It is with the humility that comes with having been mistaken that I view the controversy surrounding Rep. Gabe Evans’ claims about his Mexican-born grandfather. On the campaign trail last year for Colorado’s 8th Congressional District, Evans described his abuelito, Cuauhtemoc Chavez, as a man who “did it the right way” when he immigrated to America.

The truth is more complex, an investigation by Colorado Newsline revealed. Chavez came to the U.S. illegally as a young child. He was arrested as a teen and subject to deportation proceedings. At some point in his youth he was arrested but not convicted of attempted burglary. He later served in World War II and became a naturalized U.S. citizen. The article suggests that Chavez was granted citizenship, not because of his service to the nation as Evans has stated, but because a 1944 law made it so candidates for naturalization no longer had to show proof of lawful entry.

Did Evans’ grandfather become a citizen “the right way?” The answer is not black and white. He came here illegally but was ultimately naturalized through a legal process that is no longer available to immigrants who first arrive illegally.

As for my family, my dad’s kin emigrated from Germany and the Russian Empire decades after the Civil War. My mom’s family immigrated to Pennsylvania, one of the first states to abolish slavery, and Maryland from England and Central Europe beginning in the 17th century. My mom’s great-great-grandfather, Joseph Lopez, born Joseph Getward, deserted from the Royal Navy to come to the U.S. He later joined the New York Volunteer Infantry, was captured, and ended up at Andersonville, the notorious Confederate prisoner-of-war camp. Adding all this up, odds seemed good that my family lacked a connection to the horrors of human bondage.

That was until last weekend, when I learned that Joseph Lopez’s daughter-in-law (my great-great-grandmother) had a great-great-grandfather who owned slaves and with one of them fathered a son, her great-grandfather, my great-great-great-great-great-grandfather. Guarding against the deeply racist attitudes of the day, my relatives of mixed ethnic heritage started a family rumor that their darker skin tone must have come from a Native American ancestor.

Turns out my assumptions about my family were incorrect. The truth is far more complex; my family tree includes at least one slaveholder and at least one slave. If I weigh in on a political issue like racial reparations and choose to invoke my family history, I cannot simply say “my whole family did it right.” In fact, if I searched further, I would find other slave owners and slaves even on my dad’s side. Pre-Christian Germanic tribes practiced slavery, too. It was an abhorrent practice throughout human history. No one’s family is a paragon of virtue.

It’s with that perspective that I can offer Evans grace for his mistake. Colorado Newsline produces some excellent investigative journalism, but as a far-left news organization, don’t expect any grace for Republicans from them. Rightwing media reacted the same way, accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of insincerity when she overstated her Native American heritage. How do we know she wasn’t relying on family lore? I have never met Evans, but it seems more likely he didn’t know the nuances of his grandfather’s case than that he deliberately misspoke. Knowing how I was wrong about my own family history, I’m going to give them both the benefit of the doubt.

The fact that Evans has been more circumspect in recent interviews suggests that once he knew the truth, he course-corrected. Give him credit for cosponsoring H.R. 4393, which would enable people working in the U.S. illegally to receive legal status and continue to work here, if they meet certain conditions. It would also speed up the asylum process and allow immigrants brought here illegally as young children and those with Temporary Protected Status (TPS) to obtain legal status. It is the kind of practical, humanitarian, compromise immigration reform we need. Similar legislation was blocked in 2024 by then-candidate Donald Trump, who wanted to keep the contentious issue bleeding throughout the election year. There is no reason it should not pass now.

But Evans should go a step further. He should use his unique family background to champion humane treatment of illegal immigrants, even though it risks the ire of the president and the far right. Every person, citizen or immigrant, here legally or not, deserves due process. Too few Republicans are willing to champion this constitutional guarantee. If Evans can lead on this issue, maybe others will follow.

Krista Kafer is a Sunday columnist for The Denver Post.

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.

So I’m not without sympathy for the Palmer Lake Board of Trustees as it faces intense and often vitriolic public opposition to a proposal to annex land two miles outside the town boundary to make way for a Buc-ee’s gas station with 120 pumps, and 780 parking spaces.

But Buc-ee’s is not the magic bullet of tax revenue some in Palmer Lake, a town of just 2,600, hope. Rather than save the town, the massive travel center instead is likely to end up killing precisely what makes Palmer Lake and the surrounding Tri-Lakes region a unique Colorado treasure.

Even if you’re not a local, you probably are familiar with the vast Greenland Ranch open space that stretches from the mountains to the plains on either side of I-25 between Larkspur and the summit of Monument Hill. Greenland Ranch’s 40,000 acres is the only protected open space along I-25 between Fort Collins and Colorado Springs and is a crown jewel – a living and thriving reminder of the Front Range before the sprawl of urban development.

Buc-ee’s wants to build its massive travel mecca directly across a two-lane road from this ecological linchpin, adding thousands of cars every day, flushing millions of gallons of water down its famously clean toilets and casting an unnatural glow from its parking lot lights into a critical big-game migration corridor.

Over the past three decades, Coloradans have invested more than $100 million to preserve and protect the Greenland Ranch open space. It was a cause celebre for two governors – Roy Romer and Bill Owens – and Liberty Media founder John Malone played a crucial financial role in protecting the ranch from development. It is something the state rightly should be proud of and fierce to protect.

Nowhere should that be more true than in Palmer Lake because the open space commitment all Coloradans have made over the years insulates and protects the bucolic appeal of the town. I grew up in the Pikes Peak region and while my law firm has clients that oppose Buc-ee’s, my opposition is as a lifelong resident who has watched as the wild places that are the birthright of Colorado children are lost forever to inappropriate development.

What makes Buc-ee’s inappropriate is this location. Buc-ee’s is, by all accounts, a great place for weary travelers to grab a bite and take a break from the road. I oppose depriving landowners of their land without compensation (and, in fact, the owners have at least one backup offer to purchase and protect the property). All of us should reject a proposal that negatively impacts a resource the public paid – and pays – to protect while a private out-of-state corporation makes big bucks.

As a former local official, I know that strategic development builds the economic foundation of towns to provide vital community services. But development needs to make sense and fit the character of the town. In Johnstown, Colorado’s only other Buc-ee’s location, local officials have seen other businesses locate next to Buc-ee’s to offer complementary services and products. Those kinds of synergies are a lot less likely at the proposed El Paso County location. Why? Because the pine-studded property is bordered by a rural church, I-25 and the Greenland Ranch.

Palmer Lake’s land grab would let the town capture whatever ostensible revenue Buc-ee’s generates while dumping all of the inevitable downsides – traffic, noise, pollution and light – on citizens in unincorporated El Paso County who have no voice whatsoever in Palmer Lake elections.

In addition to not being very neighborly, annexation to make way for a Buc-ee’s is bound to change the entire region. Once up and running, Buc-ee’s would serve roughly four times as many travelers every day as Palmer Lake has residents, which would require hiring new police and fire personnel and new equipment while jamming thousands of cars onto country roads.

The Tri-Lakes region of which Palmer Lake is a part is a unique slice of Colorado as it once was. There are too few places like it left. Palmer Lake trustees may believe they are saving their town by welcoming Buc-ee’s, but if doing so requires sacrificing the elements that make Palmer Lake and the Tri-Lakes special, what, in the end, are they really saving?

John Suthers is the former mayor of Colorado Springs, former Colorado Attorney General and served as the United States Attorney for the District of Colorado. He is a shareholder at Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck.

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: “Highway Trust Fund: GOP’s big tax bill is a win for subcontractors and infrastructure,” July 24 commentary

While I acknowledge Rusty Plowman’s appreciation of the infrastructure and small business impact of Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,”  I also observe that it didn’t have to be a single bill. The benefits he outlines are great. In my mind we will have to wait and see, but the much-publicized looming malevolence in the OBBB could more than outweigh its good aspects. It all makes me suspicious that the singularity of the legislation was a sleight of hand to help pass a clunker distasteful to the non-MAGA majority of us.

Jim Granath, Highlands Ranch

As a professional engineer who has worked in transportation for nearly 70 years, I appreciate Plowman’s comment supporting the Highway Trust Fund sections in the OBBB that was forced through Congress and signed into law. Many of his comments reflect the failure of the prior Congress to act.

However, the OBBB contains elements that pertain to the budget, enabling it to pass by majority vote, avoiding the Senate filibuster rule. It would not have passed as stand-alone measures. Congress needs to find a backbone and demand separate bills where they can do the difficult work they are elected to do.

Congress is not a parliamentary body run by political parties. Congress is supposed to represent us. George Washington warned about one man. Congress has given up its powers and refused to make hard decisions as representatives of the people, not some ideologue or “party.” The Supreme Court is abusing the emergency docket by making rulings without hearings or the signatures of the justices.

Leonard B. West, Centennial

Home on the Range is a hit

Re: “Denver Restaurant Classics,” June 29 Home on the Range special section

Thank you, John Wenzel, for your fine article on Denver restaurants. We have dined at many of them, and were inspired to try some others by your writing.

Please tell the editor and others who worked on the special Home on the Range section that it is a big hit!

Lynn Cleveland, Centennial

Rockies need to stop overvaluing players

As a sports city, Denver is notorious for overvaluing talent. Recent examples: Nolan Arenado, Kris Bryant, and Russell Wilson. How many deals were not made at the Rockies trade deadline last year because management thought the player’s value was worth more than the offering from the interested team? How many of those non-traded players came through for us this year? With pretty much the same Rockies front office in place this year, how many trade offers will the Rockies turn down? Considering their current record, I hope they have learned their lesson.

Curt Anderson, Broomfield

Trump’s latest stand — team nicknames

Re: “Trump demands Washington, Cleveland use former names,” July 21 sports story

Doesn’t Donald Trump have better things to do with his time than threaten the Washington and Cleveland baseball teams about their nicknames?

William Vigor, Highlands Ranch

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 White House has proposed a massive 25% cut to the NASA budget, a move congressional appropriators have rejected in their recent funding proposals, but which still has the potential to dampen the U.S. economy and workforce, undermine national security, health and safety, and curtail American ambitions to shape the final frontier.

In Colorado, America’s second-largest aerospace economy, we know that losing global leadership in space is a gamble the United States cannot afford to take. As federal budget negotiations continue, I’m asking the public to contact their Congressional representatives and remind them of everything America stands to gain through robust investment in NASA.

NASA remains popular among Americans of all stripes. It served as a source of unity and pride as we won the first Space Race, enabled a massive aerospace-based economy that employs 2.2 million people across the nation, and undergirds much of our national defense and everyday well-being.

The administration’s proposal would cut NASA from about $24.9 billion to $18.8 billion — the agency’s lowest funding level in 60 years, when adjusted for inflation, and the largest single-year cut in its history. Despite proposed increases for human spaceflight to the moon and Mars, the proposal includes a 47% cut to the Science Mission Directorate, which oversees the agency’s scientific research. This research underpins the spectacular missions that inspire and delight us all.

At the University of Colorado Boulder, Purdue, Georgia Tech and many other universities across the nation that lead in aerospace and related fields, NASA research grants provide a dual benefit; they advance America’s space science and innovation, and they develop the skilled workforce ready to address the nation’s needs.

At CU Boulder’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, the world’s only academic research institute to send instruments to all eight planets and Pluto, NASA funding helps employ more than 250 undergraduate students and nearly 100 graduate students annually, integrating them into mission teams and training them to operate multimillion-dollar satellites. These students become the engineers and scientists who will drive continued American dominance in space for the next 40 years.

NASA-supported, hands-on training ensures graduates are well-prepared for jobs at BAE, Lockheed Martin, Blue Origin, Sierra Nevada, the U.S. military, scientific labs, and the impactful startup companies of tomorrow. They are the backbone of American greatness.

America will continue to have the world’s greatest rockets and space stations only if we continue to have the human resources provided by an adequately funded NASA.

You don’t have to be an aspiring astronaut or scientist to reap the benefits of publicly funded space research.
Research and development on space domain awareness, hypersonic systems, radio frequency communications are critical to safeguarding the public from threats foreign and domestic, natural and man-made. Prior wars were won based on dominance on land and by air; future conflicts may be decided by the countries that control space.

Researchers here have successfully used NASA funding to develop, build and operate weather satellites to improve forecasts. They are using it to observe space weather that can cripple our power grids, threaten GPS service, and ruin Midwest planting seasons. CU Boulder’s BioServe Space Technologies conducts biological research in space that aids in development of anti-cancer drugs and osteoporosis treatments.

Furthermore, the proposed budget cut would force the termination of missions far along in development or already operating, throwing away billions in taxpayer investments on projects that are on-budget and producing results for the American public.

Taxpayers have already invested $85 million toward the CLARREO Pathfinder, which will provide the world’s best measurements of reflected sunlight, improving the accuracy of government and commercial satellite sensors. This instrument is sitting in a laboratory in Colorado, ready to launch to its permanent destination, the International Space Station. Why would we throw that away?

Since Neil Armstrong’s first steps on the moon, American curiosity and ambition have led us to wonder what’s next. Perhaps space tourism, mining the moon for precious resources, or human habitats on Mars.

Those aspirations are catalyzed in projects like MAVEN, designed to measure radiation and solar storms in space at Mars — a critical element for human exploration — that is also at risk in the current NASA budget. If MAVEN is cancelled, the United States will cede leadership in Mars exploration to China and rely on Europe and Russia for all future telecoms at Mars. Do we want a future based on independence or reliance on other countries?

NASA’s successes are some of the best examples of American ingenuity, persistence and imagination — part of our national identity as pioneering explorers. It’s up to all of us to ensure these values continue to drive federal policy and our collective future.

Justin Schwartz is the chancellor of the University of Colorado Boulder.

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 policy wasn’t developed with the necessary transparency, nor was it shaped through meaningful community input.  Initially, the Office of the Independent Monitor wasn’t even given an opportunity to review the draft policy, as is required by city ordinance. Even now, the community has yet to see any actual policy language. That’s a problem.

More than two decades ago, Denver voters created a clear, community-driven oversight structure with the city’s police discipline ordinance. The system centers on the Office of the Independent Monitor, community input, and a formal disciplinary matrix. But education-based development could bypass all of that. The current proposal estimates that up to 85% of misconduct cases could be diverted outside this structure, circumventing the independent oversight that voters demanded in 2004.

Let’s be clear: This isn’t a minor adjustment to the disciplinary matrix; it’s a fundamental change in how police accountability works in Denver. What’s more, it’s being pushed through without a public vote, hearings, or any formal opportunity for the community to weigh in.

In a recent public meeting, Chief Ron Thomas claimed there is “overwhelming support” for this change. However, this “support” is based on an incomplete understanding of the policy, as the chief has yet to release the full details to the community. During select meetings with public safety organizations, concerns have been raised about shifting the focus from accountability to training.

What’s more troubling is the lack of evidence supporting this approach. There’s no clear research showing that education-based discipline improves outcomes for cities or communities. The model is loosely based on a program in Los Angeles County, known for poor police conduct, and smaller communities like Pasadena, California, which use education-based development but do not replace traditional discipline. In Denver’s case, however, the plan is to shift the majority of disciplinary cases into this alternative track.

The city deserves better than a rushed, loosely copied model implemented behind closed doors. Police discipline reform is a serious issue that requires careful planning, evidence, and, most importantly, community trust. That trust is already fragile, and the process by which this change is being pushed forward only weakens it further.

We’ve seen this before: changes made in the name of efficiency, without regard for long-term consequences. In the context of public safety and civil rights, the consequences can be profound. Decisions about police conduct need to reflect community values, not just internal departmental preferences. Meaningful community involvement in significant changes provides legitimacy and community buy-in, and should not be bypassed just because it’s inconvenient.

While there is always an opportunity to offer officers additional training or learning opportunities, these should complement, not replace, a fair and transparent disciplinary process. Any significant deviation from the current disciplinary system must be done with full public transparency, clear evidence of effectiveness, and strong community involvement.

Right now, we have none of that.

We urge Mayor Mike Johnston, Chief Thomas, and the Department of Public Safety to pause the policy’s implementation and allow it to be brought into the open for a genuine community discussion. Let’s involve the Independent Monitor, the Citizen Oversight Board, the City Council, and — most importantly — the public. If we are going to change how police are held accountable, we must do it the right way.

Denver has led the way on police oversight before. We can do it again — but only if we follow the charter, the evidence, and the people.

Julia Richman is chair of the Denver Citizen Oversight Board. She wrote this op-ed on behalf of seven other members of the board: Vice Chair Tymesha Watkins, Karen Collier, Rufina Hernandez, Dawn Holden, David Martinez, Larry Martinez, and Alfredo Reyes. One seat on the nine-member board is currently vacant.

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.

If you’ve got dogs lazing outside your storefront, chances are I’ll stop in.

Good thing I was going to Mike’s Bikes anyway. The East Denver location of the California-based chain is tucked behind an AMC Theatre, near the end of a nondescript block at Colorado Boulevard’s 9+Co. development. And yet biking enthusiasts pour in and out of the store every day, petting gentle sentries Scout (a labradoodle) and Peach (a bassett hound/lab/husky mix) as they rep the good vibes inside.

My 12-year-old son’s bike recently threw a gear, prompting not only a new bike search, but also new helmets for him, my daughter and me — of which Mike’s naturally carries various styles and price ranges. We opted for ones with Mips protection, a brain-safety layer that should be familiar to most cyclists, “designed to move slightly in the event of an impact (and) … redirect rotational motion away from the head,” according to Mips’ website.

Standard stuff at most bike shops, sure. And Colorado has no shortage of great ones (local chains, even!).

Non-standard, however, in my experience, was the kind, patient reception my 8-year-old daughter Lucy received. A friendly young employee walked her through bikes, helmets, gloves and more without the pressured sales pitch or superiority complex, giving my daughter space to envision herself speeding down the street on one of these many beautiful frames.

She learned to ride a little later than most kids, and the assumption she’s already totally confident is something I’ve felt from other bike shop employees (perhaps understandably, given the rabid cycling culture of the Front Range).

Mike’s Bikes East Denver made all of us feel welcome, despite our lack of experience, cycling jargon and, well, budget. We ended up buying a pair of new helmets, then returning for a tube next week when we needed it. I can’t help but want to go there next time I need anything cycling-related (and because it’s close to my Park Hill North home). Repairs, test rides, quickly answered questions, and free Tuesday tech clinics give me plenty of excuses to drop in. And the window shopping. Oh, the window shopping.

Despite its foot traffic, Mike’s Bikes East Denver still feels somewhat undiscovered, having changed over from Elevation Cycles in November 2022 after the latter sold its four Front Range locations to Mike’s (as of June, there’s now a fifth Mike’s in Boulder). And as for the dogs? They’re “an extremely integral part of the store,” according to manager Jack Lafleur, and they love the children who stop in. My kids and I would concur.

Mike’s Bikes East Denver, 821 Ash St., Denver. Open 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Monday-Saturday, and 10 a.m.-4 p.m. Sundays. Call 720-573-9988 or visit mikesbikes.com/pages/denver-east.

Subscribe to our weekly newsletter, The Adventurist, to get outdoors news sent straight to your inbox.

Now that OBBBA has been signed and is the law of the land, over the course of the next year, governors and lawmakers in many states will be seeking to pass legislation that complements some of the changes that OBBBA made to the federal tax code.

In statehouses across the country, lawmakers will take action to provide the same year-one deductibility at the state level for business capital expenditures, along with research and development costs, that OBBBA restored federally. While state lawmakers will seek to conform with some of the changes made by OBBBA, they’ll also work to decouple from other parts, particularly the international provisions.

In addition to full business expensing, expect some state lawmakers to propose emulating OBBBA’s $25,000 tax deduction for tips and overtime pay by providing a similar state deduction. In fact, over the past year, lawmakers in more than a dozen states have introduced legislation that provides some form of state tax exemption for tip income. That trend will likely continue following federal enactment of the tips and overtime exemptions.

Coming state legislation that complements or conforms with OBBBA will typically be done in a way that reduces state tax burdens, but that’s not the case everywhere.

Take Colorado, where Democrats who control state government have gone in the opposite direction, clawing back some of the federal tax relief that OBBBA provided to workers. Voters, however, may soon have an opportunity to undo that maneuver, which was designed to counteract some of the tax relief provided by OBBBA.

“In April, legislators added into House Bill 1296 — a bill that made several changes to state tax exemptions — a requirement for residents to add the amount of overtime pay excluded from their federal income tax revenue to their Colorado taxable income,” Ed Sealover wrote in a July 17 article for The Sum and Substance, a news site published by the Colorado Chamber of Commerce. “This was a defensive move anticipating that Congress could exempt overtime compensation from federal tax income, as state officials said that mirroring federal law would cost Colorado $400 million to $600 million in annual revenue.”

A July 10 Colorado Springs Gazette editorial noted that “Colorado’s Legislature and Gov. Jared Polis decided to gut-punch Colorado workers,” by voting this spring to raise state taxes on overtime pay, “essentially taxing their hard-earned overtime wages.” That state tax hike, the Gazette editorial went on to add, “was buried in an obscure, wide-ranging bill innocuously titled, ‘Tax Expenditure Adjustment,’ which lawmakers passed this spring.”

Advance Colorado, an organization that has a record of running successful ballot measure campaigns, filed paperwork with the Colorado Secretary of State on July 8 to begin collecting the signatures needed to place a measure on the 2026 ballot. That measure, Initiative 119, would undo the provision in the Expenditure Adjustment Act that decoupled from the new federal exemption for overtime pay. What’s more, Initiative 119 would also prevent state taxation of tip income. In order to qualify for the 2026 ballot, Initiative 119 supporters must collect 124,238 valid signatures.

“If they would have done nothing,” Michael Fields, president of Advance Colorado, said about Colorado legislators, “people would have seen this reduction.” Fields added that when people find out about what the legislature did to ensure that enactment of OBBBA would not also result in a new state tax break for workers, “they are going to be upset that the state took a direct action to ensure higher taxes.”

It remains to be seen whether lawmakers in other states will follow Colorado’s lead, changing state tax law as a way to not provide state tax relief that is the same as what their constituents received from OBBBA. Even if Illinois, New York, Oregon, and other blue states follow suit, however, there is a good chance Colorado voters will end up undoing the state tax hike that served as a model for such proposals.

Patrick Gleason is vice president of state affairs at Americans for Tax Reform, a taxpayer group founded in 1985 at the request of President Ronald Reagan. 

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.

With the daily drama of politics, too few of us are likely aware of how many Native Americans continue to be exploited. On July 19 and 20, a coalition of Catholic sisters, including myself, joined Indigenous elders to stand in solidarity with the Western Apache in defense of their most sacred site, Oak Flat (Chi’chil Bildagoteel), Arizona, which risks becoming a two-mile-wide copper mine due to a federal land transfer to a private corporation on August 19.

Oak Flat’s decades-long federal protections were only recently retracted, through a last-minute provision on a “must-pass” defense-spending bill in Congress. Now, after several legal battles, the Apache site for sacred ceremonies, since time immemorial, faces total demolition by Resolution Copper, a multinational mining company and subsidiary of Rio Tinto, a corporation with a global track record of ecological damage and mishandling an important cultural site.

Apache Stronghold, a coalition of Western Apache and other allies, petitioned to protect Oak Flat with a religious freedom case that went all the way to the Supreme Court. But in May, the Supreme Court declined to hear the Apaches’ case, despite the Apache Stronghold’s assertion that the land transfer and mine would destroy their ability to practice Apache religion, a religion which is inextricably tied to the land at Oak Flat. Two justices (Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas) dissented against the majority decision to not hear the case, calling it a “grievous mistake” and a threat to religious freedom everywhere.

As members of the Catholic Church, the delegation of sisters stood with their Apache brothers and sisters in humble acknowledgment of the harm done historically by the Church to Indigenous people through the suppression of their religion and the theft of their land. The past is not past.

Sheila Karpan, Wheat Ridge

Law enforcement must also abide by the laws

Re: “Grateful for Mesa County deputy’s enforcement of laws,” July 25 letter to the editor

I take deep concern at the letter supporting the actions of Mesa County Sheriff Deputy Alexander Zwinck in stopping and detaining individuals whom he initially suspects of being illegal immigrants and messaging ICE their details. As noted in his letter, we are citizens of a country, state, and city built on laws, laws to help protect all (not just citizens or “god”) individuals and provide them with due process.

Deputy Zwink will get his chance in court to defend himself and his actions, but in my opinion and knowledge, his actions were deplorable and out of alignment with any state’s laws related to due process.

Randy DeBoer, Denver

Feeling squeezed by CDOT

Every day on C-470, somebody cuts me off in their frustration, and somebody else drives in front of me 10 miles an hour slower than I wanna go, and traffic is stop-and-go between University Boulevard and Quebec Street, in both directions.

CDOT built this highway with a capacity to handle 80-90% of the traffic that it actually gets. So we approach 100%-full, with the associated dangers, a lot more than we should. CDOT is quite good at designing highways, so they apparently intended to build a highway that would generate congestion, rather than safely handle the traffic that we always get. They are not, then, about safety and building good highways. Are they too interested in getting tolls? Do they enjoy the large fines that they get because frustrated people all across Colorado cross the double solid lines to get into that third lane? Yeah, apparently so.

If they’re not about safety and nicely flowing highways, what are they about?

Kenny Gilfilen, Highlands Ranch

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.

Yet I support the elimination of their public funding for one reason: it’s inequitable. Federal subsidies are unfair to taxpayers and station competitors.

Taxpayers, roughly half of whom lean right, should not have to subsidize left-leaning news coverage and analysis. I love public radio, but find the bias impossible to ignore. Sometimes hosts can barely keep the disdain they feel for President Trump, his supporters, and conservative policies from tinging their sonorous voices. Usually, though, the liberal bias is a little more subtle.

For example, a recent story on NPR about “Trump Accounts” for children in the budget reconciliation bill included listener comments. Not one was in support of the measure. I could have been one of those commenters since I oppose the accounts, the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and for that matter, much of what Trump says and does. However, the segment should have included comments from supporters. I learned that in high school journalism class.

Mischaracterization of conservative and libertarian views and motivations is another problem. This may be less from intention and more from hosts and producers not actually knowing any conservatives. For example, another recent NPR segment featuring two liberal hosts described prolifers as “wanting to control women.”

As someone involved in the movement for four decades, I’ve never met anyone who wanted to control women. The prolifers I know, most of whom are strong, independent women, want simply to protect vulnerable human beings from a painful death. It’s fine to disagree, but not to misrepresent our motivation as misogyny. Of course, it’s easier to argue with a strawman than to find an actual person and ask her about her motivation.

Hosts also show a preference for liberal-preferred terms and phrases such as “undocumented,” “sex assigned at birth,” “white privilege,” “reproductive rights,” “unhoused,” and “living wage.” Hosts are not trying to gall conservative listeners. These words reflect hosts’ views or are what they think their listeners want to hear. The preference, however, can be alienating to those who hold other views especially when they are forced to subsidize broadcasts through their tax dollars.

And yes, it is true that hosts of rightwing radio and television regularly feature only conservative viewpoints, mischaracterize liberal opinions, and use conservative buzzwords. But here’s the difference: those programs are not subsidized by taxpayers. Stations have to earn their funding through advertisers and subscribers. Left-leaning Americans need not give a dime.

As a listener, I am not worried that public radio and television stations will collapse from the elimination of public funds. These funds represent only a portion of their budgets. Stations will simply have to raise more money through advertising and donations.

True, it’s a tough environment. Journalism has changed. Growing up, new news and analysis could be found in newspapers, magazines, and on broadcasts, and old news in books and on microfiche archives. Thanks to the internet, these sources now compete with websites, blogs, social media, podcasts, and online video. The operative word here is “compete.” These news and opinion sources, like their traditional counterparts — public broadcasting excepted — are 100% dependent on subscribers and advertisers without any handout from taxpayers. It’s only fair that public radio and television stations compete on equal footing.

Krista L. Kafer is a Sunday Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer.

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

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

That’s why I’m proud to support the One Big Beautiful Bill. This legislation isn’t just a tax package — it’s a lifeline for Colorado’s subcontractors and a major investment in the future of our local infrastructure.

One of the most important pieces of this bill is how it strengthens the Highway Trust Fund, the critical federal funding source for road and bridge projects nationwide. For too long, the trust fund has faced uncertainty, leaving states like Colorado waiting on unreliable federal dollars to repair highways, widen rural roads, and modernize infrastructure. This bill provides new resources and stability for the fund ensuring that infrastructure projects can move forward without delay, and that subcontractors like drywall crews, electricians, and concrete companies have steady work.

For years, the Highway Trust Fund has teetered on the edge of insolvency, made worse by outdated funding mechanisms that haven’t kept pace with the demands on our roads. The One Big Beautiful addresses that problem head-on by redirecting revenues from unused COVID-era funds and creating new federal fees on electric vehicles to provide a fresh infusion of dollars into the trust fund.

It also modernizes the funding formula to ensure states like Colorado — with growing populations and aging infrastructure — get a fairer share of the pot. That means more dollars for projects like Interstate 70 improvements through Glenwood Canyon, the long-needed expansion of US-85 in Weld County, and safety upgrades to rural roads that support our state’s agriculture and energy economies.

Just as important, it opens up the door to new projects across Colorado — such as bridge replacements in Pueblo County, resurfacing and widening Highway 50 in Otero County, and long-overdue maintenance on key mountain corridors like US-285.

In the Denver metro area, it could help accelerate long-discussed expansions of Interstate 270 and Interstate 225 to ease congestion and improve freight movement. These are the kinds of projects that not only modernize our transportation systems but keep Colorado subcontractors like drywall crews, concrete teams, electricians, and framers employed year-round.

When federal infrastructure dollars flow reliably, it benefits more than just highway contractors. It supports the small, local subcontractors who take on everything from bridge railings and retaining walls to electrical systems and interior work on public projects. In my business, those projects help keep our crews on job sites and paychecks in the hands of local workers.

The bill also delivers tax relief for small businesses like mine. By lowering federal tax rates for pass-through businesses and expanding deductions for equipment, vehicles, and operational costs, it allows companies to invest in their teams, upgrade equipment, and weather tough times like inflation and labor shortages.

On top of that, the One Big Beautiful Bill cuts red tape, simplifying the permitting process for infrastructure projects. Too often, subcontractors are forced to sit idle while bureaucratic delays stall projects. Streamlining these approvals means faster job starts, steadier work, and less wasted time and money for businesses like ours.

This legislation represents the kind of practical, pro-growth policy our industry and our state need. It’s not about partisan politics — it’s about keeping Coloradans working and making sure our infrastructure is safe, modern, and built to last. Subcontractors, suppliers, and tradesmen across Colorado are ready to get to work — and this bill clears the path for us to do just that.

Rusty Plowman is the owner of Delta Drywall, a commercial subcontractor based in Colorado, as well as the Past President of ASA Colorado and Past President of ASA National.

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.