by Charles Bonniwell | Aug 20, 2026 | Main Articles
Both City Councils Extract Major Additional Concessions From Xcel Energy
by Charles C. Bonniwell
Safe & Reliable Energy: Xcel Energy crews work from bucket trucks to repair and maintain electrical equipment on a utility pole. The work is part of ongoing efforts to maintain reliable electric service and infrastructure in the area.
Once every 20 years certain utility companies are required to get the approval of municipalities to use their streets, rights of way and other easements for their transmission lines and the repair of the same. Both cities require the approval of the respective city councils and the voters of each jurisdiction.
Both Denver and Glendale last approved these contracts back in 2007. The municipalities receive in exchange for use by Xcel important financial compensation over the 20-year period, which in the case of Denver alone is $180 million in the form of general revenue, dedicated underground funds, and infrastructure savings.
But cities also view the negotiations as a rare opportunity to extract additional concessions from the public utility. Last year Mayor Johnson’s administration took the lead in the negotiations to obtain additional concessions.
Last year, by a 7 to 6 vote, the City Council refused to refer the proposed Franchise Agreement for various reasons, including the failure of the Johnson administration to include council members and their staffs in negotiations with the utility.
The council members who were against referring the Franchise Agreement to the voters said they wanted to have additional time to receive public input. They also believed that not enough was accomplished for clean energy and climate resilience goals.
Minimum Disruptions: It was important for Glendale during negotiations to get assurances that repairs would not interrupt the flow of traffic and have the least amount of disruptions.
Moreover, some council members wanted better equity guarantees and utility cost protections for working-class and low-income households.
After months of tough negotiations, a new Franchise Agreement was presented to the Denver City Council on July 27th, which was composed of a Franchise Agreement as well as a companion document titled “Energy Partnership Agreement,” which encompassed many of the new concessions regarding the transaction.
The revised agreement sailed through the city council vote by a 10 to 2 margin, apparently fully satisfying even many of its former vociferous critics.
In Glendale the negotiations were somewhat smoother but not without sticking points. Of significance to Glendale was obtaining broader discretion on how the so-called 1% fee to underground utilities could be utilized by the city. After a great deal of back and forth, a compromise acceptable to Glendale was provided by Xcel.
Glendale stressed Xcel reimbursing the city for its maintaining smooth surfaces on city streets, as well as expert coordination on repair of outages and mandating the quick updating of Xcel’s electric and gas network as it applies to Glendale.
Moreover, Glendale insisted on methods to ensure the mitigation of traffic delays when Xcel is working on streets in Glendale.
The vote was unanimous at the August 4th meeting of the Glendale City Council to send the Franchise Agreement to the voters. In addition, the Greater Glendale Chamber of Commerce approved a resolution urging Glendale voters to approve the submitted Franchise Agreement.
With a broad consensus that the Franchise Agreements are positive developments for both Glendale and Denver, it is anticipated that the voters of both municipalities will approve the Franchise Agreements. Those agreements will go into effect on January 1, 2027.
by Charles Bonniwell | Jun 30, 2026 | Main Articles
by Charles Bonniwell
Scam: This fake court notice, circulated by scammers posing as Denver County Court officials, used official-looking seals, legal citations, and threats of penalties to trick recipients into providing credit card information.
Many readers in the Cherry Creek Valley assume that the individuals who are convinced by mail and phone scammers to send hundreds or even thousands of dollars to untraceable accounts are either gullible individuals or elderly people with diminished mental capacities. But fraud schemes are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and bright, very capable people are finding themselves duped, to their embarrassment as well as financial detriment.
The Federal Trade Commission states that since 2020, imposter scams reporting losses of $10,000 or more have tripled. The AARP estimates that total losses in the last year have reached as much as $196 billion.
These days, scammers use phone calls, texts, and e-mails to perpetrate many of these crimes. While email, mail, and text messages are the most frequent fraud methods, telephone solicitation is the most profitable vehicle for fraudsters by a two-to-one margin.
Recently, fraudsters have become increasingly effective at pretending they are law enforcement officers or representatives from financial institutions, including credit card companies.
Various Recent Scams
Court Order Scam
One recent successful scheme involved scammers sending a very official-looking text purportedly from the District Court of Colorado for Denver County, informing recipients that they were delinquent on parking, speeding, and toll fines. A fake court order instructed the recipient to pay the fine or appear in court the following Friday morning at 9 a.m.
Two hundred people appeared at the designated time at the City and County Building, only to discover that it was all a ruse. Hundreds more paid the requested $6.00 fee by credit card. The fraudsters were happy to take the small payment, but what they really wanted was the credit card information so they could go on a shopping spree.
Police And Jury Duty Scam
Scammers are now able to make whatever entity or person they want appear to be calling recipients, including banks, police stations, or federal agencies.
In one scam directed at Cherry Creek Valley residents, the caller ID indicated that the Denver Police Department was calling. If the potential victim answered the phone, the scammer would identify himself as a Denver police officer and indicate that the victim had a warrant for arrest for failure to appear in response to a jury summons. The pretend officer would instruct the victim to pay a bond or report to a local police station for arrest.
Call Centers: Many of today’s most successful scams originate from organized call center operations that are often overseas that use convincing scripts, caller ID spoofing, and psychological pressure to persuade victims to surrender money or personal information.
The scammer would direct the victim to obtain hundreds or even thousands of dollars in cash and go to a local Walgreens to wire the funds to a specific account. The potential victim was required to stay on the telephone line to prevent him or her from contacting anyone else. The funds would then go to an untraceable account controlled by the scammer.
Credit Card Scam
Another popular scam involves a fraudster calling from a number that appears on caller ID to belong to a bank or financial institution with which the potential victim does business. The fraudster’s number may even match the one on the back of the victim’s credit card.
The fraudulent caller tells the potential victim there is “suspicious activity” regarding his or her account. The caller may even know the victim’s name, home address, and the last four digits of his or her Social Security number. The fraudster then uses high-pressure tactics to get the victim to hand over key information such as PINs, passwords, or one-time passcodes.
The victim is instructed to send money to a “safe and secure account” that is actually controlled by the scammers and is untraceable.
IRS/Customs Agent Scam
Another successful recent scam involves a fraudster pretending to be an IRS or Customs agent and indicating that the victim is under suspicion of money laundering, or that the government has intercepted a package bearing the victim’s return address that contains drugs or other illegal substances. The caller demands that the victim post a bond over the phone or face immediate arrest.
Fraudsters are also increasingly using AI for their machinations. They can use the voice of a loved one claiming they desperately need help and requesting money be sent to an account controlled by the scammers.
Law Enforcement’s Response
Law enforcement has been slow to combat these cybercrimes. Many of the calls, e-mails, and texts are sent from abroad. Local law enforcement often does not have the resources or expertise to make a meaningful difference.
One encouraging development was the government of India raiding call centers, leading to the arrest of six leaders along with the seizure of laptops, cell phones, cash, and other devices. In the United States, two executives, former CEO Adam Young and a CSO, pleaded guilty to enabling the scam by providing telecommunications and call-routing infrastructure and advising cybercriminals on how to evade detection.
How To Avoid Being Scammed
The first rule in avoiding these scams is understanding that you are capable of being scammed, no matter how intelligent or sophisticated you may think you are.
It is recommended that you:
Avoid answering your telephone unless you know who is calling. If the caller has a legitimate reason for calling, they will leave a message. Scammers seldom leave messages.
Do not disclose your full name, home address, Social Security number, credit card information, banking information, or other personal details to anyone you do not know.
Do not click on e-mails or text messages from unknown sources.
Choose a safe word or phrase (“Mama Bear,” “rubber ducky,” etc.) that family members or loved ones can use to identify themselves in the event of a real emergency.
And finally:
If you are the possible victim of a scam, report it to local law enforcement and to the FBI at IC3.gov.
Whatever you do, remember that scammers are adjusting their schemes every day to ensnare you in their web of deceit, so stay alert.
by Charles Bonniwell | May 19, 2026 | Main Articles
by Charles C. Bonniwell
Investigation: CBS News Colorado investigative reporter Brian Maass examined CDOT’s proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project along Colorado Boulevard in a May 11 segment highlighting concerns over lane reductions, increased congestion, and the potential impact on surrounding neighborhoods and businesses.
CBS News Colorado’s veteran investigative reporter Brian Maass led off the 10 o’clock news program on May 11 with a deep dive into the CDOT/RTD plans for Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) along a seven-mile stretch of Colorado Boulevard from I-70 to Hampden Boulevard.
He first interviewed Glendale City Manager Chuck Line, whose town’s main commercial tax base is along the relevant portion of Colorado Boulevard from Alameda Avenue to Mississippi Avenue and includes such leading sales tax generators as Target, Dick’s Sporting Goods, and Home Depot.
The Glendale City Council voted unanimously (5-0) to oppose BRT along Colorado Boulevard, rejecting all three of the so-called preferred alternatives along the road. Since Colorado Boulevard is a federal highway, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) apparently has the final say in consultation with the Federal Transit Administration, which oversees the federal environmental review process and provides potential funding avenues.
Star: Glendale City Manager, Chuck Line, was featured as the lead interviewee in CBS Colorado reporter Brian Maass’s segment covering CDOT’s proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project along Colorado Boulevard.
The Denver City Council has not, to date, taken a formal position on the project, but Amanda Sawyer, councilwoman for Denver District 5, which covers much of the Denver portion of the roadway, has expressed strong scepticism about the project, saying CDOT had failed to provide any data showing the “need for” the extremely expensive ($250 million) undertaking.
BRT Process
CDOT has undertaken, at enormous expense (three-quarters of a billion dollars), to turn three heavily traveled federal thoroughfares in Denver, Colfax Avenue, Federal Boulevard, and Colorado Boulevard, into BRT routes. The only specific reasons given are apparently to increase RTD bus
ridership at the expense of people riding in automobiles and a claim that it will increase public safety.
The Regional Transportation District (RTD) was formed in 1969 to act as the primary public transportation agency (initially buses) for Denver, Boulder, and parts of Weld County. It now covers eight counties, has a service area of 2,342 miles, and serves 3.08 million people. Its network encompasses 126 bus routes, six light rail lines, and four commuter train lines. RTD is run by a board of 15 elected representatives from 15 separate districts. From the start 57 years ago, RTD has struggled with the fact that revenue from ridership covers only 5% of the cost of service. To stay afloat, the operation is subsidized by a 1% sales and use tax imposed on the service area. Even with that additional funding source, RTD is chronically short of cash.
Bus Ridership Down
RTD’s ridership has been decreasing ever since the COVID pandemic in 2019-2020 and, even today, remains 39% below pre-pandemic levels. The RTD Board is looking to cut its bus routes by 20% to reduce expenses due to the lack of ridership in affected areas.
The fact that CDOT wants to spend three-quarters of a billion dollars on BRTs on three roads for a relatively small increase in bus ridership seems incomprehensible to critics of CDOT and RTD.
CDOT has estimated, for example, that after full implementation, Colorado Boulevard BRT bus ridership will increase by only 3,000 to 4,000 daily riders while causing the 70,000 cars (which often have multiple occupants) to double travel time from approximately 30 minutes to one hour for the seven-mile stretch.
Environmental Concerns
Traffic: Daily gridlock on Colorado Boulevard illustrates the corridor’s already severe congestion challenges. Critics of CDOT’s proposed Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project, slated for construction around 2030, warn that eliminating two vehicle lanes could worsen traffic backups, increase idling times, and lead to higher vehicle emissions and air pollution along one of Denver’s busiest corridors.
Glendale’s deputy city manager has estimated that the exhaust fumes from the traffic congestion created by the BRT on Colorado Boulevard would be highly detrimental to the environment. He estimated that the BRT project would result in an extra 1,423,500 gallons of gasoline being used by car travelers on the congested road, producing 27,375,000 pounds of CO2 emissions and costing car travelers an aggregate of $3,285,000 to $8,760,000 annually.
Colfax Avenue BRT’s Many Problems
CDOT began construction on its first BRT project on a four-mile portion of East Colfax Avenue well over a year ago but still needs another year and a half for completion. The construction of the infrastructure for the BRT on Colfax Avenue has been a disaster for many businesses along the roadway, with no relief in sight.
If construction of the Colorado Boulevard BRT created similar problems to those on East Colfax, the sales tax losses would be catastrophic for the financial health of the City of Glendale.
Real Reason For The BRTs
With the enormous cost of a BRT and the many negative impacts once implementation occurs, it seems to many observers that the relatively small increase in RTD ridership is hardly worth it. Glendale’s Chuck Line, however, indicates that the key to understanding why CDOT is so aggressively pushing the BRTs is that the enormous auto congestion it would cause on the three roads is not a burden but the principal benefit for the political players involved.
Colorado Governor Jared Polis and Denver Mayor Michael Johnston and their administrations are profoundly anti-automobile. They want to get citizens out of cars and into far more egalitarian public transportation. To create a so-called “15-minute walkable city,” they want Denver to become, a large segment of the population must be convinced to abandon or be forced out of their automobiles.
The three BRT roadways are just part of a broad-ranging vision and plan to make Denver as automobile-free as humanly possible. The political powers, however, do not believe that, at this point, they can trust the public to concur with such an extreme plan, so the public reasons for the BRTs must be expressed in terms of road safety and increases in bus ridership.
Public Meeting
Packed House: The Colorado Department of Transportation hosted its second open house for the Colorado Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project on Wednesday, May 13, to share project information, respond to questions and obtain feedback on potential options for improvements along the corridor. Photo by Miranda Tillinghast
Input: Community members review maps, share feedback, and engage with CDOT staff during the open house on the proposed Colorado Boulevard BRT project at the Clayton Early Learning Center on May 13. Photo by Miranda Tillinghast
On the evening of May 13, from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m., CDOT held its second and final open house to purportedly gather community feedback on the only three potential design options that CDOT is willing to consider: center bus lanes, side bus lanes, and mixed-use bus lanes. Center bus lanes have an estimated cost of $350 million, while the latter two are estimated at $250 million each.
Having completed the public input portion of the process, CDOT will now determine what it calls the “Locally Preferred Alternative” (LPA). There are no criteria or guidelines explaining how CDOT will determine the LPA. CDOT, after the public relations disaster caused by construction work on the center bus lanes on Colfax Avenue, has indicated that it has no interest in the center bus lane option, asserting moreover that it does not have the extra $100 million required for that alternative.
Thus, CDOT is only considering whether the LPA should be the side bus lanes or the mixed-use bus lanes. Ostensibly, the side bus lanes would involve two dedicated bus lanes, thereby decreasing the number of lanes for cars from six to four and increasing automobile congestion. The mixed-use alternative would continue the present arrangement of buses sharing lanes with automobiles.
But Glendale officials point out that both alternatives would cost the exact same amount, which would go toward condemning land for rights-of-way along the roadway and building elevated bus stations along the route where none currently exist. CDOT has provided no explanation for why Colorado Boulevard suddenly needs multi-million-dollar bus stations where none previously existed. The only difference between the side bus lane alternative and mixed-use bus lanes would be the striping of the lanes. Mixed-use lanes could readily be converted to side bus lanes, which Glendale officials suspect CDOT will ultimately build regardless of what the community wants or needs.
As opposition to the BRT project along Colorado Boulevard has steadily grown, the nature of the May 13 open house appeared to have been altered. On May 13, there were no presentations given by officials or questions answered that could be heard by all attendees. The packed Clayton Learning Center simply had storyboards along one side of the room with the same information that appears on the CDOT website. There were tables in the center of the room where the public could fill out the so-called unscientific “survey,” but the same survey can also be completed online through the end of the month. Attendees could scribble thoughts on Post-it notes regarding the alternatives and stick them on the storyboards. While it appeared dubious that the large clutter of haphazard Post-it notes could be tabulated by CDOT in any meaningful way, attendees appeared happy to fill them out and place them on the storyboards. Critics of CDOT at the meeting postulated that the only purpose of the meeting was to fulfill a requirement set forth in the applicable federal environmental regulations for such a project.
“This project still has far too many unanswered questions for residents to support it responsibly,” said Audry Oxley, a Hilltop resident. “There has been no comprehensive analysis of air and water quality impacts, storm drainage costs, traffic diversion into nearby neighborhoods, or the effects on private property owners along Colorado Boulevard. At the same time, permanent station locations remain undecided, transit stops would be reduced, and there is no dedicated federal funding identified for the project. Residents and taxpayers deserve greater transparency and clearer answers before a project of this scale moves forward.”
“We’re being asked to support a massively expensive project without clear answers on cost, congestion, environmental impacts, property acquisition, or whether the community even wants it,” said Dana Busch, a Cherry Creek North resident. “Taxpayers deserve transparency and accountability before Colorado Boulevard loses lanes to a project tied to an RTD system many residents no longer trust.”
Choosing And Presenting The LPA
No Build: Glendale City Council voted to support a fourth alternative, the “No Build” option, opposing proposed lane reductions associated with CDOT’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) plans along Colorado Boulevard and favoring preservation of the corridor’s existing traffic lanes.
The next step will be for CDOT to choose the LPA in its sole discretion. CDOT has what it calls “partners” on the project, consisting of the City and County of Denver, the City of Glendale, Arapahoe County, and the Denver Regional Council of Governments. They will apparently have no say on what the LPA should be.
Instead, once CDOT determines its LPA, it will present it to a group of organizations it calls the “stakeholders,” but not to the public at large. The members of the “stakeholders” appear to be a myriad of highly progressive and/or pro-bicycle and anti-automobile organizations led by Denver Streets Partnership, an entity associated with Bicycle Colorado. Other organizations include the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition, CoPRIG, Denver Regional Mobility & Access Council, Greater Denver Transit, Pedestrian Dignity, Servicios de la Raza, the Sierra Club, and YIMBY Denver.
Those “stakeholders” are among the most committed supporters of BRT on Colorado Boulevard. The “stakeholders” group does not appear to include any pro-business groups or retail establishments along Colorado Boulevard. It would appear that the “stakeholders” would likely enthusiastically support any LPA chosen by CDOT other than the no-build scenario.
After approval of the LPA by the stakeholders, CDOT would move into the preliminary design phase, followed by construction beginning in 2030.
Tension Between Residents
And Bicycle Advocates
There appears to be a growing rift between residents and the ever more radical bicycle lobby. At the April 29 Hilltop Neighborhood Homeowners Association meeting on the Colorado Boulevard BRT project, an apparent representative for the Denver Streets Partnership or an associated group, who wore his bicycle helmet throughout the entire meeting, opened his remarks with a declaration that he could not afford a car and did not give a “sh*t” what people with cars thought.
A group of members in the crowd of Hilltop residents reacted to his remarks by indicating that they, in turn, did not care what some “ANTIFA-adjacent bicycle nut” had to say. At the end of the meeting, an informal straw poll was taken in which all but eight people in a crowd of more than 100 individuals supported the no-build scenario.
The Road Ahead
As CDOT moves toward selecting its so-called “Locally Preferred Alternative,” opposition to the Colorado Boulevard BRT project appears to be intensifying among residents, business owners, and local officials who fear the project’s financial, environmental, and traffic impacts could permanently alter one of Denver’s most heavily traveled corridors. Whether CDOT ultimately listens to those concerns or proceeds with a plan many critics view as predetermined, may shape not only the future of Colorado Boulevard, but also the broader debate over transportation policy, public accountability, and automobile use throughout the Denver metro area.
For information about this project, visit www.codot.gov/projects/studies/denvermetrobrt/coloradoblvd. For information provided by sceptical citizens, visit www.keepdenvermoving.com.
by Charles Bonniwell | Apr 17, 2026 | Main Articles
by Charles C. Bonniwell
Ball Arena: The ownership of the Colorado Avalanche is taking 55 acres of surface parking and redeveloping it into a new urban neighborhood that would adjoin the River Mile project to its east.
The famous 18th-century French philosopher Voltaire is credited with saying: “Where states have an army, the Prussian Army has a state.” While many American cities have professional sports teams, Denver’s sports teams are the only ones to control the development of an entire city.
Virtually the only major development plans on the boards in the City and County of Denver relate to its various dominant professional sports teams — the Denver Broncos (football), the Denver Nuggets (basketball), and the Colorado Avalanche (hockey).
The Development Plans
Denver’s future growth comes from plans submitted by its sports teams:
- Burnham Yards. The Denver Broncos want a new $2 billion retractable-roof stadium that could host events year-round, including Super Bowls. The Broncos’ ownership acquired a 100-plus-acre former railroad site whose development will include massive high-rises that house five to seven million square feet of retail, office, and housing space. Construction is to start this year with a projected opening in 2031.
- The River Mile. The ownership of the Denver Nuggets purchased 62 acres of land along the South Platte River, which presently houses Elitch Gardens Amusement Park. The site will feature thin, very tall skyscrapers that will include: 47% office space (6.65M sq. ft.), 41% residential (5.85M sq. ft.), 5.5% hotel (790K sq. ft.), and 3.5% retail (520K sq. ft.).
- Ball Arena. The ownership of the Colorado Avalanche is taking 55 acres of surface parking and redeveloping it into a new urban neighborhood that would adjoin the River Mile project to its east. The plans call for 10 to 12 million gross square feet of mixed-use development that would include 6,000 housing units and a new concert venue. The first phase of the project is scheduled to be completed by 2033.
One Conglomerate Of Ownership
River Mile: The ownership of the Denver Nuggets purchased 62 acres of land along the South Platte River, which presently houses Elitch Gardens Amusement Park. The site will feature tall skyscrapers. Photo Courtesy of Revesco Properties
When discussing the ownership of professional sports teams in Denver, they are slowly morphing into a single massive conglomerate.
In 2022, the Denver Broncos football team was acquired for $4.65 billion by a syndicate headed by Rob Walton, his daughter Carrie Walton Penner, and her husband Craig Penner. Rob Walton is the son of Sam Walton, a co-founder of Walmart, the world’s largest retailer with corporate headquarters in Arkansas. Rob Walton was the chairman of Walmart, and Craig Penner is the present chairman.
Billionaire Stan Kroenke acquired both the Denver Nuggets and the Colorado Avalanche in 2000. In 1974, he married Ann Walton, the daughter of the other co-founder of Walmart, Bud Walton. The couple, through Kroenke Sports and Entertainment, owns a myriad of professional sports teams throughout the United States and internationally.
Until very recently, the piece of the Denver professional mosaic outside the control of the Walton/Kroenke extended family was the Colorado Rockies, owned by a syndicate headed by former beef processors and brothers Dick and Charlie Monfort. While the Monforts are relatively well off financially, they are not in the billionaire class of the Waltons and the Kroenkes. Apparently without offspring to marry into the Walton or Kroenke families, the Monfort brothers sold a 40% interest in the Rockies to the Broncos’ Walton group. While the Waltons do not presently have a majority share of the Rockies, they are expected to eventually obtain a controlling interest.
A major asset of the Rockies is the acres of surface parking in downtown Denver, which are now also ripe for redevelopment by the sports teams.
Crazy As A Fox?
It is fortunate that Denver’s sports teams seem willing to spend billions on real estate development in Denver, as most experts are not at all sanguine about future development prospects in the city. They wonder how Denver could possibly absorb tens of millions of square feet of new office space and housing in the form of apartments and condominiums.
Downtown Denver office buildings have economically disastrous vacancy rates. Various office buildings are selling for a fraction of what they cost to build. To construct millions of square feet of new office space for which there is no present market appears to be foolhardy.
Similarly, rental rates on apartment space in Denver are dropping precipitously, and there are many new apartment buildings in the development pipeline throughout the city. In addition, condominium sales in downtown and across the city are stagnant at best.
Burnham Yards: The Denver Broncos are proposing a new $2 billion retractable-roof stadium, on the site of the old Burnham Yards, that could host events year-round, including Super Bowls.
Denver’s population is no longer growing, and the business climate in the city and throughout the state is getting steadily worse as the state becomes ever more left-leaning and progressive.
People are fleeing the financial mismanagement of politically blue states such as California, Illinois, and New York, moving to states like Texas, Tennessee, and Florida — and no longer to politically deep-blue states like Colorado.
The Colorado Chamber of Commerce recently wrote to Colorado Governor Jared Polis that a hundred companies have left Colorado due to excessive regulation and other anti-business government practices.
For the Burnham Yards, River Mile, and Ball Arena projects to succeed, they depend on a growing, economically successful Denver and Colorado — unless they are planning to cannibalize from the rest of the city.
But the Walton and Kroenke families did not become billionaires by making poor business decisions. Denver residents can only hope that what they are envisioning happening in Denver in the next decade comes to fruition.
by Charles Bonniwell | Feb 19, 2026 | Main Articles
by Charles Bonniwell
Divider: Critics say Channel 9 News anchor Kyle Clark has instigated class warfare over Alameda Avenue in order to boost his slumping ratings.
Unlikely Hero: Jill Anschutz, daughter-in-law of Colorado’s richest man, has become a surprising popular advocate for many everyday Denverites.
Denver’s hard progressive left and its media advocates, headed by Channel 9’s Kyle Clark, have decided to flex their increasing muscle to go after and try to crush the middle-class homeowners, small businessmen, and everyday commuters who once were important voices in the city, all over a relatively short one-mile, 10-block stretch of East Alameda Avenue in the East Washington Park area.
Opposing Clark and his powerful allies is an unlikely voice for the middle class, Jill Anschutz, the daughter-in-law of Colorado’s richest man, Phil Anschutz. Although she married into a rich family, she herself did not come from a wealthy background.
She graduated magna cum laude with a journalism degree from Taylor University, a small Christian liberal college in Indiana, before moving to Denver, where she met Christian Anschutz around 2015. They have several children together.
Repurposing Project
“While my name might stand out, this is not about me,” Anschutz has indicated. “It is about hundreds of neighbors and businesses who are concerned about negative unintended consequences from the initial design of the Alameda Lanes Repurposing Project.”
The war between the two sides relates to the Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (DOTI) “Alameda Lane Repurposing Project” for Alameda Avenue between Franklin and Downing streets.
On November 7, 2025, DOTI came out with its plan for public comment, with implementation to begin in late 2026. The existing road has two lanes in each direction. It acts as a major thoroughfare for east-west traffic in that portion of the city. The plan would have cut the street down to a single lane each way. It would add dedicated left-turn lanes at various intersections and install medians and bollards at others to eliminate left turns altogether.
DOTI declared the goals of the plan were to reduce crashes, provide pedestrian safety, and improve accessibility, and of course no one believed them. Critics of the city administration believe that many, if not most, of the city’s plans have a real purpose hidden behind politically correct bromides.
Busy Traffic: The one-mile stretch along Alameda Avenue that is subject of DOTI’s repurposing project has many fender bender accidents but no reported fatalities or serious injuries.
The idea that “safety” is the overriding concern of Kyle Clark or his adherents is somewhat ridiculous. Given the number of lights and stop signs on this one-mile track of roadway, cars drive very slowly. While there are various accidents reported, they are overwhelmingly fender-bender-type accidents; there have been no reported fatalities or serious injuries.
The real fight is about competing visions of what kind of city Denver should be.
Ideal Choked-Up City
Some members of the Denver City Council and the City Administration believe cars are a baneful influence on a city. By reducing cars and car traffic, they believe it would help in fighting climate change and create a more egalitarian society where everyone is made to ride bicycles, walk, or take public transportation in the form of buses or trains. That would create an idealized “15-minute city.”
But what about middle-class families for whom cars are an enormous benefit to their lives, along with small businesses that depend on car traffic? To the hard progressive left, they are what the “kulak” farmers were to Stalin’s Russia in the 1920s — an impediment to true progress that needs to be liquidated.
If given their druthers, the hard left would simply ban cars within the confines of the city, but that is not politically viable at the present time. Instead, in the name of “safety,” “sustainability,” “accessibility,” “affordability,” etc., driving in Denver must be made as unpleasant as possible to get people to cease using cars.
One method is making parking as difficult as possible, so Denver did away with an all-parking requirement for any new project. Another method is making driving as unpleasant as possible by creating as much traffic congestion as can be imposed.
On many major thoroughfares in Denver, including Colfax Avenue, Federal Boulevard, and Colorado Avenue, DOTI and/or CDOT have ongoing projects whereby the number of traffic lanes is to be reduced and substituted with bus or bike lanes.
Pitch Battle: Admirers of Jill Anschutz have come to view her as a modern day Molly Pitcher in Anschutz’s battle against what they view as the Godless mercenary hords of Kyle Clark. Shown above is Molly Pitcher in the revolutionary war battle of Monmouth in 1777.
For other thoroughfares such as Alameda Avenue, in the name of “safety,” the number of lanes is reduced to create a left-turn lane and create congestion on the remaining lanes.
Opposition Arises
After the city’s proposed plan was issued in November 2025, a group headed by Jill Anschutz entitled Act for Alameda was formed, representing homeowners in the area, small businesses along Alameda Avenue, and commuters who used Alameda as an east-west corridor to get across the city.
The group sent a letter to Denver Mayor Mike Johnston opposing the plan, indicating that the project would potentially create massive traffic congestion, pouring cars onto residential side streets where families and children would be walking. Moreover, to the extent that safety was actually a concern, there were less disruptive ways to lessen the fender-bender accidents on the road.
Jill Anschutz, who owns a home just off Alameda Avenue, was a logical person to lead the group. She had been a long-time marketing, public relations, and messaging consultant, and was now a freelance communicator and project director. She even hired a lobbyist for the group with experience dealing with DOTI.
Anschutz and Councilmember Kevin Flynn were able to point out that in 2012 the exact same lane reduction was implemented by DOTI and was so disastrous that the road was quickly adjusted back to its present configuration.
Plan Modification
DOTI then came up with a modified plan that kept all four lanes but converted some spans into “turn pockets” for drivers turning left. Advocates indicated the modified plan would provide less congestion while still making the road “safer.”
Normally that would have been the end of the matter, but Channel 9’s Kyle Clark latched onto the fact that Act for Alameda was headed up by Jill Anschutz, a born-again Christian and the daughter-in-law of Colorado’s richest man, Phil Anschutz.
Kyle Clark Weighs In
Channel 9 was for many years Colorado’s leading television station and was dubbed “mommy news” for its female-oriented soft news orientation. But over the last decade, ratings for local television news have dropped precipitously, particularly for Channel 9 News.
In 2016, NBC affiliate KUSA-TV decided to stop being “mommy news” and go hard left, with long-time employee Kyle Clark being the anchor not only for the 9 o’clock and 10 o’clock news but also for his own weeknight show, Next with Kyle Clark. With a hard-left agenda, the station and Clark attracted national attention, appearing on Jimmy Kimmel Live, and Clark was featured and interviewed on MSNBC by Rachel Maddow and on CNN.
But in recent times, Clark and Channel 9 News fell significantly behind FOX31 KDVR in ratings. Clark reveled in being called “a virulent anti-Christian bigot” and a “commie.” Clark, in order to regain ratings, had to return to his progressive hard edge, and evoking class warfare over Alameda Avenue seemed like a perfect avenue to do so.
His virulent attacks on Anschutz and her use of a lobbyist to plead the homeowners’ case caused a media frenzy. The Denver Post, in an article with a headline “PR Nightmare for Mayor Mike Johnston,” revealed that Clark and Alameda Avenue helped “trigger a maelstrom of critical media coverage, the resignation of a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Advisory Board and, late last month, a formal letter of protest from a majority of the City Council.”
Official Under Fire: DOTI Executive Director Amy Ford seen here at a recent contentious city council meeting in Denver.
But the ugly onslaught on Jill Anschutz did not make her back down as Clark had expected. Her friends indicate that, growing up in a strong Christian family, she was taught that when you stand up to a powerful bully like Clark, you can expect to be persecuted.
One More Plan
Clark, by trumpeting that the city, in coming up with a revised plan, had bowed to Jill Anschutz because she had married into a rich family and therefore the city was “lifting certain voices over others,” used a class warfare tactic that worked to cause DOTI to announce in January that it would backtrack again into demonstrating one, if not both, of the proposals.
But testing the “safety” of both of the proposals is, of course, somewhat useless since safety was never the actual issue. The Alameda Avenue controversy is a clash of political wills between the hard left, who ultimately want a car-free Denver to the greatest extent possible, and middle-class homeowners and small businesses that want a livable city for families, particularly those with children.
For the hard left, Clark is their champion. For everyday Denverites, they finally have their own hero, Jill Anschutz.
