The city’s teachers, students, principals and support staff need safe, comfortable classrooms and buildings to do their important work – readying the next generation of Coloradans for success and happiness.

The district funds most of the upkeep and upgrade of schools by asking voters to approve a bond package about every four years. This November the school board and superintendent are asking for almost $1 billion. A “yes” vote sends actual dollars to every school in the district for fixes, big and small.

We understand that some are urging voters to reject this bond issue to send a message. There is a growing frustration with the district-level management and the elected school board about things that have little to do with fiscal management or school conditions. But we can’t justify punishing those who work hardest in this district or those students suffering summer heat simply to vocalize displeasure with the adults in charge.

Here are five reasons to vote yes on the school district’s bond proposal and one big concern.

1. Technically taxes will not increase. Older bond debt is getting paid off leaving room for the school district to take additional debt without increasing service payments. Of course, what we all know is that if voters say no to this proposal, property taxes will decrease for homeowners and commercial real estate owners in the city. The tradeoff is not worth the small savings – collectively about $250 million a year.

2. 29 schools in DPS still have no air-conditioning in their buildings. The district has slowly whittled away at this problem and, if this bond passes, the district can officially say that none of its schools are without heating and cooling. In recent years, the district has had to close because of the heat, leaving students at home and parents in the lurch. But worse, some days the district has stayed open and children have suffered the ill effects of unbearably hot classrooms.

3. School safety is a top concern and this bond measure includes $30 million to make our schools more secure. At several campuses the district plans to add entrance vestibules that will allow staff to screen visitors before entry. The money can and should be used to buy new external doors that cannot be breached and locks and other barricades for internal doors.

4. Every school – including charter schools in district-owned buildings – will get some funding. The district has an inventory of historic buildings and those built in the 1960s and 70s that are in need of everything from new paint to new windows and doors. Principals, teachers and parents will have a say in how some of the money is spent at their schools.

5. The school district has proven that it will deliver on its promises over the years, and maintaining the same level of investment in our maintenance of buildings is an investment in the future.

Our one big concern is that this bond does include millions of dollars for a new elementary school in far northeast Denver near the existing mega-campus that holds DSST Green Valley Ranch Middle School, Rocky Mountain Prep Green Valley Ranch, Vista Middle School, Kipp NE Middle School, and SOAR Elementary School.

The district projects that housing developments planned in the area will bring an additional 500 elementary students by 2027. However, we urge the school board to take a wait-and-see approach. Denver actually needs to close a number of schools with low enrollment and move school attendance boundaries to adjust for pockets of growth, pockets of gentrification, and changing school choice preferences.

Then, once those options have been exhausted, the board can move forward with building the new Gateway school at 51st Avenue and Telluride Street. If every elementary school in northeast Denver were filled to 100% capacity, there would be room for another 830 students. Obviously, that would mean bigger class sizes and students having longer drives to schools with bigger zones. But before we build a new school amid closures, let’s make sure we absolutely need it.

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.

Over the past month, The Denver Post editorial board spent 45 minutes each with 15 of the 17 candidates for Denver mayor.

We agonized with them about the toll of escalating youth violence, the conditions our unhoused neighbors endure, the risk of a failing urban core, and the innumerable ways the city’s next mayor can make things better for a city of 715,000 people anxiously awaiting change.

Every candidate brought passion, unique skills, specific expertise, and an ability to lead.

Mike Johnston stood out even in this field of stars.

Johnston, a 48-year-old father of three who lives in Central Park, is ready to be the mayor of Denver.

With urgency, he will fight for this city, the way he fought at the state Capitol as our representative, the way he fought as a teacher for his students, the way he fought for winning ballot measures to fund universal kindergarten and affordable housing.

His record of independence is unimpeachable. Johnston, like two other candidates, has outside money pouring into an independent expenditure committee — exempt from the city’s campaign contribution limits — but the city will likely not do direct business with these donors in the future (if they do it should be treated as a conflict of interest under the city’s policy).  The donors also are being disclosed by name, unlike one committee, and include Kent Thiry, Michael Fries, Reid Hoffman, Steve Mandel, Laura Arnold, and John Arnold.

Johnston has been a teacher, a principal, and a state lawmaker. For the last several years, he led a charitable trust that made a demonstrable difference in the lives of Coloradans. Johnston’s work resulted in ballot measures that funded universal preschool with a nicotine tax and funded affordable housing projects using a small share of expected TABOR refund dollars.

Most impressive was the COVIDCheck program launched during the pandemic. Many Colorado communities and schools used COVIDCheck for fast turnaround results, which started in July 2020 as a pilot program with Aurora Public Schools. COVIDCheck was able to use money from both Gary and the state to set up rapid testing on a limited basis with some employers throughout the state.

He is an executive who knows how to develop and implement policy.

Johnston’s message of confident optimism will resonate through a city in need of hope and in a time of divisiveness when a moderate approach can unite us, whether the question is density and development or police brutality and escalating crime.

The best example is his approach to the opioid crisis.

Johnston will convert two pods of the Denver County jail into a drug rehabilitation center and a mental health care facility staffing them with 10 trained medical professionals to provide care. He estimates the cost of the staff will be about $1 million a year, and like all of his plans, he has a funding source in mind.

Those caught using drugs in Denver – open drug use has become a common occurrence in the city – will be ticketed and summoned to court. While it’s a misdemeanor to possess drugs, Johnston says a judge can still sentence someone to 180 to 360 days for the offense, especially if it’s their third ticket in a short time or they failed to appear.

“It just requires actually using the policies,” Johnston said, noting 180 days is long enough to offer a robust drug treatment program. “Which I think you could get DAs and judges to do if they had a place to sentence them that was actually healthy.”

The unintended consequence of decriminalizing drug possession is that drug court – the only tool to force people into rehabilitation or require sobriety through regular drug tests – collapsed when DAs and prosecutors stopped seeking charges without a felony charge to pursue.

Society should not brand someone struggling with addiction a felon and put them in jail to suffer withdrawal without care, but we also are dealing with an unprecedented overdose crisis that is killing thousands.

Johnston’s plan threads the needle. He will help those suffering from addiction get the help they need through diversion programs that actually provide drug treatment and don’t leave recovering individuals with a stigmatizing criminal record.

During our interview with Johnston, every plan had this level of specificity.

We didn’t agree with him on everything, but we could see the reason and logic behind his approach, the research and care that went into developing the plan, and, critically, a willingness to adjust and be flexible as needs arise and circumstances change.

His plan to build several tiny home villages – available to those who are chronically homeless and refusing shelter regardless of sobriety, felony conviction, or mental health needs – is a compassionate way to address the encampments that have taken over some public spaces downtown. It’s similar to the plan Marty Zimmerman – candidate for at-large City Council — has to create sanctioned camping zones, and we think the two plans could work well together.

Johnston is going to invest in Denver kids. One part of his plan to curb youth violence is simple: give low-income families in Denver $1,000 for after-school activities. Denver is bursting with opportunities for kids, but only those with the financial means can participate in many of the programs.

Johnston will rebuild the Department of Public Safety.

“It’s sort of a doom loop where right now morale is low, and population is low. So now you have to work three shifts, and it makes morale even lower. And now you are being vilified by the public,” Johnston said. “Part of this is leading a really high-profile cheerleader-in-chief-as-mayor effort to make them want to work in Denver again and to say to officers and first responders that: ‘This city needs you. We are calling you to service.’ There are a lot of folks who are unemployed or underemployed in this city who could be called to that if they thought it was worthwhile, but it does take a real concentrated effort to make this a dignified job again and rebuild that trust again.”

No other candidates talked about community policing and empowering officers to do good work the way Johnston did.

The department is still struggling with the culture that led to excessive force during the Black Lives Matter protest and a lack of training that led to an officer accidentally shooting innocent victims on a bar patio.

However, at the end of the day, Johnston is right that our department will only deteriorate and tragic incidents worsen if we can’t recruit qualified, talented, diverse officers who want to serve for the right reasons.

And as much as we wish there were no need for a robust police presence in this city, the gun violence we are experiencing tells us that we need officers out there every night responding to calls and working to build cases against the leaders of crime.

Johnston blundered in sending out mailers to predominately Black and Latino neighborhoods that said “Black Votes Matter,” and then sending out mailers to other neighborhoods that said “All Votes Matter.” The mailers were in poor taste, given that the phrase “All Lives Matter” directly implies that there is no police brutality problem in this country when we see evidence every day across the nation that there is a dire problem. Johnston has apologized unequivocally for the mailers and said emphatically does not support the intended message behind All Lives Matter.

] Voters who are unsure if Johnston is the right candidate because of his support for police and his mistake should look at his robust equity policies aimed at rectifying the harm caused by more than a century of Jim Crow policies fueled by systemic racism. Equity is one of four key areas Johnston will emphasize in office. He has already seen success outside of the mayor’s office, launching the Dearfield Fund for Black Wealth, which provides $40,000 in down payment assistance for Black families to buy homes. The fund only is repaid when a house is sold or refinanced, and equity is available to pay back the assistance plus 5% of the house’s appreciation. Finally, Johnston has the integrity needed to clean up City Hall. For too long special interests have held more weight at the building than Denver residents.

He talks candidly about the fact that developers and homebuilders expect to make around 18% to 22% profit on projects in Colorado, and he will scrutinize those deals. Johnston also pledged to appraise the value of the easement on the Park Hill golf course if voters reject the proposal in Proposition 2O to lift the easement.

Voters will have many options when their ballots arrive this week. We hope they consider supporting Johnston.

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.

Updated March 16, 2023 at 2:08 p.m. Due to an editor’s error, this story originally described the Dearfield Fund for Black Wealth inaccurately. The down-payment assistance is repaid plus 5% of the home’s appreciation.

Updated May 15, 2023, at 2:08 p.m. Due to an editor’s mistake, this editorial originally contained the wrong date that COVIDCheck began administering tests. The program launched as a pilot in July 2020 with Aurora Public Schools. Also, context was added to accurately reflect the size and nature of the COVIDCheck program.

We urge Denver voters to support Penfield Tate III and Marty Zimmerman for the open Denver City Council at-large seats. Each voter will select two candidates in the at-large race on April 4, and the top two vote-getters will be seated on the council representing the entire city.

Tate and Zimmerman will work well together, pulling in the same direction toward a council that takes an aggressive but pragmatic approach to Denver’s problems while standing up to special interests when they don’t align with the community’s interests. There are many strong candidates in this race, but these two captains stood out as driving forces to accomplish crucial changes while rallying the Council to find its voice and reclaim some power from the mayor’s office.

Denver is adrift in a national storm of rising crime, increasing homelessness, commercial buildings all but abandoned for remote work, and skyrocketing property values displacing long-term residents and ensuring only the wealthiest can call the city home.

Tate and Zimmerman will give the city direction and focus.

Tate has been pushing for police reform his entire life. He spent years as a civil rights attorney, taking a case of police brutality in Aurora all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He co-chaired the committee that founded Denver’s Independent Monitor’s Office. Tate has the depth of knowledge and the resolve to hold the police leaders accountable for inexcusable mistakes and abuses of power.

“I don’t support defund the police, but policing has to be done differently,” Tate said, noting that making it harder for police to do their jobs with a lack of resources and staff will only result in worse outcomes. “When the police department reflects the community it is serving and protecting, the community supports and embraces that protection element and cooperates with it, and the officers are also safer. I would support more money to recruit, but I would advocate recruiting in Denver Public Schools.”

Denver must invest in alternatives to the police, too, putting more money into the co-responder and STAR programs so 24/7 there are mental health professionals and service providers available to respond to calls that are not for criminal activity.

Denver residents are sick of waiting on hold for 911 — in 2021 The Denver Post reported 10% of callers were waiting longer than a minute. In 2022, Fox31 reported only 61% of calls were being answered within the industry standard of 15 seconds. And the police response has also slowed, with the average response to low-priority calls clocking in at 34 minutes and response for emergency calls getting slower too, according to 9News. Our jail is dangerously understaffed.

Tate has the skills to build back up the Denver Department of Public Safety while holding officers and deputies accountable. Tate will spend as much energy on rooting out the causes of the crime increase and investing in the community support programs needed to prevent kids from falling into criminal activity. We see a need for the city to invest substantially in our youth. Teens who commit crimes do so out of desperation and a lack of hope. Tate will prioritize prevention.

As a former state lawmaker who was accomplished at passing legislation, Tate knows how to wield the kind of legislative power the City Council relies on, and we also are excited to see him unleash a budgeting process similar to the state’s Joint Budget Committee, which will bring much-needed transparency to a budgeting process currently cloaked in secrecy.

Meanwhile, Zimmerman will take the lead in directing the city’s policies and practices regarding our growing unhoused population. Zimmerman owns a consulting firm that employs about 25 people working to help nonprofits launch, fundraise, and achieve their mission. He is the man to finally wrangle the voluminous nonprofits in this state into a coordinated and effective operation with government-led efforts to serve the homeless and at-risk population.

Working together, Zimmerman knows this city can develop a continuum of safe, sanitary, and even prosperous living conditions for our unhoused neighbors. First, Zimmerman wants to establish sanctioned camping areas where those who are unwilling to use the overnight shelters must instead set up their camps. This legal zone will have bathrooms, electricity, and security. We think this is a humane way to care for treatment-resistant individuals until they are ready to accept services.

As soon as individuals are ready to seek mental health care, medical care, disability benefits, veterans benefits, work training, and, critically, drug addiction treatment, Zimmerman said these zones will have many options leading to transitional housing like safe outdoor spaces, unused or underused city-owned motels, hotels, and vacant homes.

In October, the city invested $2.3 million with Servicios de La Raza, a nonprofit that fights poverty, to work hand in hand with the mental health clinicians and paramedics responding to calls through the Support Team Assisted Response Program (STAR). Zimmerman imagines investing even more, to bring in more nonprofits and expand STAR.

Zimmerman said affordable housing is his top concern. He supports community land trusts, a model we think is much more productive than throwing good money at developers for crumbs of “affordability” in otherwise luxury projects.

The state and city need to focus their limited resources on building units through the housing authority and maintaining existing affordable units through rehabilitation incentives, and purchasing affordability easements on properties at risk of redevelopment in areas with the highest rates of displacement or that have other lots more appropriate for development that won’t result in a loss of affordable units.

Together we think Zimmerman and Tate will bring ingenuity, accountability, and integrity to Denver City Council. They will listen to residents when there are concerns about development while holding the city’s needs as a whole in the highest regard.

Denver is a great city, and although unprecedented storms have brought rough seas, we are certain with the right people at the helm, Denver will find its course.

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.

2023 DENVER ELECTION

Mayor of Denver: Mike Johnston stood out even in a race with 17 candidates

Referred Measure 2O: We urge a “no” vote on 2O. Send the city back to the negotiating table.

Denver City Council At-Large: Denver City Council needs a clean-up, and these two candidates are right for the job

City of Denver Auditor: Tim O’Brien for Denver auditor will bring tried and true leadership.

City of Denver Clerk and Recorder: Paul López will bring even more transparency Denver clerk and recorder

2023 LITTLETON SPECIAL ELECTION

Question 300: We urge Littleton voters to say “no” on Question 300.

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.

Everyone knows conservation easements have value.

Everyone, it seems, except for the 11 Denver City Council members and Mayor Michael Hancock, who have green-lighted a sweetheart deal to lift the conservation easement on the Park Hill golf course without accounting for the financial value of the easement.

We exclude from this criticism City Councilmembers Candi CdeBaca and Paul Kashmann, who opposed the deal. They were the only watchdogs guarding the farm and, outnumbered, couldn’t prevent a bad deal from getting rubber-stamped.

Fortunately, Denver voters will have the final say on the issue next month when asked whether to lift the conservation easement on 155 acres of land in north Denver on the corner of Colorado Boulevard and East 55th Avenue. A “yes” vote on Referred Measure 2O will lift the easement and allow development on 55 acres of the land owned by Westside Investment Partners and The Holleran Group. The remaining 100 acres will be donated to the city for a regional park.

A private developer is asking to lift a publicly owned conservation easement. This project will set an important precedent for the entire state, and it is crucial that we build a roadmap to serve the public good.

We find it inexcusable that the city never appraised the value of the easement — owned by the taxpayers of Denver.

Absent an official appraisal done by licensed professionals, we used nearby property sales of vacant land zoned for single-family and light industrial uses to come up with our own estimate. Using our method, we estimate the market value to be $3.5 million per acre for land the city has rezoned to mixed-use as part of the development agreement. Westside paid $154,838 per acre in 2019. The difference between the two puts the value of the easement on the 55 acres Westside intends to keep and develop somewhere around $184 million.

Do all of the wonderful things in the community benefits agreement and the city’s development agreement come close enough to compensate for that value?

We were shocked to learn the city also did not account for the value of the donations and concessions in the agreements. Westside did not give an accounting other than a broad range estimate of $250 million. We were told that included the value of the easement being lifted on the 100 acres for a park, but we consider that to be a wash because the city already owns the easement.

Our accounting falls well short of that. Here is what we found:

— Value of 100 acres donated for a park: $15.5 million (what Westside paid in 2018)

— Value of park improvements Westside will pay: $20 million

— Value of land for a grocery store offered rent-free for 10 years: unknown

— Value of Pathways Initiative to help local companies owned by people who are Black, Indigenous, people of color, local, or women that could contract for work on the development: $150,000

— Value of 12,000 square feet of commercial square footage offered below market value for companies owned by BIPOC, women, or local business owners: unknown

— Value of a Property Tax Anti-Displacement Fund that will pay for the increased property taxes of low-income homes in a half-mile radius of the development for a period of 8 years: unknown

— Value of 7.8 acres Westside will donate to Habitat for Humanity, where the nonprofit will finance and build 300 for-sale permanently income-restricted units: $27.3 million.

— Value of the .7 acres to be donated to Brothers Redevelopment, where the non-profit will build 60 units for permanent supportive housing: $2.5 million.

— Value of land being sold or donated to Volunteers of America for the nonprofit to build 60 income-restricted units for seniors: unknown

— Value of 1.4 acres being sold to Brothers Redevelopment below market value for the non-profit to build 200 rental units that will be permanently affordable based on income: unknown.

The city has also demanded several improvements to interchanges impacted by the increase in traffic for the development, but those projects will be paid for by future property taxpayers in the development through a metropolitan district managed by the developer. The estimated value of the metro district is $84 million, and it can pay for other infrastructure needs than those demanded by the city.

The value of all the known and estimated donations and concessions listed above is about $65.5 million.

We are skeptical that the value of all the unknown or unquantifiable concessions brings the total close enough to $184 million just to call it good.

We cannot support a deal that treated a city-owned asset of substantial value so haphazardly. We cannot support a deal where elected officials failed to ask basic questions guarding the interests of taxpayers.

The Park Hill golf course development could become a regional jewel, a beautiful park, and a vibrant retail and business heart of the community. There is a risk of rejecting this plan. The land could sit vacant and languish for years.

But there is still time for the city to put the question on the ballot again in November. We hope our skepticism is proven wrong. There is no need to start over. A simple appraisal and financial accounting will clarify what must be contributed to the public good to make this a deal worth our support.

We urge a “no” vote on 2O. Send the city back to the negotiating table.

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.

Now is not the time to shake up the Denver Auditor’s Office.

The city needs tried and true leadership in this crucial oversight role and Tim O’Brien fits the bill.

He’s served two terms in the office and has sought an expanded role for the auditors working in his office. O’Brien has implemented security audits for the first time that have successfully sleuthed out IT vulnerabilities across the city. And some of the office’s best work has been audits of external city programs that are still funded by Denver taxpayers.

His notable record includes an office that has won several Knighton Awards — given by the Association of Local Government Auditors for the best performance audit reports of the year in the U.S. Most recently the office earned a “distinguished” rating for its audit of the airport parking shuttle system where reviewers noted the audit’s recommendations could “ensure compliance with the shuttle service contract; shuttle services are provided at the best value, and passengers receive quality and timely shuttle service.”

O’Brien’s office has been proven right in its assessment of the city’s half-baked plan to roll out the “pay-as-you-throw” program. O’Brien noted at the time that “given the city’s strained resources, the expansion of recycling and compost service next year will be a significant burden that might not come with the hoped-for environmental benefits.”

And here we are two months into the new program and residents still don’t have compost bins, everyone is unclear about the timeline and nothing has changed except for fees being imposed. While weekly recycling has begun, smaller or larger trash cans have not been delivered to those who have ordered them.

What a shame that Denver City Council and the mayor’s office didn’t read the audit and put the brakes on a program that was destined for a poor debut. The city should have cleaned up its trash department — including addressing a costly, aging fleet and workforce issues — before concerning itself so much with how Denverites choose to run their household waste.

O’Brien needs to use his next term, if voters grant him one, to push even more. The trash audit is a perfect example of where he could have used the platform his office affords to — while, of course, maintaining the neutrality required of auditors — advocate more forcefully for a direction change.

Also, there is a role for the auditor’s office to examine contracts and look for conflicts of interest in how the city awards millions of dollars to bidders. The auditor’s office can look for misappropriation of taxpayer dollars in special districts in the city, especially as The River Mile project begins and private developers look to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars through several metro districts, which are often completely controlled by the developers with little to no external oversight.

O’Brien has done a great job administering his office and pushing for top-notch audits, but Denver taxpayers need those audits to have maximum impact.

O’Brien’s opponent, Erik Clarke, is also a strong candidate. He’s got a background of working on audits for several different companies, including now in a management role. We were particularly inspired by Clarke’s call for construction audits earlier in the process, especially at the Denver airport where the airport authority is now frantically trying to complete the Great Hall project.

Clarke said construction audits early in the process could have prevented the missteps that led to the Great Hall fiasco.

But at the end of the day, we think O’Brien has the track record needed to keep the auditor’s office pushing Denver toward better governance and transparency.

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.

Ironically Denver’s champion of election participation and civic engagement is the only city-wide candidate running unopposed in the 2023 City of Denver election.

Clerk and Recorder Paul López has spearheaded outreach efforts across the city to ensure every eligible voter knows how to participate in the city’s elections, and he has stretched those efforts into immigrant communities to ensure those who aren’t eligible to vote know how they can become participants in America’s governance through means other than voting.

López has also fought hard to implement the Fair Election Fund, which for the first time ever is providing funding to candidates in the city election on April 4 who commit to not accepting money from corporations, dark money groups or other entities other than individuals. When the city wanted to dip into the fund to help finance other priorities during a budget shortfall, López said no. Now the program has the funds it needs to support the dozens of candidates running for city office this year.

We are particularly impressed with López’s commitment to transparency.

The overhaul of the records department was long overdue.

Searchlight Denver – the new program for campaign finance, lobbyist activity, and gift reporting is shedding new light for Denver residents on who is moving and shaking this city with their activism and their dollars. López did an excellent job rolling out the new system which has moved Denver from the dark days of hidden Superbowl trips and backroom dealings with shadow lobbyists into the bright light of transparency.

We hope with this election the system ushers in a new day of transparency for Denver. Voters should spend time on Searchlight before casting their ballots this election, researching candidates and incumbents.

López’s dream is to bring that same transparency to city contracts. The city doles out millions every year via contracts and López says those are in need of additional scrutiny. Getting those documents on Searchlight would be groundbreaking. We wish the clerk luck in his endeavor.

“I do see a lot of undo influence in the city,” López said, noting he signs every contract the city issues.

The other critical part of López’s work is administering the foreclosure process. As we saw with the HOA foreclosures in Green Valley Ranch, Denverites more than ever need to know their rights when it comes to facing off against overly aggressive lien holders whose intent is not to protect the neighborhood but something else entirely.

López said there is work he would still like to do in terms of making certain Denverites know their rights, understand the process, and have equal access to foreclosure proceedings.

We could not agree more. Homeowners need to know their options if they find themselves unable to pay taxes, HOA fees or their monthly mortgage. Infinitely better options exist, including a short sale, than going through the foreclosure process. We envision a system where potential bidders can see all the debts tied to a property owner in one place, making bidding less scary for non-institutional investors.

And then, if the worst-case scenario does arrive, we want as many potential buyers bidding on the foreclosed property as possible, because any amount over and above the notes owed goes to the former homeowner to help them get back on their feet.

America may be headed for a recession and this will prove more essential than ever if there is a contraction of our economy and people suffer job losses. Some houses in Denver are already upside down on their mortgages, having purchased a home at the absolute peak.

All of this is to say we think López has a great vision for this state and has already done a good job administering a crucial department in the city.

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 psilocybin mushroom ballot question — Proposition 122 — goes too far, too fast for Colorado. We urge voters to say “no.”

We are inspired by reports — both anecdotal and in peer-reviewed medical studies — that psychedelic drugs — like psilocybin, LSD, and MDMA — can help treat debilitating post-traumatic stress disorders, treatment-resistant depression, severe anxiety, and other mental illness. In 2018, the Food and Drug Administration labeled psilocybin a “breakthrough therapy,” but it still may take years to get the stamp of approval from federal agencies.

It is quite tempting to support the proposal to set up licensed treatment centers where those suffering from mental health disorders could seek treatment with psilocybin on the premises of the center from a licensed person. Such a system could also provide a legal environment for more medical studies and research.

But Proposition 122 goes much further than legalizing regulated treatment facilities.

The measure also decriminalizes the possession, cultivation, and gifting of psilocybin across the state.

Legalizing home grows in Colorado could have unintended consequences, and while it is not a perfect analogy, we saw many problems with the rollout of marijuana home grows after Amendment 64 was approved by voters legalizing recreational marijuana.

The most marked problem was the proliferation of a black market for marijuana built upon networks of houses serving as home grows for mass production and sale outside of the legal recreational marijuana market. Police and prosecutors were at first reluctant to shut down these grows because a loophole in the law allowed collective marijuana grows for patients, but eventually, lawmakers narrowed that loophole, and law enforcement stepped in.

To our knowledge, there is no such loophole in Proposition 122 — meaning large-scale grows could be shut down by police immediately, and sales would always be illegal.

However, we are not naïve, and while the intent of legalizing possession and cultivation is for medical treatment, we fear a robust market for recreational use would thrive. Increased legal tolerance will increase demand which will increase the temptation for profiteering.

And if there is one thing we know about drug use, it’s that our teens and young adults will be most tempted to use it and they will be targeted by sellers. Psilocybin is not addictive, but it is known to rarely cause psychosis (a break with reality that is usually temporary but sometimes permanent) and hallucinogen persisting perception disorder, where people re-experience hallucinations they had while taking the drug even while not intoxicated. The effect of the disorder can range from lasting only a short time and having little negative impact on the user to lasting for prolonged periods of time and being debilitating. We wish there were more data about both disorders in teens.

Of course, the most compelling argument against our fear is that Denver effectively decriminalized possession and cultivation of psilocybin in 2019, declaring the drug the “lowest law-enforcement priority.”

A report issued a year ago by the Denver Psilocybin Mushroom Policy Review Panel found that over two years, there were 47 cases related to psilocybin in Denver, according to the district attorney, and only a handful of those cases involved instances where people possessed more than for personal use (i.e. an intent to distribute case).

Oregon’s 2020 measure legalizing medical psilocybin treatment centers will take full effect next year, and we simply think it is wise for Colorado to take a back seat on this issue until we see how those centers report their treatment outcomes. But Oregon’s measure did not legalize home grows, so we will have to wait even longer before we see what effects statewide legalization could have.

And in Oregon, cities, and counties were empowered to opt out or delay the opening of treatment centers in their communities. In just a few days, 57 cities and 26 of the state’s 36 counties will vote on whether to impose local bans. Colorado cities and counties would have no such right under Proposition 122.

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.

We beg voters in western and southern Colorado not to give Rep. Lauren Boebert their vote.

Boebert has not represented the 3rd Congressional District well. Almost exclusively, she has spent her time and efforts contributing to the toxic political environment in this nation.

The good people in this district are not angry and abrasive; they are not hateful and caustic; they do not boast of their own prowess or sling insults as entertainment. The ranchers we know working the Uncompaghre Plateau, the teachers in Durango, the steel mill workers in Pueblo, and the farmers setting down roots in the San Luis Valley keep to themselves, watch their families grow, and pray for better days.

Boebert’s unproductive approach, combined with the efforts of others, has helped erode Congress’ ability to honestly debate public policy that could help people in her district.

Adam Frisch would be a better representative for the people of the 3rd Congressional District. Yes, he is a Democrat from the affluent enclave of Aspen, a ski town that most voters consider a playground for rich out-of-towners. But Frisch, who served on Aspen City Council and whose wife is on the school board, has no desire to impose liberal policies on the people of his district.

He has a pro-oil and gas development position that promotes responsible exploration of oil and gas on public lands while requiring that companies clean up their mess when they leave.

And the oil and gas industry will leave. Mesa County has weathered the boom, bust cycle of the oil and gas industry too many times for its residents not to be wary of promises that drilling and fracking will build a steady economy.

Frisch, a business owner who worked for a time in finance both on Wall Street and internationally, can support oil and gas development in the district while also helping the Western Slope develop a less volatile industry base for companies like Leitner-Poma of America in Grand Junction, Osprey in Cortez, or the many backcountry hunting and fishing guides in Craig.

Boebert, in contrast, is unable or perhaps unwilling to articulate any policy nuance on the extraction of oil and gas owned by taxpayers from our public lands. She has opposed every effort to protect public lands in the district and failed to disclose in a timely manner that her husband made almost $1 million as a consultant for the largest drilling company in the 3rd Congressional District’s Piceance Basin.

Rather than talk about these issues, Boebert slings mud.

Her performance at the Club 20 debate against Frisch was odd, to say the least, and she spent a good chunk of her speaking time talking about Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and criticizing the moderator.

In her primary, Boebert called a man born and raised in Montrose County a groomer – a term for a person who sexually abuses children. The remark, directed at Don Coram, a conservative Republican and rancher whose son happens to be gay, is just one example of Boebert’s casual yet crass cruelty, which she puts on display on a daily basis while in Washington, D.C.

Does she feel no remorse for this behavior? She told a joke, more than once, implying that a Muslim member of Congress was a terrorist bomber. She uses the derogatory term “jihad squad” to reference other members of Congress.

This is not what Western Colorado or Southern Colorado stands for.

Frisch’s campaign has taken the high road and not disseminated any of the many unsubstantiated rumors about Boebert that have circulated the community. Nor have we given such rumors credence in editorials.

Boebert took no such high road. Her campaign ran an ad and sent tweets accusing Frisch of giving in to blackmail and having an affair.

Frisch said these accusations are false, and he hopes voters trust him with their vote.

The closest Frisch has gotten to slinging mud in the campaign is accusing Boebert of having ties to a far-right militia group known as the “three percenters.”

Boebert has made no secret of the fact that she embraces the group’s support of her campaign, taking smiling photos with members clad in tactical gear, tweeting encouragement for events and rallies tied to members of the group. She tweeted out “I am the militia,” on June 14, 2020.

The group draws its names from the fable that only 3% of the population of the original colonies fought in the Revolutionary War and the misguided belief that this country is headed for another fight for liberation for which they must prepare to fight – often amassing weapons caches and making bombs.

Members of the group have been implicated in several violent plots – a planned bombing of a mosque in Minnesota, an FBI-foiled bombing attempt of a bank in Oklahoma, and the kidnapping plot of Michigan’s governor. And, of course, the Jan. 6, 2020, attempt to storm the U.S. Capitol and prevent Congress from seating the duly elected next president of the United States.

On Jan. 6, Boebert tweeted out: “Today is 1776.” Was it a reference to the signing of the Declaration of Independence on July 4 of that year and the hope for a peaceful transfer of power under the laws and requirements of the Constitution written in 1787, or was it a reference to the bloodshed of the Revolutionary War and hope that an attack on the Capitol could bring in a new form of government for this nation? We don’t like that we have serious doubts it was the former.

It is not too much to ask that Boebert distance herself from this group instead of making their calls for violence, including against the U.S. government, mainstream.  She has refused to address the issue.

We grieve that this is who represents our great state in Congress – a state known for our moderate positions and our policy-first approach to politics.

Rejecting all Boebert has come to represent – angry rants without offering real solutions — is important for the 3rd Congressional District, Colorado and this great nation. Frisch is a solid candidate who will stand in for the district in an honorable way.

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 Denver Post editorial board – fiscally conservative and concerned about inflation, skyrocketing property taxes, and the deleterious effect of reducing this state’s general fund revenue before a pending recession — urges voters to reject three tax proposals on the ballot next month: Proposition FF, Proposition 121 and Proposition 123.

Proposition FF

Many Colorado teachers reported seeing an improvement in student performance and a decrease in hunger when the state and the federal government stepped up to provide free lunches to every student during the most acute phases of the COVID pandemic.

This weighs heavy on us as we urge voters to reject this proposition which would raise taxes on those making more than $300,000 in taxable income to generate $100 million a year for free school lunches for every public school student in the state regardless of socioeconomic status.

Why would we oppose a measure we know will help reduce child hunger in this state? Colorado lawmakers attempted to fund free universal school lunch during the 2022 General Assembly and when that measure failed — in large part because of the large fiscal note — lawmakers instead sent Proposition FF to voters to see if they would approve a dedicated revenue stream specifically for lunches.

The mechanism for the new tax is flawed.

Colorado’s income tax is based on federal adjusted gross income. Once you calculate the AGI for federal taxes, that number is carried over to state tax forms. Colorado taxes are calculated based on AGI minus state-specific deductions and tax credits and adding back in any non-allowable federal deductions.

The bill would limit the total income deductions — whether the federal or state (not including tax credits) — for anyone with an AGI of more than $300,000 to $16,000. Because the typical federal standard deduction is almost $26,000, this is a significant bump in taxes, even for those who do not itemize for big tax breaks.

And this is not a tax on only the most wealthy Coloradans but also will hit many upper-middle-class households working two full-time jobs, and we think increasing taxes, even on these well-off households during high-inflation and a looming recession, is a bad decision for this state.

Proposition 121

While we are opposing two proposed tax increases (of sorts) on the November ballot, we are also vehemently opposed to lowering the state income tax rate across the board.

This foolish proposal would cut state revenues by $412.6 million. A loss of almost half a billion dollars would be felt by schools, state universities, and community colleges, state patrol and the bureau of investigators, prisons, juvenile detention facilities, the Department of Transportation, and even our child welfare system.

Make no mistake; Colorado’s state government is already lean and mean. There may be some administrative bloat, but the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights has ensured that our state-wide tax rate has remained low and that any state growth in tax base cannot be out of line with the actual growth of the state. Additionally, the revenue growth is capped by a formula that is based on inflation and population growth. This means that Colorado’s state budget has not seen the exponential growth of other states.

For example, this year, Colorado taxpayers each received $750 ($1,500 for married filing jointly) in TABOR refunds, which equated to a $3.5 billion reduction in our budget. That money could have been spent on our schools, our roads, state law enforcement, or, yes, free school lunches and affordable housing programs.

There is no need for Colorado voters to reduce the income tax rate because TABOR does it automatically for them.

Furthermore, the “no” on Proposition 121 campaign has hit the nail on the head with advertisements showing pretend millionaires gloating about how much money they will save with this permanent reduction from 4.55% to 4.4%, while Coloradans with median income levels or lower, will likely receive less than $100.

There is no upside – other than relatively small tax savings — for the vast majority of Coloradans to further cut state revenue and state services at a time when we need our government to be providing essential services.

Proposition 123

This proposal would take a small percentage of TABOR refunds beginning in the budget year 2022-23 and dedicate that money to six programs aimed at increasing the amount of affordable housing in this state.

It’s estimated the program would reduce TABOR refunds by $290 million in the budget year 2023-24, and send that money to the state Office of Economic Development and International Trade and the Colorado Department of Local Affairs to be distributed among the new programs.

The money would go to a variety of efforts to slow the affordable housing crisis this state is currently experiencing, and most of the for-sale units would be permanently reserved (under an easement) for families making about 100% or less of an area’s median income. In Denver, for a family of four, the income threshold to qualify for a house would be $70,320. Rental units constructed with the help of these state dollars would be limited to a monthly rental price of 30% of household income.

We heard from Grand Junction Mayor Anna Stout about what a difference this would make in her community, a city that has struggled to find the resources to invest in affordable housing even as the market has skyrocketed, leaving many in the community unable to buy and struggling to rent.

Just like school lunches, we want to support this program, but the state has a finite tax base and has struggled to convince voters in the past to invest in even the most core services.

We fear these external measures will siphon off the tax base and make voters unwilling to approve measures – whether it’s a tax increase or a reduction in TABOR refunds – in the future that will boost our general fund and float all essential services in this state.

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.

Updated Oct. 29, 2022 at 9:02 a.m. Due to the editorial writer’s error, the endorsement had the percent wrong for the calculation of affordable units for sale. Under the measure it would be 100% of area median income.