by Editorial Board | May 19, 2026 | Uncategorized
Guest Editorial —
by Matt Nicodemus, Founder & Coordinator, Sworn to Refuse (StR)
Matt Nicodemus, a recent transplant from Boulder to Glendale, is an activist-organizer who works at the intersection of social-environmental responsibility and people’s personal and professional choices.
Imagine you’re a public servant in Colorado government. When you began your employment, you proudly took this required oath of office: “I [name], do [select swear, affirm, or swear by the everliving God] that I will support the constitution of the United States, the constitution of the state of Colorado, and the laws of the state of Colorado, and will faithfully perform the duties of the office of [name of office or position] upon which I am about to enter to the best of my ability.”
One day at the office, you receive from your boss a request or an order to do something which you know, or have good reason to believe, would be illegal. What do you do? If you follow the directive, you’ll be violating the law — which you certainly don’t want or plan to do — and could face investigation, firing, and possibly career-ending indictment and conviction. But if you don’t obey your boss, your job and career in public service could end almost as soon as they began.
When you were sworn in, you took that oath, promising to support and follow the laws of your employer, the state of Colorado, and you’ve kept that promise. Yet here you are, facing the possible end of your career because you’re not willing to break the laws you’ve committed to follow. No public servant should have to struggle with such an impossible choice.
In fact, as increasing numbers of Americans have been learning in recent years, it is very important — often necessary — for public servants to say “no” to bosses who direct them to do things that would violate the law and potentially do great damage to our society, its democracy and rule of law, and, through the world’s interconnectedness, our continued existence.
Most recently, much to his displeasure, Donald Trump learned from six members of Congress who had careers in our nation’s military or intelligence agencies that those organizations have “duty to disobey” requirements: they must refuse any and all illegal orders. The Commander in Chief was enraged that his dictates could — and had to — be disobeyed if they violated the law. He had no knowledge about the origins of that requirement, including the post–World War II Nuremberg Principles and the 1968 war crime known as the My Lai massacre, in which more than 500 unarmed Vietnamese civilians were gunned down in and around their village by American GIs.
In 2017, after watching on TV a nationally broadcast public hearing in Washington, D.C., in which leaders of America’s military and intelligence organizations made clear that, in opposition to Donald Trump’s recent suggestions, they would not follow orders that violated the law — including the use of torture on terrorism suspects or taking Iraq’s oil following the downfall of Saddam Hussein “because that would be against the law” — I came up with the core concepts of Sworn to Refuse (StR). This is a nonpartisan project to see enacted nationwide, starting at state and federal levels, “refuser protection” (RP) statutes that would prevent the firing and other retaliatory punishment of conscientious, oath-taking government employees and contracted workers who refuse a superiors’ illegal orders.
Having founded StR, and understanding that RP laws are needed throughout America, I and a small but dedicated and growing group of Denver-area residents began campaigning for the introduction of RP legislation in both the Colorado Statehouse and Congress. Our outreach efforts are having an impact as people recognize how much RP is needed.
In conversations with fellow citizens, we point out how RP fills gaps that whistleblower protection laws leave. When a whistleblower files a report, damage could already be in process or already done. But in the refuser protection context, when a public servant is asked by a boss to do something illegal, their refusal means the law is not broken in the first place. And when that employee’s colleagues see their example of principled public service, they may realize their own responsibility — and ability — to do right by refusing to do wrong.
Sworn to Refuse is now focused on finding supportive Colorado state legislators who are willing to sponsor and co-sponsor refuser protection legislation. We are also preparing to promote RP to federal lawmakers.
We welcome inquiries and support as we move forward in our campaign. For more information, email sworntorefuse.info@gmail.com, and see StR’s Facebook page for additional details.
by Editorial Board | Apr 17, 2026 | Editorials
Editorial —
Increasingly progressive Westword recently declared “good riddance” to Colorado’s largest company (based on market capitalization), Palantir Technologies, after announcing it was moving to Miami. The data-processing giant moved to Denver in 2020 from Silicon Valley in California.
With the company and its highly paid employees — including co-founder Alex Karp — leaving town for the Sunshine State, Westword informs us that “we” won’t miss them. Why? Apparently because the company does work for the federal “military-industrial complex,” including the hated ICE and Department of Homeland Security.
By similar logic, “we” are lucky that the relatively recently formed federal Space Force was moved by Trump from Colorado Springs to Huntsville, Alabama, with the loss of hundreds of jobs. In the same vein, hopefully any remaining mining and oil and gas operations in Colorado can be quashed in the name of saving the planet from climate change.
It is not clear whether or not Westword is equally happy about Trump shutting down and dismantling the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, with the likely loss of 800 well-paying jobs. NCAR is part of the now-hated federal government under Trump but is not, per se, part of the military-industrial complex.
Exactly what jobs in Colorado Westword does deem acceptable is also unclear, but it is no secret that Westword itself is up for sale, with titular head Patty Calhoun leaving a post she has occupied since 1978.
Westword has its share of challenges, like most print publications in Colorado. The staff, however, is being proactive in ensuring that the publication does not go to the wrong kind of person. It recently featured an article by Hanna Metzger with the headline “Racist, Abusive Son of Former Broncos Owner Offers to Buy Westword.”
It is assumed that John Bowlen was being facetious about an offer, but the publication went out of its way to delineate all of Bowlen’s many faults and failures, with the article’s writer declaring at the end that “Westword is not interested.”
Of course, that leaves open whether someone with the right pedigree is willing to buy the publication and keep the staff employed. Westword, like most publications, is largely dependent on advertising revenue. That revenue is, in turn, dependent on successful private businesses looking for customers they hope ads in the publication will bring them.
Westword’s staffers may be “happy” that various companies are leaving Denver but may find, to their chagrin, that some of the departing jobs may include their own. In case they are not aware, good jobs in journalism these days are very scarce. Perhaps Westword will one day find that Colorado’s largest company leaving Denver was not necessarily a cause for “celebration.”
— Editorial Board
by Editorial Board | Dec 15, 2025 | Editorials
Editorial —
Two adjacent skyscraper office buildings in downtown Denver located at 621 and 633 17th Street recently sold for $3.2 million. The buildings have nearly a million square feet of office space combined. Six years ago, the buildings were valued at $200 million – a 98% drop in value.
The purchase indicates the buildings were essentially worthless as office space. With a cost basis of $3.2 million, the buyer, Los Angeles developer Asher Luzzatto, could rent office space at extremely low rates and seemingly make a great deal of profit. But no, apparently there is almost no major market for rental offices downtown at virtually any price. Instead, the buyer is going to spend tens of millions to turn the buildings into 700 residences.
This developer is not the first one in Denver to come up with this idea. It was announced recently that the historic Petroleum Building will be converted from office space into residential units. The building was given its name as it was housing a myriad of businesses in the oil and gas business. No need to worry about such use as Governor Polis and the legislature have killed the oil and gas industry in Colorado in the name of preventing global climate change.
The problem is that there is no data out there indicating that people are dying to move to downtown Denver for residential purposes. In fact, Channel 7 in Denver recently ran a story entitled “Data shows people are actively avoiding moving to Denver” citing data from a MoveBuddha study. Moreover, as our front-page story indicates that apartment rental rates in Denver are going down reflecting lowering of demand.
At one time Denver could count on an influx of monied people from California but no longer. Why move from misgoverned Los Angeles and California to misgoverned Denver and Colorado. They are heading to red states such as Texas and Idaho.
So what in the world is the developer Asher Luzzatto thinking? Back in the Chronicle’s May 2024 edition we prognosticated in an editorial titled “No Mr. Mayor, the Woes Of Downtown Denver Will Not Be Saved By A Half Billion Dollar Retrofit Boondoggle” that proposed new Downtown Denver BID assessments would end up in the pockets of downtown office owners to help convert their buildings into residential properties. Rest assured that some of the bond proceeds from the just passed “Vibrant Denver” bonds will end up in the same pockets.
We assume that Asher Luzzatto is nobody’s fool. Most of the money to convert the two office buildings will come from governmental entities. If the project fails, the developer will lose very little money but if it succeeds the developer will very handsomely profit.
But what does the super bargain basement sale say about Denver’s economy? At a minimum the city’s budget will soon be in major trouble. Assessments for commercial property in downtown Denver will plummet, which will lead to a commiserate drop in property tax revenues.
Similarly, revenues from the head tax that Denver imposes on people who work in Denver will similarly drop.
Perhaps the proposed Burnham Yard redevelopment that includes a new Broncos Stadium will create some economic growth along with short-term boost from the newly approved Vibrant Denver bonds.
Ultimately reading the tea leaves, Mayor Johnston’s administration is betting on the farm downtown Denver becoming a residential hub through the conversion of office building into residences paid for by the government. If that bet fails hard times will likely await the Queen City of the Plains.
— Editorial Board
by Editorial Board | Oct 20, 2025 | Editorials
Editorial —
Comrade Polis
One of the keys to progressive left policies is to make sure people do not have any alternatives. When the Soviets imposed their form of communism on East Germany, it had to build the Berlin Wall to prevent the masses from escaping the workers’ paradise to West Germany. The progressives of North Korea attempted to prevent its citizens from escaping not only to South Korea but also to slightly less oppressive China.
Denver has decided it loves maximum density and a minimum number of cars. Afraid that not all Coloradans may want to live in Denver’s “affordability paradise,” the state legislature, as well as Governor Polis, have begun imposing Denver inspired restrictions and mandates on towns and counties across Colorado.
As a practical matter, progressives intensely dislike single family homes and, for that matter, nuclear families. The new law (HB 24-1152) prohibits local jurisdictions imposing mandatory owner occupancy laws and specific minimum square footage for residencies. No more single-family homes with those lots potentially becoming mini apartment buildings with streets jammed with cars. Since progressives can’t just say they hate nuclear families, they say what they are doing is make housing more “affordable” and fighting against “climate change.”
Housing will undoubtably become more affordable due to the legislature’s and the governor’s actions as fewer people will want to live in Colorado. The price of what were once called single family homes will plummet.
Next the state legislature adopted HB24-1313 which prohibits municipalities from adopting or enforcing parking requirements within a quarter mile of various transit stops. The legislature mandated that municipalities allow high density high rises near transit stops. The urbanization of Denver suburbs will, if successful, overwhelm infrastructure, strain schools, and destroy community character. In Polis’ mind what is there not to like?
Unfortunately, the proletariat outside of Denver have not been enamored by the Polis vision. Many communities refused to implement the necessary ADU regulations/ordinances. Moreover, six cities — Glendale, Greenwood Village, Arvada, Aurora, Lafayette, and Westminster — sued the state to stop the implementation of the legislation.
Polis’ vision of what suburbs in Colorado should look like.
Watching the peasant revolt, Governor Polis looked to President Trump’s authoritarian tactics for inspiration. Polis elected to issue an executive order that the rebel cities either comply or face losing out on $277 million in housing grants. Of course, there is nothing in the State Constitution or state statutes giving him the power to do so, but then again where does Trump get the authority for many of his executive orders.
The rebel cities in their lawsuit rely on the over century-old Article XX, Section 6, allowing home-ruled cities to operate free of state control on matters of local concern including zoning and land use. There are no exceptions for affordability and/or climate change. While on the surface the rebel cities appear to have a slam dunk case, Polis knows he has appointed many of the judges who will hear the case at the district court level and on appeal. Colorado courts have already largely gutted large parts of the citizen adopted constitutional amendment called the TABOR amendment. The Colorado Supreme Court was also happy to try to deny Republican voters the right to vote for Trump for President until the U.S. Supreme Court intervened. As a result, few people these days have any trust in the Colorado courts to fairly adjudicate the meaning of the state Constitution or Colorado laws.
It is well known that Polis is seriously looking at running for U.S. president in 2028. He would appear to be a worthy successor to the power-hungry Donald Trump.
— Editorial Board
by Editorial Board | Sep 29, 2025 | General Featured
Guest Editorial
Bianka Emerson
by Bianka Emerson
Bianka Emerson is President of Colorado Black Women for Political Action and is a gubernatorial appointee to the Environmental Justice Advisory Board for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment.
In America, turning on the kitchen faucet for a safe glass of water should be a given, not a gamble. Yet for far too many communities already burdened by environmental hazards, that simple act comes with fear and uncertainty
The tragedy of Flint, Michigan, is never far from mind, even here in Colorado. Every time I fill a glass, I want to trust that the water is safe. I want to trust that the taxes I pay, and the water bills I shoulder, are funding a system built to protect my health, not quietly threaten it. And I want my family, friends, neighbors, and people I fight for every day to share same trust.
But too many of us can’t.
One reason is simple: we don’t even know how many lead pipes still exist in our drinking water system. That uncertainty is the shadow of Flint, a reminder that what we don’t know can harm us.
And lead isn’t the only danger.
Polyvinyl chloride, or PVC, is one of the materials commonly used for pipes in drinking water systems today. PVC is promoted by the industry as a quick fix, but that convenience comes at the expense of long-term public health. Especially because there is an ugly truth that gets buried in the sales pitch by the plastics industry: PVC contains toxic chemicals that can leach into our drinking water. And as with lead, the communities most likely to bear the risks are the same ones already overburdened by environmental hazards.
This is a clear case of environmental inequity, with the heaviest burdens falling on communities already overexposed to pollution and under-protected by infrastructure.
PVC is made from vinyl chloride, a known human carcinogen. Its production releases dioxins and other dangerous byproducts into the air, often in or near neighborhoods with limited resources and political influence. From manufacturing to disposal, PVC leaves a toxic footprint. And when used in drinking water systems, the danger doesn’t stop at the factory gates as chemical additives can migrate into the water itself, especially as the pipes age, degrade, or are exposed to high temperatures.
The push for PVC fits right into this inequitable pattern. When city councils and utility boards opt for PVC, they’re making long-term decisions. And when those pipes begin to degrade, as all plastic inevitably does, it won’t be the contractors or suppliers who suffer the consequences: it will be us who are drinking water laced with endocrine-disrupting chemicals; it will be elders with compromised immune systems; and it will be pregnant women, children just starting their lives, and babies, all of whom are uniquely vulnerable.
What’s worse, PVC production itself is an environmental justice disaster. Look at Cancer Alley in Louisiana, an 85-mile stretch of the Mississippi River lined with more than 150 petrochemical plants. Many of those plants, including PVC manufacturers, operate in communities where residents face some of the nation’s highest cancer rates due to chronic industrial pollution. Residents there suffer some of the highest cancer rates in the nation. The same corporations making the PVC pipes pitched as “safe” for our water are also polluting the air these communities breathe.
Drinking water utilities in Colorado should adopt a precautionary principle: if a material poses a plausible risk to human health, it doesn’t belong in our drinking water systems. Safer alternatives exist, and they don’t come with the same long-term health liabilities.
Second, communities must have a seat at the table in infrastructure decisions. Too often, these choices are made behind closed doors, with little public notice or opportunity for input. Residents deserve transparency about the materials being used in our water systems and the health risks they carry.
Finally, we need national standards that address the environmental justice dimensions of water infrastructure. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency should not only regulate chemicals leaching from drinking water pipes but also consider the life-cycle pollution of materials like PVC, especially in vulnerable communities. The EPA is already investigating the human health risks associated with vinyl chloride, which tells us just how dangerous that chemical is.
For generations, the health of marginalized communities has been the price of cheap infrastructure. PVC is just the latest chapter in that story. We have the knowledge, the resources, and the alternatives to write a different ending, and it’s one where safe water is a universal right, not a privilege reserved for some.
The pipes we choose today will carry water into our children’s bodies for generations. Let’s make sure those pipes carry life, not poison.
