Developer’s fees cut into profits; don’t dictate prices
Re: “Fees add $68K to home’s cost, study finds,” Sept. 15 news story
This is regarding Monday’s very detailed and informative article on fees charged by cities on new housing development.
There is almost no relationship between fees paid by housing developers and the prices they charge. Simply put, developers charge what the market will bear. So higher fees just reduce their profits. That’s why developers are always pushing for lower fees — they will make more money, plain and simple.
Cities should charge new development for the full costs of preventing increased impacts to existing residents. That includes tap fees adequate to maintain an adequate long term water supply in the face of global warming and the resulting inevitable cuts in supply, especially trans-mountain diversions from the Colorado River, in the face of new developments’ increased demands.
It also includes charging development impact fees adequate to pay for the investments needed to prevent increased traffic congestion and worsening air pollution, and maintaining per capital levels of service for parks, rec centers, libraries, schools, permanently affordable housing units, etc.
Making “growth pay its own way” converts developers’ excess profits into investments that maintain quality of life for existing residents. That should be the job of government, not increasing developers’ returns at the expense of people already here.
Steve Pomerance, Boulder
Proud patriot says “authoritarianism stinks”
Re: “Trump threatens Chicago with force; Pritzker calls him ‘wannabe dictator’,” Sept. 7 news story
“I love the smell of deportations in the morning” — President Donald Trump posted on his social media Sept. 6.
I am a Vietnam veteran; Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart, air medals, and a veteran of dozens of napalm missions; witnessing the powerfully indiscriminate damage resulting from these missions. I love the smell of democracy 24 hours a day. The smell of authoritarianism stinks.
David L Stevenson, Denver
Even Chat GPT knows mass deportations will hurt Americans
I asked Chat GPT on Monday what the “long term economic and social impact of deporting law-abiding undocumented immigrants” would be on America. I wanted to share the response, which is sourced from the American Immigration Council, Penn Wharton Budget Model, ITEP ( Tax Contributions of Undocumented Immigrants,2022), the Brookings Institute (Labor Market Research) and Arizona State University Research on Family and Child Impacts.
“Findings consistently show significant negative economic, fiscal,and social consequences.
1. Economic Growth: Estimates suggest mass deportations would shrink GDP by 4 -7 percent or 1.1 to 1.7 trillion dollars annually.
2. Labor Markets: Immediate labor shortages in agriculture, construction, hospitality, food processing and care sectors.
3. Fiscal Costs: Undocumented Immigrants contribute $96.7 billion in Taxes (2022). Deportations reduce revenue while enforcement costs rise sharply.
4. Social Insurance: Loss of payroll tax contributors would worsen long-run Social Security and Medicare solvency.
5. Family and Children: Deportations separate families, increase child poverty and reduce long term human capital and earnings.
6. Community Impact: Local economies suffer from reduced consumer demand, lower property values and weakened civil participation.
7. Administrative Costs: Enforcement, detention,and transportation expenses are very high; diplomatic and humanitarian challenges follow.
8. Demographics: Reduced labor force growth and accelerated aging, undermining long-term US economic dynamism.
Summary: Deporting law-abiding undocumented immigrants is not a low-cost policy option. It would reduce GDP, increase consumer prices, shrink tax base, weaken social insurance, destabilize families and communities, and impose heavy enforcement costs. Evidence indicates that large scale removals would create broad ,lasting harm to the U.S. economy and society.”
Brent Lambi, Central City
Kilmeade’s remarks are unacceptable
Re: “Kilmeade apologizes for saying mentally ill homeless people should be executed,” Sept. 15 news story
Reading that Fox News host Brian Kilmeade, while talking about the stabbing death of Iryna Zarutska, said on air that mentally ill homeless Americans should be killed by lethal injection brought back chilling memories of the Nazi’s T-4 euthanasia program that killed thousands of handicapped and “mentally defective” persons in the 1930s and 1940s. Kilmeade should be fired despite the fact that he apologized.
Flint Whitlock, Denver
Attack on Qatar jeopardizes U.S. diplomacy
Re: “Qatar denounces Israel before major summit for attack in Doha,” Sept. 15 news story
The Israeli attack on Qatar has made me wonder about U.S. policy in the Middle East. Both are military and political allies of this country, and the U.S. has encouraged Qatar in its mediation attempt to bring a ceasefire in Gaza. President Trump has made peacemaking in Gaza a priority of his administration, and had just sent a new proposal for Hamas to consider the day before the Israeli attack. In fact, the Israelis assumed the Hamas leaders would be assembling at that time to consider the American proposal. Israel did not warn the U.S. ahead of time, but only told them after they had already launched the attack. The White House criticized the action; in response, Netanyahu said that he would attack Hamas wherever and whenever he could.
Israel, a small nation dependent on our country for military support, is thumbing its nose at us, the most powerful country in the world. Their attack on Qatar has not only damaged us in the minds of Arab leaders and their people throughout the Middle East, but has undermined the credibility of our foreign policy in general.
Marshall S. Clough, Greeley
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.