CUPITMUSIC

When a malnourished and dehydrated 7-year-old died in Grand County with deadly levels of sodium in his blood, the response from the Grand County Sheriff’s Office was to send an investigator and an assistant county coroner to assure the child’s parents that the investigation would go no further and that documents surrounding the death would never be made public.

A Colorado boy likely died from drinking too much olive brine. Grand County tried to make the suspicious case disappear.

/*! This file is auto-generated */!function(d,l){“use strict”;l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&”undefined”!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll(‘iframe[data-secret=”‘+t.secret+'”]’),o=l.querySelectorAll(‘blockquote[data-secret=”‘+t.secret+'”]’),c=new RegExp(“^https?:$”,”i”),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);

Grand County Sheriff Brett Schroetlin made good on the 2020 promise to Isaiah Stark’s parents. This year, he refused to release to The Denver Post any documents and videos related to the investigation, saying it would be “contrary to the public’s interest.” Schroetlin is hiding behind bad laws to prevent public scrutiny of how his department, the coroner and the district attorney handled the death investigation.

The public’s interest in this case is more than justified. Anytime a child dies under suspicious or questionable circumstances, there must be an investigation. The records The Post was able to obtain from other, less obstructionist sources cast serious doubt on whether a thorough investigation ever took place, despite the fact that records also show officials received reports that the boy had been forced to drink olive brine, which is high in sodium content, as a punishment.

Fortunately, Colorado’s child protection ombudsman and the state’s Child Fatality Review Team have not allowed Stark’s 2020 death to slip silently into history, unmarked and uninvestigated. The Post’s Sam Tabachnik used records obtained from both to produce an in-depth news story that was published last Sunday. Unfortunately, the review team did not release all the documents from its investigation, something they can and should do immediately in the name of transparency.

We need these watchdogs digging for the truth. Isaiah Stark’s tragic death was likely preventable, and the adults in this state tasked with protecting children had multiple opportunities to intervene to help Isaiah. Records show his mother repeatedly asked for help, and that there were warning signs missed. It is too late to save Isaiah Stark, but right now, somewhere else in this state, another child is suffering. Public scrutiny of our systems could be what saves that child.

The ombudsman, Stephanie Villafuerte, told Tabachnik, “We have many unanswered questions, and those responsible for giving these answers are unwilling to do so.”

The Child Fatality Review Team praised Grand County and Jefferson County health officials for compiling reports about the familys’ interactions with their human services teams, but concluded in its report: “It was a systemic gap that there was a lack of accountability for the child’s death, which the team believed was needless and could have been prevented, had the child received appropriate monitoring and intervention from the medical and mental health professionals.”

Unacceptable.

We know that the coroner ruled conclusively what had killed Isaiah — hypernatremia or too much sodium in the blood. We wouldn’t even venture to guess at what undiagnosed medical conditions or maltreatment could result in such an unusual death.

But we are horrified that the public officials in positions of power have failed to do the basic investigative work required to find out what happened in the days and weeks leading up to Isaiah’s death.

We call for three basic things to happen in response to what the public now knows about Isaiah’s death:

First, Schroetlin can release all records his department holds related to the investigation, including body-worn camera footage of interviews.

Second, lawmakers can undo a horrible mistake they made in 2018 when they shielded children’s autopsy reports from the Colorado law requiring records to be open for public scrutiny. As we noted at the time, Senate Bill 223 prevents public scrutiny of questionable child deaths. The Post has used child autopsy reports historically to cover the lapses in our child welfare systems that can result in child deaths.

Third, the findings by the Child Fatality Review Board should be heeded and changes made. According to the report, “The team identified a systemic gap in services when the family decided to cease all services as soon as the child’s adoption was finalized. This created a scenario where there were no longer professionals watching out for the child. Prior to the finalization of the adoption, the family had the option to access family therapy and other family preservation services.” The Colorado Department of Human Services and lawmakers can make more resources available to ensure that children are still getting care and review even after their adoption. Known as post-permanency services, adoptive parents and adopted children, even in the most stable home environments, benefit from additional contact with professionals and experts. Especially in rural parts of the state, that contact can be difficult to obtain or cost-prohibitive.

Colorado officials failed Isaiah both before and after his death, but taking these three small steps will help make amends.

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.

Colorado lawmakers vacated the state Capitol more than a week ago, having done extraordinary bipartisan work with the state’s tightening budget. But Gov. Jared Polis’ vetoes have kept some of the Democrats’ more ambitious goals in check.

On Friday, Polis struck down an attempt to make Colorado more union-friendly, a bill that would have undone decades of compromise between big businesses and big unions in this state. The veto preserved Colorado’s middle-of-the-road Labor Peace Act, but Polis’ decision is one of the most controversial vetoes in recent history. We had joined Polis in calling for a compromise that respected the importance of organized labor and also the importance of keeping union dues and fees in check. Unfortunately, a compromise could not be found, and Polis was right to veto Senate Bill 5.

The entire process of Senate Bill 5 proves that Colorado’s functioning legislative system is good for this state. While Congress refuses to act — on immigration, on the national debt and deficit, on any number of critical measures — Colorado’s General Assembly is having healthy debates and nuanced policy conversations.

The disagreement on Senate Bill 5 came down to a few percentage points, illustrating just how important compromise was. Instead, the issue will head to the ballot box. Colorado voters will likely see competing measures on the ballot this November, asking whether to make the state more pro-business and more pro-union.

Also, in sharp contrast to Congress, Colorado lawmakers were able to balance the budget, despite having to return millions of dollars collected to taxpayers through the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights refunds. We were disappointed to see that after cutting proposed spending levels, lawmakers dipped into the state’s Unclaimed Property Trust Fund to pay for unfunded projects. While the projects were worthy — funding for safety-net hospitals and fire districts — the move continues a dangerous precedent. Already, the state owes about $700 million to the trust — an unfunded liability.

Polis said he was comfortable signing the two bills because the additional amount — $100 million — is relatively small and the claims on the unclaimed property fund are predictable and steady, meaning it is highly unlikely for the fund to become insolvent in the future. This would be one place we would have liked to see Polis use his veto.

Lawmakers must stop pulling from this fund, unless it is to make loans that are low-risk and present a return on investment to begin paying off the liability. One such proposal was killed this year and would have given homeowners low-interest loans for solar panels.

Aside from our wish for vetoes on those spending bills, we were disappointed in Polis’ veto of Senate Bill 86. The veto rejects reasonable regulation of social media companies, instead allowing Facebook, X, Snapchat, TikTok and others to continue their failure to regulate users who engage in illegal activity like selling drugs or sharing child pornography. The Senate voted to override the veto but the effort to revive Senate Bill 86 died in the House.

The governor was also right to strike down an ill-advised attempt to slow public records access for everyone except “real journalists.”

Colorado lawmakers and Gov. Jared Polis had a good, albeit imperfect, year.

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.

Valor Christian’s former head football coach is the canary in the coal mine for Colorado high school sports.

Bret McGatlin, pushed out after 32 months with a winning record, issued a strong statement read to concerned parents at a February meeting with school leaders. The statement decries the gladiator culture in high school sports.

“At the heart of the issue is a leadership style characterized by a culture of fear, comparison, and uncertainty. Coaches have felt unsupported and undervalued, leading to an environment where fear and anxiety replace passion and purpose. I can say without hesitation that I would not have resigned if not for this leadership dynamic,” McGatlin wrote, as reported by The Denver Post’s Kyle Newman on Sunday.

Valor Christian athletics faces turmoil, discontent in wake of football coach’s resignation

/*! This file is auto-generated */!function(d,l){“use strict”;l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&”undefined”!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll(‘iframe[data-secret=”‘+t.secret+'”]’),o=l.querySelectorAll(‘blockquote[data-secret=”‘+t.secret+'”]’),c=new RegExp(“^https?:$”,”i”),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);

We want Colorado to have world-class athletics departments for our students. Programs should push youth to excel not only in sport but in life. Programs should help students perform at their highest potential in the classroom and on the field. We say yes to 5 a.m. weight lifting sessions and two-a-day practices. Yes, build programs with rich traditions of team dinners and booster support. Leave behind the screaming and belittling behaviors that breed unsafe environments for students.

Whether it’s elite private schools using tuition waivers to recruit the best players in the state or our outstanding public schools competing head to head on the same field, one thing Coloradans cannot tolerate is toxic environments that do more harm than good to student athletes.

Parents and coaches from Valor, many of whom spoke with Newman only on the condition of anonymity, are right to speak out if they feel something is broken at Valor.

We do not pretend to know how to walk the line between sports excellence and extremism, but we also know that many high school coaches, athletic directors, and school leaders maintain the right balance. And the critical thing to remember is that young teenagers would benefit more from a program that erred on the side of not pushing hard enough than one that pushes too hard.

Statistically, few Coloradans go on to play college sports, about 6% of all high school athletes, and even fewer do so with scholarships. According to statistics from the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), only 2% of high school student-athletes receive college scholarships for their freshman year. Division I and II schools provide about $2.7 billion in athletics scholarships annually to 150,000 students. While another 180,000 students play for Division III schools without scholarships.

Beyond that only a handful of athletes – 2% of college athletes — go on to play a professional sport.

High school sports exist to serve the remaining 94% of students who will not play in college. Losing sight of that is what leads to toxic programs that are filled with drama and dissatisfaction. While adults quibble and argue over how to improve the program to win a few more games and a few more championships, it is the students who suffer.

Valor’s assistant coach Darren Krein, who also resigned recently, compared his experience as a coach in the National Football League to his time working at Valor.

“In the 20-plus years I’ve been a player and coach in the NFL — and it’s a rough situation there. … I’ve never been treated as bad in the NFL as I was treated here,” he said. Krein made the statement to parents in the community meeting and did not talk to The Post for the Sunday story.

The benefits of high school sports are immeasurable. Students get many of those benefits whether they are from a tiny school on the eastern plains competing to defeat a local rival in volleyball or vying for the 6A football state title under the bright lights at Canvas Stadium.

No student benefits from parents who blame coaches and staff for hard losses, or worse, who scream and yell at coaches like spoiled children on the sidelines. Unfortunately, we are not shocked by reports of such behavior from Valor parents, and all schools and club sports programs need to look at how to help parents and athletes adopt a healthier relationship with competition.

High school athletic departments do not become poison pits overnight or all on their own. Blame can be spread through school and district culture, and to state leaders. The solution will take years of reform, and we think it must start at the top with the Colorado High School Activities Association doubling down on its mission of creating a “positive and equitable environment” for all students in this state.

Colorado students deserve better than what Valor and other high schools lost to the gladiator ethos are serving up at the moment.

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 U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit to end “sanctuary laws” in Colorado and Denver begins with a lie that undermines every other argument in the overwrought complaint.

“At the end of last year, the nation was shocked by images and videos of members of Tren de Aragua seizing control of apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado,” wrote Yaakov M. Roth, acting assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Division. “It is the direct byproduct of the sanctuary policies pushed by the State of Colorado.”

Coloradans know better than to believe that revisionist history, and the case Roth is referencing is the perfect example of how law enforcement in this state partnered successfully with federal officials to catch the criminals in the video. Two were in custody days after police were called to the scene of the fatal shooting.

Sanctuary policies did not hinder the successful apprehension of five of the six men shown brandishing weapons outside an Edge of Lowry apartment and the “sanctuary” policies do not prevent or even slow good law enforcement work.

Rather the laws keep local law enforcement from doing work that would only distract from catching criminals — checking for citizenship, visas, and work permits. President Donald Trump and the Department of Justice are trying to tear down sanctuary policies so they can use local law enforcement to conduct mass deportations — the rounding up of millions of residents whose only crime is immigration related.

Roth is clearly confused about the important distinction between dangerous criminals and hard-working neighbors, but that’s no surprise. Roth was recruited from what Bloomberg Law called a “Trump-aligned” law firm, and Trump ran for office this year, promising to deport 11 million people.

Tren de Aragua got a foothold in Aurora, not because of Colorado’s policies, but because of a refugee crisis in Venezuela that has caused an estimated 8 million people to flee the country in search of food, medicine and safety from gang violence. And yes, some gang members used the exodus to sneak into America.

Now, Trump and the Department of Justice are using the refugee crisis and subsequent illegal immigration influx as a pretext to deport anyone and everyone without legal status. It’s a goal they cannot achieve without police, deputies and troopers helping in the roundup.

Colorado law and specifically Denver Municipal Code Sections 28-250 to 253 will keep law enforcement from tearing communities asunder at the behest of the president.

Denver’s ordinance prevents the city from using funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws but it also includes key provisions to make sure that police and deputies are working hand in hand with all federal agents to catch criminals. The city code is abundantly clear: it does not prohibit criminal investigation collaboration but only work relating to “alleged violations of the civil provisions of federal immigration laws.”

Denver police can assist federal officials targeting violent gang members operating a chop shop, but they can not go door to door in an apartment complex asking people to show their papers without a warrant for someone specific.

Denver Police can and should work with ICE to apprehend Tren de Aragua gang members but shouldn’t ask people they pull over for broken taillights for proof of citizenship.

One section of the law prohibits federal immigration officials from entering secure areas of the city or county jail or other city-owned property without a warrant. We’ve addressed this portion of the law in a previous editorial, and think revision is necessary to allow ICE officials into facilities to detain people who have deportation orders or a court-ordered detainer.

None of these provisions would have prevented Denver law enforcement from pursuing the criminals in the Edge of Lowry complex, and Colorado law certainly didn’t delay Aurora’s good police work. Two days after the shooting, Aurora Police had already apprehended two of the six suspects on investigation of first-degree burglary and menacing with a firearm. Federal immigration officials in New York City used Aurora’s arrest warrants and investigation to arrest three more of suspects. Leaving only one suspect unaccounted for.

As Aurora Police Chief Todd Chamberlain told The Denver Post as it pursued the criminals: “Like most major cities, Aurora deals with crime issues and it deals with gang activity … But we are not by any means overwhelmed by that issue, we are not by any means overtaken by Venezuelan gangs, TdA or any other gang.”

The lawsuit from the Department of Justice is not about Tren de Aragua gang members or the terrifying crimes they have committed. The lawsuit is about apprehending parents and grandparents, construction workers and Dreamers, homeowners and renters, students and fruit pickers.

Trump is looking to fulfill his campaign promise. He should quit obfuscating his intent and be honest that sanctuary policies are standing in the way of a massive police state needed to round up millions. Reports indicate that Trump is increasingly frustrated. His efforts at mass deportation have been hampered at every turn by judges who bravely uphold due process in the face of personal attacks. We are inspired by the legal advocates and neighbors who inform immigrants of their rights even as ICE rolls into a neighborhood with armored cars.

Trump won the election, but just because millions of Americans support his call for mass deportation doesn’t make the president’s plans morally right. This lawsuit is one step in his effort to steamroll America’s legal system and Colorado laws.

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.

Colorado’s clinics and hospitals are already feeling the strain of losing half a million patients from the post-COVID Medicaid wind-down, and now Congress is threatening to slash and burn the nation’s safety-net health insurance.

We’ve been down this road before, about a dozen times since Obamacare first became law in 2010. The Affordable Care Act dramatically increased the number of people who would qualify for Medicaid health insurance, which is funded by a combination of state and federal dollars. That expansion was expensive, but it helped reduce uncompensated care costs that were stressing the private health care and insurance systems.

Remember when Sen. John McCain saved the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion with a dramatic thumbs-down vote on the Senate floor that rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt at a skinny repeal? Well, McCain isn’t in the Senate anymore, and now Republicans are trying (again) to roll back the Medicaid expansion.

That is bad news for all Coloradans, not just those on the Medicaid bubble who are making more than the bottom threshold for Medicaid (about 35% of the federal poverty level) but less than the expansion threshold (138% of the federal poverty level).

Those already living on the bubble would likely lose their insurance immediately if Congress were to dramatically slash funding to states for Medicaid programs. And the program also wouldn’t be available to those who suffer a job loss in the future. Medicaid isn’t just for those who find themselves in chronic poverty. Our health care system is so broken that private insurance is cost-prohibitive for most Americans unless their employer is picking up much of the tab, and incentives on the Obamacare exchanges rarely are enough to fill the gap. Job loss is stressful. Add in the cost of intermediary health insurance, and savings, if they exist, can get depleted rapidly. Going uninsured is an unacceptable risk for most, as a single hospital stay could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

The popular refrain from supporters of ending the expansion is that able-bodied, single individuals shouldn’t be eligible for government-funded health care. But the KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) found that data from the Census Bureau shows that only 8% of single people aren’t working, and we’re pretty certain that traumatic injuries, cancer, and liver failure aren’t solely reserved for people with children and spouses.

For reference, 138% of the federal poverty level is about $21,000 for individuals and $36,000 for families. Annual premiums on the exchange vary widely by county but can range from $1,700 a year to $3,756 a year for someone who is single.

Republicans who are backing the Heritage Foundation’s plans in Project 2025 to reduce the federal government’s coverage of the Medicaid expansion need to know that their decision will cost lives and life savings.

Colorado could be particularly hard hit. Gov. Jared Polis told The Denver Post that the result would be some combination of a reduction in the number of people covered, a reduction in coverage, and a reduction in reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals.

The state covered the relatively small amount needed for the expansion population by creating the bipartisan Hospital Provider Fee, landmark legislation that assessed a fee on hospital stays to cover the cost of expansion to the state. That fee could, in theory, be increased to cover some of the funding lost from a Republican drawdown, but political support for further taxation on hospital stays is unlikely to emerge, especially given that hospitals are not transparent about the fee.

Republicans are not wrong to attempt to tackle this issue. Medicaid is a hungry federal program that gobbles up a huge share of our out-of-control federal budget. Reducing the federal portion of the expansion from 90% to 50% could save the federal government $1.9 trillion over 10 years, according to a KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation) analysis from 2025.

Those savings will be illusory.

The impact to hospitals and clinics would be dire, and states would be forced to step in with their own funding. Unlike the federal government, Colorado can’t go into debt to cover a shortfall, which is a blessing of fiscal responsibility but a curse when overnight federal funding is getting slashed left and right.

The KFF also estimates that 20 million people across America would lose Medicaid coverage and that a majority of those enrollees would be unable to get alternative coverage. Because in America, we don’t deny people suffering acute emergencies urgent care because they cannot pay, uncompensated care would soar, hospitals could fail, or more likely, states will pick up the costs one way or the other. Solving the federal budget crisis by passing it off to states is taking money from one pocket to put it in another. Our taxes are still our money, no matter the level of government.

Is there another way to save $1.9 trillion in Medicaid spending in the next decade? Maybe, but it’ll take a lot more work and nuanced policy analysis than this slash-and-burn effort that hides the damage being done by Congress, instead handing the knife to states to do Congress’s dirty work.

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.

For 25 years, Denverites have waited and wondered what would become of the old Gates Rubber factory at the intersection of Broadway and Interstate 25 south of downtown. Beautiful but badly contaminated solid brick buildings were torn down with the promise of remediation and redevelopment that never materialized.

Millions were spent on the cleanup of the soil, only for the debt to act as an albatross around the properties’ neck, tied to the metropolitan district on the land. A bridge was built to connect South Broadway to Santa Fe, but isn’t open for use.

Now redevelopment of the 40-acre site is within grasp, with a promising economic model. But the catch is that the city must invest millions more into a project that has already been promised millions in tax incentives.

A team of investors wants to build a stadium on the land for their newly acquired National Women’s Soccer League franchise. The stadium and surrounding mixed-use development would bring the promise that the abandoned brownfield will finally become green – green with a soccer pitch, a new city park, and with customers bringing cold-hard cash to the neighborhood.

We understand the reluctance to let the city invest in another stadium project. Less than 25 years after taxpayers built the Denver Broncos a new stadium, there is already talk of demolishing the fully paid-off investment. However, with turbulent economic times ahead for the city, state and nation, we don’t see another investor stepping up to build up the vacant Gates’ land anytime soon.

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston was right to jump at the opportunity to help bring this new franchise to the city, making sure that Colorado’s first stadium for professional female athletes opens right in the heart of Denver. And after some very healthy skepticism, the City Council seems ready to support the proposal.

Johnston is pledging to use $42.5 million to buy the land at the old Gates site and allow the investors to build a stadium on the land rent-free, along with some combination of housing development, commercial real estate, and other entertainment venues. The money would come from non-general fund sources. Technically, the city would use capital improvement fund dollars, but that money would be backfilled by interest earned on the 2017 bond package.

“We want to own and control long-term the land for the stadium as public land,” Johnston said. The design of the stadium will also allow people to enjoy concerts from the public park adjacent to the open end of the field, giving a public feeling to the private venue.

The city plans to spend $27.5 million on infrastructure for the project as well, which will come from existing funding for capital projects.

The developer will also benefit from an existing tax increment financing deal. Likely for the next 17 years, the developers on the land will pay no property taxes for the stadium or any of the mixed-use buildings, and the deal also includes a break on sales taxes. There is no estimated value of those tax breaks because the plans for the development have not been finalized, but Johnston said it will be a negotiation with the Denver Urban Renewal Authority.

Finally, the developers will also be able to levy sales taxes and an additional property tax on the property using the existing metropolitan district. That district is already deeply in debt from the demolition and remediation work completed, and Johnston said any tax benefits would first have to pay down the debt before they could benefit the developer.

This is a complex deal layering private and public dollars on top of years of complex financing and remediation work. But that does not mean it won’t ultimately be a good deal for the city of Denver, especially the South Broadway community of small business owners, homeowners and renters.

The City and County of Denver’s Finance Department conducted an economic study and estimates that even with all of the tax breaks, the project will generate increased sales taxes within the community and that the overall economic impact of the stadium and the team with 24 home games a year could top $2.2 billion and create 1,100 jobs.

And the icing on the cake, of course, would be giving more women from around the world the opportunity to make a good career out of professional sports. For far too long, that career path has been available only to men, and this stadium will only further gild the golden pathway being laid in this nation for women at the top of their sports.

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.

We all know the saying — if a deal seems too good to be true, it is.

Christophe Attard scored a Denver home worth at least $300,000 in a 2021 foreclosure auction for a mere $23,524. To his credit, Attard has allowed the family he bought the home out from under to continue to live there as long as they made the payments to the mortgage that still used the house as collateral.

This was not actually a foreclosure. Monica Villela and her ex-husband Gilardo Gonzalez Jr. had made their mortgage payments and had even paid their homeowners association dues.

But the aggressive HOA in charge of their Green Valley Ranch neighborhood used fines, late penalties, interest and attorney’s fees to push the family out of the home that they had purchased in 2005 for $164,000.

Denver Post reporter Noelle Phillips has documented the abuse of the Green Valley Ranch HOA in northeast Denver, where people have lost homes over oil stains on driveways, broken blinds, and having a rug on a back patio.

The Master Homeowners Association filed 50 foreclosures in 2021 alone. And while they were among the worst offenders, across the state, HOAs take hundreds of houses every year, often over petty infractions and hefty late penalties and attorney fees.

The situation uncovered by The Post was so dire that state lawmakers responded with changes — limiting the amount of fines and attorney fees that can be collected. Most HOAs got the memo, and the number of foreclosures has decreased; Green Valley Ranch HOAs filed none in recent years. But other HOAs are still initiating foreclosures.

As we wrote in 2024, state law must change further so that HOA liens are secondary and cannot be used to initiate a foreclosure process. Leins should also not be used for fines, but only for unpaid HOA dues. Small claims court is the appropriate venue for an HOA to collect fines for overgrown weeds and broken windows.

For families like Villela’s, the damage had already been done.

Her situation, however, is unique because they purchased their home under an affordability easement owned by the City and County of Denver.

A judge ruled just last week that the house was illegally sold to Attard’s investment company — Welcome to Realty LLC 401K PSP — because the company exceeded income limits, and also the city’s housing ordinance prohibits homes from being owned by investors.

Given the situation, we advise Attard to sell the home back to Monica Villela and her ex-husband Gilardo Gonzalez Jr. for the offered price of $30,000, which was raised by a group of people who support Villela’s effort to keep her house. Attard should not be surprised. The deal was simply too good to be true.

And we’d also advise HOAs and investors to take note of this ruling.

While past foreclosure auction sales will likely stand judicial challenge unless there are affordability easements on the property, this case should give everyone involved in these deals pause. It’s unethical to foreclose a home over unsightly or inconvenient violations of covenants, and the ethics of snapping up these deals at auction are questionable as well.

No one has evidence that HOAs have been conspiring with investors, but now that residents know their rights and have learned to protest this abuse, investigations for collusion and equity theft are certain to follow.

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 9:40 a.m. April 26, 2025: This story has been updated to correct the figure in the headline.

Colorado lawmakers have passed an end to Colorado’s two-tier justice system. Now, Gov. Jared Polis just needs to sign House Bill 1147.

The Denver Post’s reporters highlighted the injustice of allowing municipal courts to carry much harsher sentences for non-violent, petty crimes than state courts in a series of stories last year.

The Post found that not only were people spending months in jail for minor retail thefts that would have resulted in only a few days sentences in state courts, but that indigent or poor defendants weren’t guaranteed access to an attorney in municipal court, resulting in longer sentences without any representation.

House Bill 1147 would prohibit municipal courts from having harsher minimum sentences than state courts, thus reducing the temptation for law enforcement and prosecutors to funnel cases to municipal courts to get harsher sentences without facing tough legal counsel.

Of 468 theft and trespassing convictions reviewed by The Denver Post, defendants going through courts in Colorado’s 10 largest cities served an average of five times more jail time than those in state courts. Some may argue that the difference is only a matter of days. After all, these sentences are less than a full year under Colorado law. But a day or two in jail can matter to a defendant trying to get out to care for children or to return to work, get a dog out of an animal shelter, or even just hoping to salvage some of their possessions that were left behind in a homeless camp or shelter.

Polis has an opportunity to reinforce the more lenient state sentencing laws that were passed in 2021. Nonviolent crimes should have repercussions, but we’re not convinced the deterrent of longer jail stays is nearly as effective as letting someone get on with their lives, and hopefully get back on track.

Polis was right in 2020 when he asked the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice to go through the criminal code to update sentencing guidelines, calling for them to be “rational, just and consistent so that the punishment fits the conduct.”

We hope he heeds those words and considers that without House Bill 1147 our sentencing is neither consistent nor just. While the Colorado Supreme Court is considering the legality of the disparities between state and city courts, lawmakers have addressed the issue head-on.

There is no need to wait for the courts to rule. Already, state law caps the length of sentences for ordinance violations at 364 days. That cap doesn’t infringe on cities’ ability to govern themselves any more than bringing sentencing in line with the state’s maximum penalties would.

Our justice system cannot be arbitrary if Americans are to maintain faith in the courts. The circumstances of every crime are different, and judges are provided with a broad latitude in sentencing, weighing someone’s risk to society, their remorse, and whether they are repeat offenders.

However, judges have also always had guardrails placed on their sentencing. We can find no valid reason for municipal judges and state court judges to have different guardrails when considering the same crime with the same extenuating or aggravating details and facts.

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.

Coloradans are being asked to ban mountain lion hunting and the hunting and trapping of bobcats and the endangered lynx should the animal ever get delisted.

A “no” vote on Proposition 127 will allow the hunting and trapping to continue under the careful regulation and scientific control of the Colorado Parks and Wildlife.

The Denver Post editorial board has long supported the wildlife officials at CPW in their pursuit of scientifically managed populations and supporting hunting as both recreation, food sources and a tool for population control.

The group that has proposed Proposition 127 – known as CATS – has focused its campaign on making the case that trophy hunting or sport hunting is inherently unethical and should be banned in a state known for its hunting recreation opportunities. For now, the target is big cats, but we fear what may be targeted next. Bear hunting?

No one is hunting moose primarily for the meat, and while fish often survive being caught and released, sometimes the stress or injury is too much and they die. Hunting and fishing, even when the primary motivation is not procuring meat, is not necessarily unethical.

While most Coloradans would not participate in a mountain lion hunt, or feel comfortable killing a bobcat that had been caught in a live trap, we do not find those practices to be beyond the pale. Like all outdoor recreation, it has an impact on wildlife, but CPW’s job is to carefully regulate and manage that balance between hunting and healthy ecosystems and between fishing in Colorado’s rivers and streams and flourishing trout populations.

Colorado’s mountain lion populations appear to be thriving. Bobcats are not listed in short supply, although population estimates are hard to do on the elusive animals, and lynx are already an endangered species, and hunting and trapping of the animal is not permitted.

Some shocking revelations have come from the CATS campaign, however. All is not lost just because voters might reject a complete hunting ban in a state known for its recreational hunting.

First, mountain lion hunters are killing too many female lions. About half of the 500 lions killed last year were females, which can endanger the lion population and also inadvertently lead to the death of nursing kittens if signs are missed or ignored by hunters. As it does for deer and elk, CPW should start limiting how many licenses are issued for female lions every year.

Second, there need to be annual limits put on fur trapping for bobcats. The tags are currently unlimited, meaning a hunter receiving an over-the-counter furbearer license can kill as many bobcats as they can using hunting and trapping. We don’t think that’s reasonable and could lead to overhunting. A per-license limit should be applied to the license for all furbearing animals — badger, fox, mink, muskrat, opossum, pine marten, raccoon, ring-tailed cat, skunk, weasel.

But again, those two concerns don’t support a full ban of our Colorado hunting traditions.

Finally, we do worry that the current method of hunting may not give mountain lions a fair chance to escape the hunters. Dogs pick up on a lion’s scent and pursue them for miles before treeing the animal and alerting the hunters with their barks. Today, however, hunters do not have to keep up with their dogs on foot. Instead, they use GPS tracking collars to find the treed cat and shoot it from the limbs of the tree. No matter how you feel about that hunting practice, however, that is not what this ballot measure is about. Proposition 127 is not a carefully worded regulation of hunting practices that ensures the critical principles of “fair chase.” It is a complete ban that would open up a slippery slope for all hunting across Colorado.

Voters in this state have long embraced and prioritized outdoor recreation — even if it’s a sport they don’t personally participate in. Hunting big cats is no different and we hope voters in cities and towns, on the plains and in the mountains will say “no” to Proposition 127.

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.