Re: “Should school choice be a right?” Sept. 1 news story

Defending public education from attacks in this state is like playing whack-a-mole. An article Sunday reported on Initiative 138, advocated by the conservative organization Advance Colorado, to enshrine school choice in the state constitution — as if it wasn’t already firmly established in this state of more than 260 charter schools with statewide open enrollment. Homeschooling is also recognized by Colorado as a “legitimate alternative to classroom attendance.”

So far, vouchers have been kept out of the state laws, and for good reason. More than two decades of research have shown a loss of academic achievement in students who go off to private, usually religious, schools with vouchers in hand. No matter to privatizers. Initiative 138 is likely to be the next, but not last, subtle attempt to move the state toward vouchers.

Initiative 138 is very simple in its language, and there’s the problem. The text is short. It says:

“That all children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education;

That parents have the right to direct the education of their children; and

That school choice includes neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education.

Each child in K-12 has the right to school choice.”

The simple wording will likely sound sweet to the ear of most voters, and they will naively check their ballot in support of the initiative, but passing Initiative 138 will provide Advance Colorado and others the opportunity to ask the courts to approve the use of vouchers. If that happens, it will likely be the final step in dismantling and dumping public education in Colorado into the dustbin of American history, and our children will suffer the consequences.

Rick Johnson, Castle Rock

Make life affordable for families

A recently published study indicates more than 40% of full-time workers, assuming a two-income family, do not earn enough to make ends meet. Younger generations have told us that we boomers didn’t have it as tough as they do today, and this would sadly appear to settle this argument in their favor.

Listening to younger folks, they are struggling with costs for rent, housing, daycare for their kids and more. Taking all that into account, I can not see that the government helping out in some way with these costs is some radical, left-wing idea. These folks are hurting and have been very clear about that. I would tell Sen. JD Vance if he wants families to have more kids, that it starts with making life affordable for full-time workers.

John W. Thomas, Fort Collins

Taking a back seat to the swing states

I am tired of hearing about the swing states, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, etc., deciding the presidential election.

I think it’s absurd that we are still holding onto the antiquated Electoral College.

Every other election is decided by popular vote. Five candidates have lost five elections even though the majority chose them.

Every vote should count, but in winner-take-all states, a 51/49 decision means millions of people’s votes are worthless.

I can understand why people are disillusioned about voting, to spend the hours in line and not have your vote count towards the final tally. Surely in this technically advanced era, they could come up with a secure way to vote electronically.

The electoral college is a way to game the system so that the majority’s will is inconsequential.

Von Honnecke, Lakewood

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.

This high-stakes moment could be the most consequential one in this truncated presidential election season. No one understands the importance of this debate more than President Joe Biden who ended his re-election campaign following his disastrous performance in the June debate.

The only thing that matters now is how each candidate gets to the winning total of 270 electoral college votes. As of today, Harris has 225 solid and likely electoral college votes versus 219 for Trump. This means that the presidential race will be won in six states representing three different regions.

Two are in the West: Arizona (11) and Nevada (6); two are in the South: Georgia (16) and North Carolina (16); and, two are in the Midwest: Pennsylvania (19) and Wisconsin (10).

With the exception of Wisconsin where Harris holds a narrow lead, recent polling data from FiveThirtyEight shows that Trump and Harris are within 1% of each other in the other 5 states. Biden won every one of these battleground states, except North Carolina in 2020.

What makes this debate even more crucial is that voting is about to begin. While November 5th is election day, forty-seven states offer early in-person voting. In North Carolina, mail ballots are sent to all voters who request them as early as September 6th. In Pennsylvania, early voting begins on September 16th when voters can visit their election office to request, complete and return the ballot. Other states vary on voting timelines.

Before Biden dropped out, Trump had a clear advantage. Biden’s base was weary and there was no clear path to victory. Harris, however, reset the election by energizing her base and attracting independent-leaning Democrats. Trump has been caught off guard. Trump needs to thwart Harris’ momentum, which won’t be easy given his caustic style.

For these two candidates, it’s not just about winning the debate, it’s also about not losing it in the style of a Biden-like performance. Both candidates need to find ways to connect with undecided voters without weakening their base.

The economy is the most important issue. Harris and Trump need to persuade voters that they understand the average American’s economic situation and have a viable plan that will make their lives better.

This year’s key issue hearkens back to 1980 when Ronald Reagan so effectively posed the question in the debate with President Jimmy Carter: are you better off today than you were four years ago?  Based on polling, Trump has an advantage here. Harris has had less time to roll out her economic agenda while distinguishing herself from Biden. Harris has an opportunity to sharpen her message and close the gap, which will be pivotal to her success.

Their policy positions on immigration, foreign affairs, protecting democracy, crime and abortion will also matter, not only to energize their base to get out the vote, but to move the key swing voters.  While polling shows Trump has the upper hand on the key issue of immigration, Harris has the upper hand on protecting democracy and abortion which has been costly for Republicans since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Meanwhile, both candidates will need to explain why their positions have changed on different issues.

Ultimately, however, style may prove to be more important than substance. There once was a day when looking presidential mattered and while that will be important for Harris, it has never been Trump’s strong suit as he chaotically mocks and insults his opponents. While it may be red meat for his most ardent followers, attacking Harris’s intelligence and racial identity or making sexual slurs against her will be a major liability in wooing undecided voters.

Harris and Trump both need to demonstrate they are likable.

Harris can do this by staying calm and showing humor, compassion, intelligence and sharing her personal journey. Harris can’t take Trump’s bait and she needs to be able to deliver an effective retort when Trump lies, like saying “there he goes again” or “he doesn’t let the facts get in his way.”

She was brilliant in her CNN interview when she was asked about Trump’s questioning of her racial identity and responded, “Same old, tired playbook” and, then said, “Next question, please”.  As George Bernard Shaw famously said, “Never wrestle with pigs. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.”

Trump must resist his instincts to self-sabotage. He needs to be coherent and avoid delivering confusion and obnoxious bombs. Trump needs to demonstrate strength, steadiness, and leadership and figure out a way to take Harris off balance and script without crossing lines.

Whoever does these things best will likely be our next president.

Doug Friednash grew up in Denver and is a partner with the law firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber 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.

Our approach emphasizes overcoming challenges through addiction recovery, mental health treatment and job training, with the ultimate goal of securing employment that allows individuals to support themselves without being dependent on taxpayer assistance. It provides incentives to encourage each individual’s movement through the program, understanding their unique needs and focusing on the ultimate long-term goal of escaping homelessness. This strategy is both fair to taxpayers and meaningful for those experiencing homelessness through a mix of compassion, courage and commitment.

Aurora has purchased the former Crowne Plaza Hotel at I-70 and Chambers, using federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds, along with ARPA funds from the state of Colorado, and Arapahoe, Adams and Douglas counties. The hotel will be repurposed as the Aurora Regional Navigation Campus (ARNC). The total cost, including renovations, is estimated to be $42 million. In exchange for funding from the state, Aurora has agreed to provide services to individuals experiencing homelessness across the 10-county metro area.

The former hotel’s 255 private rooms, large conference areas and smaller meeting rooms will be converted according to a plan I recently proposed to our City Council, which passed with a strong majority Aug. 26.

The plan reflects a “Work First” approach already proven successful in Aurora through the “Ready to Work” program operated by Bridge House, a Boulder-based nonprofit, since 2018. It divides the proposed ARNC into three distinct parts or “Tiers.”

Tier I focuses on compassion: In this tier congregate emergency shelter will be available for those who have not yet engaged with a case manager to develop a plan for moving out of homelessness and toward self-sufficiency. Only minimal services, such as meals, showers, laundry and pet sheltering, are provided in the Tier I emergency shelter to incentivize individuals to move to Tier II.

Tier II focuses on courage: In this tier participants must have made an individual decision to be actively participating in an approved plan under the guidance of a case manager, and in exchange, they will have access to extended-stay semi-private living accommodations and increased access to services. This plan involves programs that address their barriers to employment, such as job training, addiction recovery, mental health counseling, or a combination of these services.

Tier III focuses on commitment: In this tier there is further incentivization for achieving the goals set under Tier II and recognition of the individual’s efforts, with access to 235 private rooms in the hotel section of the ARNC for up to two years, reserved for those who are working outside the center but still need some services. Residents in Tier III will pay 30% of their income toward the cost of their temporary housing. The remaining 20 rooms in Tier III will be set aside for individuals experiencing homelessness who have been hospitalized and need convalescent care to recover from surgery or illness.

After moving through all three tiers, individuals are not just on a path to self-sufficiency, but have achieved it.

One objective of the ARNC is to secure recognition for the “Work First” approach from the federal government. Currently, the federal government recognizes “Housing First” as the primary strategy for addressing homelessness. As a result, Aurora must raise private funds to support the Tier III “Work First” portion of the ARNC.

The fact that Denver, with its “Housing First” approach, is a neighboring city presents a unique opportunity for the entire country to observe and compare the effectiveness of these two models.

I am confident in the effectiveness of our approach of compassion, courage and commitment make the outcomes both transparent and public, so policymakers locally, regionally and in Washington, D.C., can assess whether our “Work First” approach is effective, and we can obtain the recognition that “Work First” also deserves.

Dustin Zvonek is an at-large Aurora City Council member currently serving as mayor pro tem.

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.

Participating in sports is part of the American experience, and all young people should have a sporting chance to play. Yet for many, opportunities are dwindling. Budget-conscious school districts and localities are cutting programs, and private sports programs can cost families thousands of dollars a year.

This disparity is not just a matter of lost recreational opportunities. Youth are increasingly caught up in the digital world, spending significant time on screens rather than participating in physical activities or community events.

And evidence is growing of a profound mental health crisis among young people. From 2018 to 2019, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that almost 40% of 12- to 17-year-olds reported “persistent feelings of sadness or hopelessness.”

Participation in youth sports can play a key role in overall well-being. As a track and field athlete through my college years and, later, a coach, I know firsthand the benefits of playing sports: better physical fitness, increased self-confidence, improved social skills, grit, perseverance and more.

A wealth of evidence shows that regular physical exercise benefits kids in virtually every arena. For women, youth sports can be particularly formative. A 2013 survey of female corporate executives in Fortune 500 companies found that 94% had played sports. Just over half did so at the university level.

And the benefits of sports last well beyond adolescence. One study found a direct correlation between sports participation as a youth and greater self-esteem and happiness as an adult.

Professionally, former athletes do better economically, too. On average, they earn 7% more than non-athletes.

Despite these benefits, schools have gutted gym classes and sports programs, and fewer recreational opportunities exist. Club teams have proliferated, but they’re expensive. According to the Aspen Institute’s annual “State of Play” 2022 report, the average American family spends almost $900 annually per child to participate in organized sports. For families with annual incomes greater than $150,000, this figure was over $2,000. In total, Americans spend up to $40 billion a year on pay-to-play youth sports. These costs don’t include the time and resources needed to help young athletes get to practices and competitions.

The result is a stark socioeconomic gap in sports participation. Only 34% of kids from the poorest families played regular sports, compared to 67.7% from wealthier families.

Nevertheless, there’s reason for optimism. Communities are finding innovative solutions to increase sports participation among kids from every demographic.

In Colorado, organizations such as Chance Sports give scholarships to promising young athletes who wouldn’t otherwise be able to participate in club sports. This September, the Daniels Fund will join other sponsors in the inaugural Colorado Youth Sports Giving Day, encouraging the whole community to give to increase sports access, and local partners are generously matching $1 million in donations made from September 4 through September 30, on a first-come, first-served basis. Youth Sports Giving Day will give every community member a direct way to make a difference in youth sports by providing support to local teams.

Donations made during the month-long Colorado Youth Sports Giving Day campaign need to be made through the Colorado Gives Platform at www.youthsportsgivingday.org and will go directly to the participating nonprofit organizations. Youth sports organizations interested in participating can learn how to sign up at youthsportsgivingday.org.

Youth sports may not immediately come to mind when addressing the pressing challenges facing America’s young people, but their benefits and widespread appeal make them essential in shaping the next generation. Investing in youth sports provides opportunities, fosters development and contributes to a more promising future for our democracy. By prioritizing sports, we can offer a powerful tool for tackling issues plaguing young people. Let’s champion youth sports as a vital pathway to a brighter future, ensuring our children stay active and thrive both on and off the field. I hope all Coloradans will pitch in to support youth sports and learn more about Colorado Youth Sports Giving Day.

Hanna Skandera is president and CEO of the Daniels Fund (danielsfund.org). Joining the organization’s board in 2019 and taking the helm in 2021, Hanna has demonstrated a strong commitment to impact and positively influencing American life. Hanna is nationally recognized for her bold leadership, entrepreneurial vision and focus on outcomes. She previously served as Secretary of Education in New Mexico, Undersecretary in California and Deputy Commissioner in Florida, as well as Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Policy Advisor at the U.S. Department of Education.

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.

Roger Hill has fought for more than a decade to reclaim public access to these rivers where ill-informed or intentionally errant landowners have attempted to block access. He calls his act of fishing on stretches where public waterways flow through private property marked with no trespassing signs “civil disobedience.” Just this week, the 83-year-old resolved to continue his fight, and asked others to join the movement.

We echo his call for action but want to be clear that we are not calling for civil disobedience because the law is on Hills’ side.

Law enforcement officers should know that they cannot enforce trespassing laws on public property – in this case, rivers that are floatable even as they pass through private land. Homeowners who call a local sheriff on fishermen and rafters should be met with laughter.

Collectively ignoring these false claims on publicly owned waterways is the only path forward, after years of ignored pleas for change. Lawmakers have refused to address the issue for years and the Colorado Supreme Court has avoided ruling on cases. Every year of inaction by the Capitol and the courts, landowners are emboldened to claim more of our natural resources from the public.

However, that doesn’t mean the “Right to Wade” movement is not without risk.

Smart landowners simply post no-trespassing signs along the water’s edge hoping to discourage people ignorant of the law from using the river along their property. Aggressive landowners have taken to stringing wires across the river with “Keep Out” signs. Crazy landowners might assault people, brandish and even fire weapons, or commit other crimes in an effort to retain their squatter’s claim on a public resource.

Coloradans naturally respect private property rights but we’d remind recreation enthusiasts: to stay on the river, keep noise levels down, and not to litter, clean fish or go to the bathroom on the adjacent banks.

These rivers have not been purchased with the transfer of a land title or even the transfer of water rights. If a landowner holds some right to take some water from the Colorado River, that does not mean they own the entire river while it’s on their property. Common sense tells us this, as does the public trust doctrine.

Water use rights – irrigation, drinking, etc. — are secured by their own laws as spelled out in the Colorado Constitution in Article XVI. Nobody is trying to change those laws or change anyone’s rightful claim to use the water.

As Coloradans begin reclaiming their property, lawmakers can learn a lot by reading the excellent laws in Montana that cement the right to access waterways that flow through private lands. A new Colorado law rumored to be drafted for the 2025 legislative session should include these five key provisions modeled after the law in Montana:

1. Define “navigable” waters broadly to include waters that historically were used for log floating, fur trading, and mining and in the modern day can be used for recreational activities like rafting, kayaking, guided fishing or floating.

2. Landowners do not have to grant any easement for access to the waters, but cannot restrict access to the water from other public or private land.

3. A right to portage around barriers in water in the least intrusive manner possible without damaging property.

4.  A right to use the streambed as defined by the high-water mark of the river.

5. And finally, indemnity for landowners from any claim of harm that may come to people using the river or river bank or injured while accessing private property in an emergency.

Anything less than this would be a disservice to Coloradans.

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: “Is a violent gang of illegal immigrants taking over Aurora?” Aug. 31 editorial

It is not the vast majority of Venezuelan immigrants, papered or not, who are causing concern. It is, however, the small minority of Venezuelan immigrants who are gang members who are cause for great concern!

Do I fear every Venezuelan immigrant? Of course not. This is not a racial or ethnic issue. This is, however, an all too real gang issue. This gang, which appears to be raising havoc in Aurora, is a problem. Defending Venezuelan immigrants as a group is a mere diversion from the real problem. You should not divert attention from this problem by shifting it into a fake ethnic issue or into a fake anti-Venezuelan issue. No intelligent person is concluding that “all Venezuelan immigrants, papered or not, are dangerous gang members.” Intelligent people are saying, “A Venezuelan gang is a cause of great concern.”

We would be fools to ignore the fact that this gang of domestic terrorists is Venezuelan by ethnicity or heritage because saying that would be politically incorrect. That is government propaganda and sheer nonsense just as it is sheer nonsense to dismiss those who are legitimately worried about the dangers posed by this gang because the gang is Venezuelan in origin.

Reporting the facts is not measured by political correctness except in this editorial piece. Facts are facts, even when they are politically inconvenient. Revisionist news is not news. It is nonsense that has no place even as an opinion piece.

Leonard Frieling, Lafayette

I’ve spent years organizing, protesting, canvassing, and managing political campaigns in Aurora. I’m not new to the whole “painting whole cities as violent and gang-ridden to justify and spread racist hate against a particular group of people” thing.

Here’s the thing: These racist lies are always stoked by the same municipal lawmakers who have systematically deprived certain communities of the resources they need to thrive. They criminalize the inevitable consequences of the poverty they perpetuate. They refuse to hold cops accountable for hate crimes or homicides, or landlords accountable for unlivable conditions. In Aurora, they somehow manage to do this while successfully blaming Democrats for the results. In a city with a longtime Republican mayor and longtime Republican council majority, somehow nothing is actually their fault.

There were reports of a candidate who almost won a city council seat by knocking on Democratic voters’ doors and telling them he was a Democrat. Many voters realized the lie in time.

Councilmember Ruben Medina will be up for re-election in Ward 3 next fall, and once again, Republicans will spend a lot of money lying to voters in an effort to defeat him.

Lying is their constant. What you’re seeing right now is not concern for our residents; it’s preparation for the next election cycle, when City Councilwoman Danielle Jurinsky will pretend she didn’t just spend four years voting down Democrat-led measures to hold the landlords of this building accountable.

Brittney Buckley, Centennial

To paraphrase you folks: “Not a problem, nothing to do with race or illegal immigration, happens all the time.” To which I say “bunk.” I guess it has to be at your front door before it’s a problem.

I can tell you I used to go to Denver three or more times a month. I enjoyed taking the wife out for dinner, doing some shopping, enjoying the arts, and maybe a ball game. I haven’t been there in five years and have zero interest in ever returning, even to drive through on Interstate 70 or E470. Folks like you have ruined it, it is way too dangerous. I am not alone in my opinion, I assure you.

But it is not a problem. Sanctuary City for all, save the occasional resident who ventures out after dark or has only two locks on each door, including the garage door.

Harvey Lyon, Steamboat Springs

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.

Our coalition held a press conference Friday at The Wild Animal Sanctuary, the perfect venue, given that founder Pat Craig is renowned for saving big cats from horrific cruelty at the hands of mankind.

On this cool August morning, we saw a mountain lion, her sweet butterfly-patterned face hiding in the grass before she walked away, which is quintessential lion behavior when humans are present. We saw two lynx and a bobcat, making up all three of the wild cats that will be spared from trophy hunting and fur trapping with a “yes” vote.

Among the cats were CATs supporters: A powerful display of serious-minded voices for true wildlife conservation.

The room was silent, however, when shown raw footage of packs of dogs chasing lions and bobcats into trees, where they were shot as trophies.

Our campaign follows the journalistic virtue of “show, don’t tell” and this film shows the lion trophy hunting outfitters, who sell our wild cat as “your trophy” for upwards of $8,000 (the exact price for a lesser-maned African lion). In their own words, Colorado lion trophy hunters and fur trappers told the crowd that they were after their personal big trophy lion, a bucket list item, a thrill-kill.

Watch the video, “This is NOT Conservation,” on YouTube.

Veterinarian, Dr. Valerie Johnson, who holds a PhD from Colorado State University, connected the dots. “Mountain lion trophy hunters of Colorado are in the same vein as the people who pay big money to go to Africa and cut the tusks off elephants, or heads off lions,” she told the crowd.

Erik Molvar spoke as a hunter, although he’s a well-published biologist in wildlife conservation.

“Hunters are like me, they subscribe to hunting ethics … Hunting for big cats is trophy hunting, pure and simple. It’s not to fill the freezer, it’s to bring home a trophy … to brag about and impress your friends,” Molvar said. “That doesn’t respect the quarry, so it doesn’t deserve any particular respect from the general public, either.”

Perhaps the most well-received voice was that of J Dallas Gudgell, an experienced environmental scientist and member of the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes.

“As an Indigenous person concerned with and raised in a framework of right relationship with the natural world, I find trophy hunting and egocentric activity upends nature’s natural balance,” explained Gudgell, who is Wildlife and Tribal Policy Director for the International Wildlife Coexistence Network, one of the 100 groups endorsing CATs. “I support the people’s right to participate in the Democratic process to protect wild cats from senseless use.”

Dr. Christine Capaldo, a specialist in feline medicine, spoke of the bobcat in her southwestern Colorado community who was fur-trapped and strangled to death just to sell its fur on the lucrative Chinese fur market.

“Allowing unlimited numbers of bobcats to be killed isn’t about wildlife biology or management, it’s about greed, trophies, the despicable fur trade to China, and a complete disregard for the welfare of wildlife …Colorado’s native wild cats should not ever be for sale.”

Dr. Mickey Pardo, PhD, a wildlife biologist in Fort Collins, recently featured in the New York Times and National Geographic for his work, explained,

“As a biologist, I support the CATs ballot measure to ban trophy hunting and trapping of wild cats in Colorado. The scientific evidence is clear that hunting these animals is completely unnecessary and the methods used to hunt them are exceptionally cruel.”

Deanna Meyer, born and raised in Colorado, runs a rural family farm in lion country, abutting National Forest Lands, and she will vote “yes” to CATs based on her personal experience.

“One Christmas Day two years ago, I followed the sounds, finding six dogs who treed a terrified bobcat on my land,” Meyer said. “I was infuriated when I found out that there was nothing I could do. When this initiative passes, it will end this harassment and protect lions and bobcats who aren’t causing conflicts with humans.”

Delia Malone closed the event, speaking as a West Slope field ecologist, and Wildlife Chair for the Colorado Sierra Club, which endorses CATs. She’s vice chair of Roaring Fork Audubon, which is one of six Audubon Societies of Colorado that endorses CATs as well.

“At my home in Redstone which borders roadless area, we’re lucky enough to have a cougar family that has lived in the forest above us for generations — we’ve never had a negative encounter with the cougar family,” Malone said. “Trophy killing of lions contradicts the science, it is ethically wrong and should be outlawed.”

Every speaker at this event shows Colorado voters who we are: A vast coalition of wildlife experts, conservationists and diverse citizens, statewide including the most rural citizens living with lions, who all agree that this kind of fringe hunting for heads and fur has no place in the great state of Colorado, where we respect ethical outdoor activities, including ethical hunting of deer and elk for food.

As Pat Craig said so well: “Let’s be clear: Mountain lions and bobcats are not a food source as many callous individuals like to suggest. Instead, they are hunted solely for their heads and beautiful coats.”

Julie Marshall is the director of communications for Cats Aren’t Trophies.

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

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

The Ride for Magnus last month was more than just a tribute; it was a wake-up call. While standing united in memory of Magnus White and reflecting on the statistics — two people killed on Colorado roads every day—one question loomed large: What actions would demonstrate solid public commitment to change current trends?

To answer this, let’s channel the words of Jill White, Magnus’s mother, who spoke at the event: “We know what killed Magnus, and we know the solutions.” The calls for change expressed at the rally — separated bike paths, advanced crash detection systems, and tougher penalties for rule violators — may help prevent future cases like Magnus’s death, eventually.

It is also important for us to consider the possibilities for swift and effective countermeasures to combat traffic fatalities challenging our society.  Should the Ride for Magnus become an annual event, it could be a powerful impetus for measures that can counteract traffic violence in a matter of weeks or months, not years.

As several speakers alluded to during Sunday’s rally, Magnus’s case exposes deeper systemic failures contributing to our nation’s traffic violence epidemic–an epidemic which requires strategic remedies that are immediate and strong. We need a tourniquet—better, an immediate and strong vaccine. I encourage a future organizing committee, and all of us who want to see improvements, to align future appeals for reform with the urgency that a public health crisis demands.

First, let’s identify and prioritize initiatives that can be quickly implemented quickly. Many of the current actions called for stretch far into the future. For example, when will the prescribed legislative or proposed infrastructure changes take effect? Five or ten years? Within those time frames, many more lives will be lost. In Colorado, over five years of waiting likely means 3,500 deaths, with 700 of those individuals being pedestrians or cyclists. It’s like closing the barn door after most of the horses have already escaped.

Second, we need to deal with the fact that speed kills. Efforts to meaningfully address traffic violence must address a universal law of physics inherent in addressing traffic safety: vehicle speed is the major contributing factor in a fatality. The outdated codes we use to design roadways support speeds which exacerbates the problem. Faster speeds and heavier cars, two trends sweeping the nation, make matters worse.

Infrastructure improvement–one of main pillars highlighted during last Sunday’s rally—points us in the right direction. Modern street designs have been proven to work by altering speed and movement patterns. They are employed widely in progressive nations and work. By changing street design, we can cure known locations in our communities that needlessly claim lives every day.

So what’s preventing us from making progress? There are several hurdles, but they can be overcome if we, collectively, can understand how our perspectives perpetuate the status quo. Most residents insist on the convenience of driving cars in free-flow conditions, using vehicles that are, each year, bigger and heavier. Existing, outdated street design codes reinforce such expectations. Politicians listen to residents and oblige, rather than asking drivers to spare seconds. It’s easier (and lazier) to stand behind the status quo–as reinforced by entrenched rules, long-established regulations, and economic incentives. And when something goes horribly wrong, we insist that individuals should follow existing guidelines, however broken they might be.

The prospect of thousands of people cycling each August, united in memory and for the purpose of demanding safer streets for cyclists and pedestrians is heartwarming. Looking ahead, we can (and should) best honor those we’ve lost by committing ourselves to enacting changes as swiftly as possible. If not, we risk delaying what needs to be done and perennially searching for new remedies that work in our existing system. It’s possible to lean into Jill White’s challenge and implement known solutions next week, not the indefinite bureaucratic future.

Kevin J. Krizek is Professor of Environmental Design at the University of Colorado Boulder and former Senior Advisor to the Under Secretary for Economic Growth, Energy and the Environment (U.S. Dept Of State). He analyzes urban dynamics, infrastructure, and the role of government. Recent work articulates new pathways for transport planning grounded in accessibility, sustainability, and social justice–perspectives shared in his TED talk, public essays (1, 2, 3, 4), and by the BBC. As a fellow of the Leopold Program, Dr. Krizek gained skills to guide transformative change, reinforcing his ability to make complex topics accessible to people of all backgrounds. He lives in Boulder, CO and has taught courses at more than ten universities, including as a visiting professor in the Netherlands and has served two Fulbright scholarships. At the Department of State in 2021/22, Krizek spurred global infrastructure initiatives on digital security, smart cities, and clean energy reform.

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.

There have been quite a few conversations about the need for affordable housing with possible solutions, but the cost of providing them, being too great, has been the stumbling block.
Possible solutions have been old motels, tiny homes, and now, vacant office buildings.

There was a recent news story about an existing building complex being retired because the owners were moving to a new modern campus. It wasn’t that the building and all the mechanical backbone were broken; the owners just needed their facility to be more modern.

That old campus, which has a vast part of the mechanical infrastructure with computerized control already in place, could come to life as an affordable solution.

Lutheran Medical Center in Wheatridge just moved to a new modern facility and “turned off the lights” on the buildings they had used for years. The buildings are still intact. The interior of each floor would need to be remodeled. But the main feed lines of the electric, plumbing, HVAC, elevators, sprinkler system, communication, and fire alarms are all in place.

This could have provided a real potential fix at a reduced cost. It seems like a lost opportunity.

Mark Stahl, Hartsel

Don’t underestimate the extremes

Re: “Election 2024: Buckle up, and be kind,” Aug. 23 letter to the editor

The letter writer recommends that we “don’t buy into the loud 10% at the extremes.” Since there are only two principal presidential candidates, and one of them accused the other of being a radical Marxist and that she “turned Black” for political advantage, I propose that the percentage at the radical extreme is around 50%.

David Wolf, Lakewood

Screaming motorcycles

Re: “How loud is too loud?” Aug. 24 news story

Thank God someone is finally talking about noise in Denver. Unfortunately, the article didn’t mention those extremely annoying crotch rockets (squealing motorcycles of all sizes) that are a true assault on the senses. You can hear them from blocks away, and they make your skin crawl as they go by in full force. They must give the riders some perverse form of pleasure or power to terrify and annoy people all around them. (See me! Hear me!)

As far as enforcement, how about an app for citizens to film the event (along with license plates) and send it to law officers? Or how about making it illegal to sell motorcycles that emit that level of sound?  I am all for lowering the level of noise so that we can enjoy our lives in peace.

Lynne Charles, Denver

Big number, small percentage

Re: “Medicaid department overshot last year’s budget by $120 million,” Aug. 29 news story

The headline for this article could have been  “Medicaid department overshot last year’s budget by 1.16%.” If that were the actual headline, I would expect that many readers would react not with shock and cynicism over wasteful government spending (after all, $120 million is a lot of money to the average person) but rather with admiration that the Colorado Department of Health Care Policy and Financing did a solid job managing the complex programs, competing needs, and massive budget it is responsible for.

Sometimes people only read the headline and form their opinions on that information. Headlines should attempt to be as factual and unbiased as the article.

Jan Winkler, Denver

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 when they woke up, they saw a plume of smoke rising into the sky. Darren Wilson had anticipated something like this, even before their trip began.

“It was in the back of my mind — I hope we don’t hike into somewhere and get trapped by a fire,” recalled Wilson, a Hamilton, Montana, resident.

They were hiking through the Anaconda Pintler Wilderness and knew it was under strict restrictions: No building campfires, no fire allowed anywhere, no exceptions. The summer had been dry and hot, and wildfires had been erupting throughout Montana.

But as the group continued hiking toward Hidden Lake, they realized the trail of smoke ahead might be the early stage of a wildfire.

The hikers weren’t trapped, but 200 yards from Hidden Lake they came upon scorched earth surrounding a tree split down the middle, most likely from a lightning strike. Its bark was blackened and glowing, and beneath the tree the charred ground smoldered. The smoke they’d seen was seeping from beneath hot charcoal and dry wood.

“You could tell the tree torched and burned while it was standing and then cracked and fell on the ground,” said Darren’s wife, Chelsie, an x-ray technologist with previous experience in wildland firefighting.

“I think everyone had different feelings,” she said. “Those who had never seen forest fires before were panicking.”

The group put Chelsie Wilson in charge, and she laid out a two-step process: Some people would run to Hidden Lake to fill every water bottle and hydration pack. Everyone else would use the water to turn the smoldering dirt into mud.

Chelsie Wilson and Brittney Erickson, one of her fellow hikers, poured water on dirt, using the wet earth to put out the fire bit by bit. Chelsie kicked a burning stump into the ground. The team smothered it. She instructed and delegated jobs, describing the team as willing, communicative and diligent.

“It was really scary at first,” Chelsie said, “and then it became fun.” After two hours, she gave her team the all-clear. They had transformed the patch of smoldering char into a wet pile of dirt and debris.

On a hike later the same day, the group climbed West Pintler Peak only to spot another fire, this one on the horizon some 10 miles away. They called in the sighting from a ridge with cell service and heard a plane fly low overhead the next day. Weeks later, they said they think that was the first alert to the Johnson Fire, a 270-acre blaze southwest of West Pintler Peak.

If there was a theme to the hikers’ trip it was definitely fire, because while camping near the bank of Oreamnos Lake, they spotted wispy smoke billowing from the opposite shoreline.

“We start yelling across the lake, top of our lungs,” Darren Wilson said. “‘Is there anybody there? Do you have a fire?’” Hearing no response, they initiated a then-familiar course of action. Gathering every container of water they possessed, the group rushed toward the smoke’s source.

“Like children of the corn, we come out of the trees,” Wilson said, only to find three men huddled around a prohibited campfire. The hikers explained that they’d put out a smoldering wildfire, spotted another and were worried about a third — the campfire they were now looking at.

“The guys were not very impressed with us, though,” Chelsie Wilson said, as the men reluctantly extinguished their fire. “They didn’t like our story at all.” Still, they’d agreed to douse the fire and the hikers withdrew, hoping this was the end of fires popping up on their trekhike.

“It’s a real possibility,” Darren Wilson said. “You could be caught behind the wrong side of a fire.”

Zeke Lloyd is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. He lives in Helena, Montana and writes for the Montana Free Press.

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.