Vote “No” on Denver’s bonds to reject irresponsible debt
After reading my ballot, I researched previous bonds that were passed by voters. The Rise Denver bond in 2021 was $260 million, and the Elevate Denver Bond in 2017 was $937 million. I added up the 2A to 2E bonds this year, and the total is up to $950 million. The total for all of these bonds adds up to more than $2 billion.
The debt repayment for the current bonds is about $1.9 billion. The ballot states, “without imposing any new tax,” but that is not completely correct. The reason is that all these bonds are paid through commercial and residential property taxes in Denver County. The mill levy could go down if voters say no, and if voters say yes it also could have to increase to pay for these billions of dollars if property values decrease. Denver County is where I live, and expenses have gone significantly higher this year. Why do we keep adding to the bond debts? We should not vote to increase the county’s debt.
Pete Hackett, Denver
Denver clerk errs in leaving out information on ballot issues
Did I hear that correctly?
Denver’s “Ballot Issue Notice” does not provide any information about three matters: 2F, 2G and 310. I called Denver’s Clerk and Elections Office to ask why the omissions. I was told two things: 1) Those three ballot issues have no fiscal impact on government, so applicable law does not require their inclusion in the notice. 2) Due to “budget cuts,” it was decided not to address them in the notice. Then, I was informed that I could garner information about them at denvervotes.org.
Denver voters expect the notice each year to address all matters on the ballot. The current notice does not highlight that 2F, 2G and 310 are not included and does not highlight denvervotes.org as a source of information about them.
I have no way of learning how much money was “saved” by excluding these ballot matters. What I do know is that it would have been money well spent.
Vic Reichman, Denver
Trump’s cuts to education funding risk America’s future
Re: “Federal government’s cuts cost state colleges millions,” Oct. 9 news story
As an educator, I was saddened to read: “Trump administration cuts grants to Colorado colleges serving high percentage of diverse students,” October 9.
Every American, regardless of race, gender or religious persuasion, should have the opportunity to realize their natural potential via education. Yet, there are wide swaths of America that are not properly educating students and where students are just unable to succeed for economic or other reasons. As a result, America is not producing sufficient STEM graduates to sustain, let alone grow, America’s high level of technology upon which we all heavily depend for our economy, well-being and national defense.
On top of that, President Donald Trump has made it significantly more challenging for foreign students (who would often pursue STEM careers) to enter American schools.
Given the fact that the president is seeking to reindustrialize America, I would like to ask him from where will the required scientists, engineers, technicians, doctors and other highly educated specialists come? America is now in crisis as we seek to pay down our $37 trillion debt and stay competitive internationally. One way to do this would be to encourage and help all groups of Americans — particularly those who are underrepresented in STEM (as an untapped talent pool) — to pursue STEM careers. Persecuting and defunding schools that seek to help underrepresented students succeed and contribute to America’s recovery is absolutely the wrong thing to do.
Education is the only hope for the next generation of Americans to move forward.
Michael Pravica, Henderson, Nevada
If the U.S. doesn’t support Ukraine, we are complicit in its destruction
Recent news articles galvanized my thought that America is sleepwalking while Ukraine is fighting for survival against Russia’s genocidal invasion. We need to take a moment to answer the question: Are we really supporting Ukraine to win? It is in America’s interest that Ukraine is successful. Our future prosperity, and that of our children, depends on what we do right now.
Either the United States supports Ukraine to win, or we will be complicit in its destruction. Such complicity will damage national security by strengthening enemies, driving away allies, harming international trade, increasing nuclear proliferation, encouraging new wars of territorial conquest, and ending America’s role as leader of the free world. There will be less stability and fewer allies within the West, investments abroad will be less safe, and the entire West will be less prosperous. Therefore, what all of us should strive for in Ukraine is not peace at any price, because that will be bad for all countries, but a future that makes Ukraine, America, and the West stronger by making its enemies weaker.
Take a moment to consider our future and then do what you feel is best: take up a keyboard and send a note, pick up a pen and write your political leadership, sit down with friends or family and discuss this letter, or pull out your checkbook, but just do something now. History will judge what we do today; which side will you be on?
Arthur Ives, Highlands Ranch
Don’t just give away national forest lands
Should our beloved but flat-broke White River National Forest sell an asset worth more than half its annual budget or just give that asset away?
Retired White River National Forest Supervisor Scott Fitzwilliams’ 2021 plan to effectively donate 832 acres surrounding Sweetwater Lake to Colorado Parks and Wildlife for the creation of a state park might have made sense prior to DOGE’s cuts to the forest service’s budget. It also might have made sense before the $23,860,000 Derby Fire burned 5,453 acres in the national forest just one mile east of the lake.
However, the White River National Forest is now so destitute that even before the federal shutdown visitor centers were closed, volunteers emptied latrines, and its maintenance budget for 2,800 miles of roads was bupkis, zero, zilch, nada. The nation’s most visited national forest is not in any position to make donations.
Gov. Jared Polis desires Sweetwater Lake for a state park, so a logical solution is for the national forest to sell those 832 acres at fair market value. The Colorado’s Parks and Wildlife is an “enterprise agency” and fiscally sound despite Colorado’s budget woes. Furthermore, the Trump administration has shown a willingness to divest federal lands, thereby creating a win-win.
Selling the Sweetwater Lake land requested by the CPW should generate more than $13 million for the White River National Forest to fund operations or cover expenditures incurred fighting the Derby Fire. It would be a dereliction of duty for current national forest Supervisor Brian Glaspell to execute this eight-figure donation as proposed by his predecessor.
Ken Wright, Gypsum
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.