Path of the Pronghorn — from Grand Teton National Park to the upper Green River Basin — passes right through the Kelly Parcel at the crux of what’s recognized as the longest mammalian migration in the contiguous United States.

Wyomingites have been resolute in their opposition to selling the state-owned parcel. Publicity generated by the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance collected more than 2,600 comments from people opposed to an auction, and hundreds of opponents turned out at each of four public hearings in November. Many others contacted the state directly for a total of more than 10,000 people opposed to a state auction.

Yet this week the Wyoming State Board of Land Commissioners will decide whether a private owner gets to do whatever they want with the Kelly Parcel once they bid highest at auction– fence it, subdivide it, certainly road it.

With its iconic views of the Tetons and natural beauty that’s surrounded by public land — plus sporting one of the most coveted zip codes in the country — the Kelly Parcel will most likely be snatched up at auction by a billionaire with development and dollar signs in their eyes.

“The people of Wyoming would not want to be part of a legacy where this land fell into a private developer’s hands and see that beautiful landscape dotted with a few select starter castles,” said John Turner, former director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at one of the hearings.

There is no rush to dispose of the Kelly Parcel, no deadline to cash in before the bank forecloses or a buyer backs out. But an auction changes everything, in a way that can never be undone.

That is why Dave Sollitt, executive director of the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance is asking The State Board of Land Commissioners to put a stop to this auction and focus on working with state legislators to find a way to sell the Kelly Parcel to Grand Teton National Park, where it belongs.

“National parks are heralded as ‘America’s best idea,’ and auctioning off public land within Grand Teton National Park would stand out as Wyoming’s worst idea,” Sollitt said. “If they go to auction, the state and everyone loses control. That’s how auctions work.”

Though money generated from auctioning the Kelly Parcel to the highest bidder would contribute some $4 million annually to the support of public schools, the windfall to the state would also come at an immeasurable cost to wildlife.

There is a better approach. Selling the parcel to the National Park Service — as Wyoming did with its other three parcels within the park — is projected to generate up to $120 million over 30 years. The National Park Service tried to buy the Kelly Parcel in 2015, but the agency lacked enough money to make the deal then and now.

Establishing ourselves as the first state to auction off public land within a national park is likely to blight Wyoming’s reputation beyond recovery. It should be clear: Privatizing an irreplaceable area within a national park for short-term gain is a foolish and destructive move.

Savannah Rose is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. She lives in Jackson, Wyoming, and is a wildlife photographer who cares about keeping ecosystems intact.

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.

Voters, focusing on the upside of finally getting a completed and connected sidewalk network in the city, passed Initiated Ordinance 307, the sidewalk repair ballot measure, with 55.9% of voters’ support.

But as The Denver Post Editorial Board noted in its opposition to the measure, this one came with implementation problems. For residents already facing increases in property taxes, groceries, insurance, trash services and other basic needs, the reality of the sidewalk fee struck hard as the calculator showed everyone just how much it would add to their mounting financial burdens.

As written, the fee is not equitable for Denver’s residents, certainly not by basing fees on home frontages and street-use types rather than income or property values. While sidewalks benefit homeowners, they benefit the residents of the city as a whole.

The city’s previous sidewalk system of holding property owners responsible for the construction and repair of sidewalks in publicly owned right-of-ways was also inequitable. Consider the irony that streets may have bus stops along them but no sidewalks or inadequate narrow sidewalks to reach those stops. At least the new ordinance will add sidewalks that would allow our streets to be more navigable by pedestrians and transit users whether along the Monaco St. Parkway or the neighborhoods of Elyria Swansea and Globeville.

The fees by street type were laid out in the ordinance, campaigned for by a group known as Denver Deserves Sidewalks. It created a sidewalk construction and repair program to be managed by the city’s transportation department. The annual fee ranges from $2.15 to $4.30 per linear foot of property frontage, depending on the street’s designation with residential collector streets at $2.15 and residential arterial streets at $3.58. At least discounted rates are planned for historically low-income neighborhoods.

As with most taxes, these fees need to be progressive and not regressive. In this case, even a flat rate would be more equitable than the complicated tax structure voters approved.

On the city’s webpage where the sidewalk-fee calculator had been, there is now a notice that states in part:

“The city’s sidewalk task force is reviewing the sidewalk ordinance and may refine the current fee structure to ensure it is applied in a way that is as fair and reasonable as possible. DOTI has removed the sidewalk fee lookup tool it previously offered on this webpage while that assessment is underway.”

The fees were defined in the ordinance based on linear footage of frontage on private or business property. The rate per foot would be determined by the type of street on which the sidewalk runs. So a homeowner living on a corner would pay at least double what interior homes might pay. A homeowner already dealing with the noise of mixed-use roads would have to pay more for the luxury of the noise and busier traffic. A homeowner living in a modest house would pay more than those living in a high-rise luxury condominium building where the fee is split among the stacked homes.

Basing the fee rate on whether a homeowner’s property is adjacent to a busy street, which may lower their property’s value, is flawed. Especially for homeowners who have recently invested in their sidewalks to bring them up to code or to repair broken slabs.

After hearing feedback from residents who realized the amount of fees they were facing, the city council decided unanimously on Oct. 2 to delay the fee until after the summer of next year. Councilwoman Amanda Sandoval requested the delay. Property owners would be charged semiannually along with the city’s storm drainage billing.

In a story reported by The Denver Post’s Seth Klamann, Sandoval said, “I’m responding to constituents’ concerns, property owners’ concerns and basically inequity that was baked into the ordinance. I don’t feel like it’s equitable to base sidewalk fees based on your street type classification. I feel there needs to be a more nuanced approach to this.”

We still believe the city needs a plan and the funding for sidewalk repairs and installation, especially in underserved neighborhoods. But as is often the case, this sidewalk plan lacked a sound financial solution and instead created a different burden on Denver’s residents.

It is like being taxed on how much more snow you get to shovel. We are pleased the City Council members recognize this burden and are working to make it more reasonable for their constituents.

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.

De La Rosa, Sia, and Youngquist bring track records of competent and compassionate support for Denver’s diverse youth. Collectively, they inspire confidence throughout our community that they can move the seven-member Board toward policies and practices that will allow students to thrive and, ultimately, set up the city of Denver for long-term success.

Leadership transitions like this one fuel hope, but also a degree of uncertainty as a new group of decision-makers reset.

The nonprofit we represent called EDUCATE Denver is optimistic that this group will seize this opportunity to focus Board attention on high-quality public schools and student outcomes. That said, this elected Board will have to work hard to restore trust and put the district on a positive trajectory. Early action will be important; the urgency of the situation is real. Tens of thousands of students suffer with each day that passes without adequate support in schools.

Following are specific steps that EDUCATE Denver, our coalition of over 35 civic leaders, believes will move students toward better results and help DPS board members – old and new – win back the faith of the community:

1) Set an immediate tone of professional decorum: New members should build bridges with sitting board members. It will be important to find common ground in the effort to prioritize achievement-oriented discussion and policy. Likewise, existing board members would be well-served by listening to and learning from the leadership De La Rosa, Sia, and Youngquist bring to the table – they have earned much respect in their careers. The values they advance, including district transparency, data-driven decision-making, school and leadership accountability are concepts voters opted to support. It would be tone-deaf to resist such practices.

2) Seek collaborative city and community relationships: The Denver community supports Denver Public Schools. Our recently elected mayor committed to sharing city resources with the district; City Council resurrected a defunct committee to open dialogue with DPS leadership; and EDUCATE Denver’s coalition of civic leaders who fuel philanthropy, mobilize community, drive policy, influence bond elections, and mentor emerging leaders are at the ready to help propel this district forward. Given this broad base of potential supporters, we encourage the Board to welcome collaborative partnerships.

3) Put tough topics on a timeline: DPS has been grappling with a variety of challenges that create stress and uncertainty for families. Front and center are a revision of the discipline matrix and school consolidations/closures. Leadership has been slow to act definitively on these topics, which in turn, breeds discontent in the community. We recommend a timeline be set that establishes transparency for the decision-making process. Resolution should be achieved by the end of the school year and include periodic updates from the Superintendent throughout the process.

4) Set a course: It is an explicit responsibility of the Board of Education to set the strategic direction of the district in a manner that is measurable and transparent. We encourage this Board to require a revised strategic plan that includes student-centered outcomes, measurable goals, and aggressive district improvement strategies. We believe this plan should be developed by the Superintendent and staff and adopted formally by the Board through a vote.

5) Hold leadership accountable for achievement: DPS’ primary purpose is to educate students. It follows, then, that district leadership would be evaluated based on the ability of the district to deliver results. We recommend a Superintendent evaluation and improvement plan that is established immediately and which is primarily based upon closing the achievement gap in Denver Public Schools. The plan should include short-term milestones and measures to ensure progress during this school year.

6) Be accessible in the community: The previous Board landed a blow to the community by restricting an already infrequent opportunity for public comment. On the contrary, the community must have access to their elected officials. We recommend that the new board take steps to restore the original public comment process, but additionally, establish regular and predictable opportunities to engage with community members in their respective districts. Denverites deserve robust, authentic, and consistent partnership in defining the future of public education in our city.

Without question, there is reason for optimism in Denver Public Schools. The arrival of three new board members to the table, who are committed to finding effective ways to educate all students in the district, including those historically underserved, is cause for celebration. That said, now more than ever, the Board is in the spotlight. This city CAN have safe schools that are exceptional centers of learning. Our students deserve this; our community expects this. We look forward to a new chapter of great leadership for DPS.

Theresa Peña and Rosemary Rodriguez are co-chairs of EDUCATE Denver, a coalition of civic leaders who are elevating ECE-12 education as the city’s No. 1 priority.

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.

“At nearly every opportunity, he placed his desire for private gain above his duty to uphold the Constitution, federal law and ethical principles,” said a House Ethics Committee report about Santos released last month. He’s a true child of the MAGA movement.

That movement is multifaceted, and different politicians represent different strains: There’s the dour, conspiracy-poisoned suburban grievance of Marjorie Taylor Greene, the gun-loving rural evangelicalism of Lauren Boebert, the overt white nationalism of Paul Gosar and the frat boy sleaze of Matt Gaetz. But no one embodies Trump’s fame-obsessed sociopathic emptiness like Santos. He’s heir to Trump’s sybaritic nihilism, high-kitsch absurdity and impregnable brazenness.

Other politicians embody the sinister, cruel and disgusting aspects of Trumpism. Santos incarnates its venal and ridiculous side, the part rooted in reality TV and get-rich-quick schemes. As Mark Chiusano reports in his excellently timed new book about Santos, “The Fabulist,” if the now ex-congressman showed much interest in politics before 2016, we don’t have a record of it; his heroes were pop divas like Paris Hilton, Lady Gaga and “Real Housewives” star Bethenny Frankel. “But by 2016,” writes Chiusano, “he had found a new role model who brought celebrity glitz and gossip to civics: Donald Trump.”

Perhaps the reason a critical mass of Republicans finally jettisoned Santos is that he was too embarrassing a reflection of the values of the party’s de facto leader. That’s certainly why I, for one, am going to miss him. A gay man and, reportedly, a former drag queen in a party consumed by homophobia, and a pseudopopulist accused of bilking his campaign donors to pay for Botox, Hermès shopping trips and adult entertainment website OnlyFans, Santos distilled the Trump movement’s lurid hypocrisy to great comic effect. In a world overflowing with tragedy, he’s a farce.

It’s not just his grift and vanity that made Santos such a perfect avatar of the MAGA ethos. Even more significant was the defiance he showed as his flagrant wrongdoing was revealed and the way that defiance endeared him to some of Trump’s most avid supporters. In December 2022, after Santos was elected but before he took office, The New York Times reported that he’d lied about his education, purported career in finance, family wealth and charitable endeavors and that he’d been charged in Brazil with using stolen checks. Santos’ response was, as Chiusano writes, to “post through it,” making a great show of shamelessness both online and in real life.

Much of the MAGAverse loved it. Greene became a loyal friend. As New York Magazine’s Shawn McCreesh reported in March, at a Manhattan birthday party for Breitbart editor Emma-Jo Morris, Santos was “the ‘It’ girl. His wrists are bedizened with bling from Hermès and Cartier, and fawning fans line up for selfies.” A month later, The Intercept’s Daniel Boguslaw described Santos being feted at a bar in Washington: “A milieu of young conservatives, operatives and House staffers were assembling to howl in the next-gen model of Donald Trump’s societal wrecking ball, and the name on everybody’s lips was George Santos.” A hard-core MAGA group called Washington, D.C. Young Republicans posted about Santos’ “inspirational remarks” at that event, including his insistence that his enemies will have to “drag my cold, dead body” out of Congress. Gosar chimed in with an admiring response: “Based.”

Adam Serwer famously wrote that when it comes to Trump, “the cruelty is the point,” but maybe the criminality is as well. Rule-breaking is key to Trump’s transgressive appeal; it situates him as above the strictures that govern lesser men while creating a permission structure for his followers to release their own inhibitions. That’s a big part of the reason his multiple indictments appeared to only solidify his Republican support. Sure, some of his backers probably identified with his epic persecution complex, but that alone doesn’t explain the worshipful enthusiasm among some of his fans for his mug shot. (“He looks hard,” gushed Fox News host Jesse Watters.) Rather, many people on the right thrill to displays of impunity from people who share their politics. In the late 1960s and 1970s, the left-wing counterculture lionized outlaws like the Hells Angels for their rebellion against a hated establishment. Today, as Santos’ rise to iconic status demonstrates, a similar antinomianism has taken hold among alienated conservatives.

Of course, the devotion of part of the right-wing demimonde was not, in the end, enough to save Santos. More than half of the House Republican caucus, and most of its leaders, stood by the disgraced swindler, and Greene called his expulsion “shameful,” but unlike Trump, Santos never amassed nearly enough power to force Republican institutionalists to swallow their disgust with him. Besides, as Rep. Tim Burchett, R-Tenn. — who voted against expulsion — said of voters in his district, “People don’t like the fact he’s gay.”

While he may not be a congressman anymore, Santos has said he’s not done with public life. At a news conference Thursday morning, he said he plans to be involved in the 2024 presidential race: “I won’t rest until I see Donald Trump back in the White House.” Hopefully, he’ll pop up on the campaign trail before his trial begins next September. No one deserves to be a Trump surrogate more.

Michelle Goldberg has been an Opinion columnist at The New York Times since 2017. This article originally appeared in The New York Times.