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.
by Editorial Board | Sep 19, 2025 | Editorials
The Life in Saigon in the 1960s, by François Sully
Seldom, if ever, has Denver’s progressive Mayor and the majority of the City Council annunciated that the solution to a problem in the city is to let the “free market decide.” But now, all of the sudden, they have advocated that the solution to parking woes in Denver is henceforth to let the free market decide. For future developments or redevelopments there will be no city mandated parking minimums. Developers will be the ones to decide what, if any, parking is necessary or advisable for their projects.
What has caused this sudden change of philosophical outlook? The answer is obvious. The powers to be believe that many preternaturally greedy and short-sighted Denver developers will elect to provide the least amount of parking possible hoping to cannibalize off neighboring businesses or on-street parking. That will make automobile use in the city even more problematic.
But why do Denver’s planners and political class dislike cars? They believe, inter alia, automobiles are a major source of carbon dioxide contributing to climate change which will eventually destroy the planet. They also believe that automobile-oriented societies adversely affect the poor who can’t afford a car or drive cars that necessarily reflect their socio-economic status.
Cars also facilitate urban sprawl. Progressives correctly note the densely packed areas tend to be far more likely to lean left and favor increased governmental solutions to societal problems. Cars also provide a certain degree of personal freedom for people to travel where and when they wish. Individual freedom, however, is not a value prized by progressives.
An advantage to Denver’s approach to parking is that the city is looking to let an ever-increasing number of city employees go. Traffic engineers whose job it is to make car traffic flow more easily are now expendable as the city wants to make traffic more congested. As hard as that is to believe in some respects it is obviously exactly what is being planned. The number of traffic lanes on major thoroughfares in the city such as Colfax and Broadway are being reduced. On neighborhood streets, bollards and striping are intended to be “traffic calming devices” making traffic flow more difficult.
In turn dedicated bicycle lanes are expanding across the city. It appears the vision for urban transportation are buses, bicycles, and walking. For those old enough to remember, that was the transportation mode for Saigon, Vietnam, circa 1965.
Do most people want to live in or visit a city whose transportation plan reflects that of 1965 Saigon? Tax revenues for Denver have been steadily dropping but the city does not appear to care. The city depends on Coloradans coming to shop and recreate. By making the city less friendly for cars it makes it less likely people will come visit.
City planners indicate they would like to see Denver be a place where the concept of a “15-minute city” becomes a reality. In such a place daily necessities are all accessible by a 15-minute walk or bike ride from home. The peasants in Germany and the serfs in Russia in the 12th century lived in 15-minute communities. American coal miners were forced to live in company towns in the late 19th century.
Throughout history so-called utopian communities turned out to be lousy places to live. Denver’s city planners may be doing the same to Denver in their quest to make it a “15-minute city.” Only time will tell.
— Editorial Board
by Editorial Board | Jun 20, 2025 | Editorials
by Erik Clarke
Denver voters approved the $937 million Elevate Denver Bond Program in 2017 to fund nearly 500 civic infrastructure projects across our city. Nearly a decade later, while many worthwhile improvements have been made, far too many projects remain unfinished, delayed, or over-budget. Now, city leaders are preparing to ask voters to approve another general obligation bond- the proposed “Vibrant Denver” bond package, which could target $800 million in new spending.
Before we issue another nearly-billion dollars in taxpayer-backed debt, Denver residents deserve accountability for how the last billion was spent.
Despite the size and complexity of the Elevate Denver bond program, and a smaller follow-up package, the Auditor’s Office has never conducted a dedicated performance audit of the program. That must change — immediately. We need an independent audit to assess which projects have been completed on time and on budget, which have fallen behind, and whether taxpayer dollars were spent effectively and efficiently. Denver residents deserve full transparency before we make another bond decision.
I am also deeply concerned by the possibility that this new Vibrant Denver bond might be used, either quietly or indirectly, to complete unfinished prior bond projects. If that is the case, the public has a right to know. No Vibrant Denver bond dollars should be used to backfill Elevate or Rise bond cost overruns unless it is explicitly stated, clearly labeled, and fully explained to voters prior to the bond being placed on the ballot. The City should also expand the existing bond dashboard to include a budget-to-actuals for each project, with supporting material, and an estimate of cost to complete.
As of June 2025, 13 projects are still being developed, but 105 projects have not even broken ground. Examples of projects that are not even in production, include transportation projects (62), parks improvements (34), and improvements to city-owned facilities. The unstarted projects even include public safety renovations, like improvements to police district 6 and fire station 40. There are roughly $171 million worth of projects in the in-design phase. This is a significant chunk this late in the game.
Bonds are essential tools for building city infrastructure. I’m far from being anti-bond. But bond projects require strong oversight and transparency. With global economic concerns, questions about public budgets, concerns about construction oversight, and more, the public needs to be able to trust that their taxpayer dollars are being safeguarded.
If Denver voters approve the Vibrant Denver bond, we need more, earlier oversight of these construction projects. That means that targeted project-based audits in the first few years of the bond cycle should be prioritized. If there are delays or cost-overruns early in the bond cycle, then folks should be aware of it. Oversight shouldn’t be an afterthought that comes near the end, once taxpayer dollars are already spent. Construction oversight should be a part of the foundation of good management.
If we want to make Denver a well-run, opportunity city, then we need to invest in Denver’s future. We also need to be sure that our investment is getting results. We need to do our due diligence prior to making voting decisions. The time is now for greater transparency and accountability. You, as taxpayers, deserve it.
Erik Clarke is an Executive Controller in the private sector and was in leadership roles at major accounting firms, specializing in internal audit and financial advisory. He has managed performance, construction, cybersecurity, and financial audits at nearly two dozen organizations.
by Editorial Board | Jun 20, 2025 | Valley Gadfly
Editorial —
With little fanfare the Godfather of the Colorado GOP Establishment, Phil Anschutz, has given up on the Colorado GOP which he has indirectly controlled for over three decades until the rise of the grassroots and President Trump. The signs of his abandonment have been popping up for months.
The Anschutz RINO conservative media empire has been in full retreat. The Colorado Springs Gazette and the Denver Gazette are hidden behind pay walls now therefore the opinion pieces by RINO columnists like Dick Wadhams and Jimmy Sengenberger have little readership or reach. His RINO blog site Colorado Politics is not updated for long periods of time.
His flagship enterprise, the Independence Institute, was once a beehive of activity with almost a score of employees, now just limps along. Anschutz’s Complete Colorado website acted as and looked like a Colorado Drudge Report. Its Page 2 section provided original RINO reporting. The Drudge-like format and most of the original reporting are now a thing of the past.
The face of the Anschutz media empire for over two decades has been Jon Caldara. Originally a quick witted, irreverent firebrand, is now an old, tired, sad, and bald lion in winter.
Anschutz disillusionment with the Colorado GOP dates to the Fall of 2022 and heartbreaking election losses suffered in that year’s midterm races by the Colorado GOP Establishment. Anschutz and his Establishment allies had finally got a GOP election lineup it had long dreamed of with Joe O’Dea for U.S. Senator; Heidi Ganahl for Governor; Pam Anderson for Secretary of State; John Kellner for Attorney General; and Lang Silas for Treasurer.
For the Establishment, there were absolutely no God, guns, anti-gay, climate deniers. Anschutz adamantly believed that this was exactly what Coloradans hungered for. GOP Chair Kristy Burton Brown put together a vague and bland pro-business platform that all Colorado Republicans could run under that would offend absolutely no one. Best of all 2022 was going to be a big Red Wave year nationally and Colorado would be part of the tsunami with business friendly RINOs taking back Colorado from the extreme, socialist Democrats.
The big day came but there was no Red Wave nationally and the beautiful Colorado RINO slate was crushed with individuals losing by overwhelming margins. How could this have possibly happened?
Uncle Phil and his brain trust at the Independence Institute did a long deep intellectual dive and came up with the answer. It was, of course, the fault of Donald Trump. Yes, suburban women in Colorado hated Trump and took it out on the beautiful Republican slate even though none of the Colorado Republicans running for statewide office liked or supported Trump.
This conclusion is outlined and explained in an extraordinary column in Colorado Politics penned by Jon Caldera on May 8th (“Will Open Primaries Rescue Republicans”). According to Caldara suburban women and in particularly the dastardly single moms, hate Trump with such a passion that it “turns to hatred of his political party [the Republicans].” Caldera went so far to state: “Any candidate running with an ‘R’ behind his name in swing districts might as well have a swastika behind his name.”
The concept explains everything. The wonderful 2022 RINO slate did not overwhelming lose because the voters did not like them, but their hatred of Trump blinded them.
Suburban women in Colorado according to Caldara are “pro-gay, pro-abortion, pro-weed and, until the blackouts hit, believe climate change is Colorado, not China, caused.”
Men apparently don’t vote in suburban districts according to Caldara or if they do their votes don’t really count. How Trump won countrywide the popular vote by over a million votes in the 2024 election including all seven swing states is not explained. Colorado women in the suburbs are just a different breed than anywhere else in the country.
So how can Republicans win in a state where suburban women view Republicans as “Nazis” even the wonderful meek pro-business RINOs that Anschutz adores.
Independence Institute and Jon Caldara have figured it out. In order to save the State and the Colorado GOP we must destroy the political parties and go to jungle primaries just like California.
But didn’t the Colorado voters just reject jungle primaries in the 2024 election along with three other western states? In Colorado, this rejection happened notwithstanding Kent Thiery and the proponents of jungle primaries outspending its opponents by a 10 to 1 margin. Well according to Caldara, Thiery needs to spend millions to bring it back to the people but this time no ranked choice voting.
In Caldara’s view jungle primaries will result in the swing suburban districts persons unaffiliated with either party running and winning. These winners are really RINOs but without any party affiliation. They would then caucus with the rural Republicans and save us from socialist Democrats who are destroying the state.
The mere fact that that is not what happens in any jurisdiction that has jungle primaries is of no importance to Caldara. What, in fact, will happen only candidates with rich backers like Phil Anschutz can win in such a system. The Republican Party apparatus will be destroyed and along with Grassroot Republicans.
For many Republicans in Colorado whatever value the Independence Institute and John Caldara once had is past its due date. Time to put both out to pasture.
— Editorial Board
by Editorial Board | Feb 19, 2025 | Editorials
Editorial —
Denver Mayor Mike Johnston
This Editorial Board has scant opportunity to support or praise Denver Mayor Mike Johnston since his swearing in as Denver’s 46th mayor on July 23, 2023, other than to say at least he is not Michael Hancock. This difficulty is in large part due to Mayor Johnston spending all of his time his first 19 months in office on the homeless and the “newcomers” and little else.
That leaves the needs of 99% of Denver’s residents unattended to. A mere walk downtown demonstrates a city badly in decay. Mayor Johnston is a self-described “progressive” and like many other big city progressive mayors, like Karen Bass of Los Angeles and Brandon Johnson of Chicago, he is pretty good at theoretical constructs but lousy at governing.
That is why this Board and most of the city was in shock when he announced that the City and County had swapped 144 acres of industrially-zoned land for the 155-acre former Park Hill Golf Course which will now be a regional park to open this summer.
The swap took some doing. Denver took $12.7 million from a voter approved park fund and acquired from the Denver International Airport 144 acres of industrial zoned land located in Adams County. It then swapped it for the 155-acre old Park Hill Golf Course property located by Colorado Boulevard in the Northeast Park Hill neighborhood. The transaction still needs to be approved by Adams County but that is not expected to be a problem.
On the surface this looks like a bad deal for Westside Investment who paid $24 million for the property from the Early Learning Center and is now receiving property worth half that much from Denver.
But don’t worry. The driving force behind the swap was not Mayor Johnston and Denver but Westside Investments who will, behind the scenes, be making out like a bandit as developers usually do.
But we don’t care. Johnston got the deal done for the benefit of all of Denver, and particularly the residents of Park Hill. All his predecessor ever did was destroy every piece of open space he could hand over to developers.
Now what to call the new park? If there has ever been a “Peoples Park” it is this one. The people of Denver fought against their own government and a favored developer hell bent on turning green land into a pavement covered development.
At the front of the park there should be a very impressive statue of Wellington Webb flanked by Penfield Tate and Woody Garnsey. No one in Denver should ever forget what they accomplished for the people of the City and County of Denver.
— Editorial Board
