by Editorial Board | Jun 29, 2026 | Editorials
Editorial —
New Colorado Republican Party Chairman Craig Steiner
As everyone is aware, Colorado is a one-party state (i.e., the Democratic Party), much like California and New York, but even more so. There are no Republicans holding any statewide office and there haven’t been since ballot harvesting was legalized in 2016. Democrats have overwhelming majorities in the State House and Senate. There is not a single judge at any level in the state who is not a Democrat.
But the state’s top Democrats recognize that for Colorado to be literally a single-party state like the Stalinist U.S.S.R. is not really a good look. Better for the Democrats to be like the old Harlem Globetrotters and the Republican Party to be like the plucky Washington Generals. The Generals almost never won a game, but it was, in theory, possible.
The Republican Party at the end of May elected a new chair, Craig Steiner of Douglas County. The position had become available due to the resignation of Brita Horn, the former Routt County Treasurer. She is almost universally recognized as the worst party chair in the 150 years since Colorado became a state in 1876.
The present Colorado Republican Party is split into two factions, and the essential battle is over how the party should pick its candidates for the general election. In 2016, the Democrats, with money from so-called independent Kent Thiry, put Proposition 108 on the ballot. It overturned past precedent and forced both parties to have semi-open primaries.
Under this scheme, unaffiliated voters were mailed primary ballots from both parties, and they could choose which party’s primary they wanted to vote in. It greatly weakened the rationale for a person to be affiliated with a party.
Today, approximately 54% of all registered voters are unaffiliated, swamping the Democrats at 24% and Republicans at 22%. Because Democrats, far more than Republicans, generally do not have contested primaries (with this year being an exception), many Democratic-leaning unaffiliated voters cast ballots in Republican primaries, choosing the more moderate or liberal candidate. As a result, many Republicans in the State House and Senate are little more than Democrat-lite politically.
For example, Cleave Simpson, the Republican leader in the Senate, has an “F” rating from the Liberty Scorecard, a leading conservative rating organization. His colleague in the State Senate and leading candidate for the Republican gubernatorial nomination, Barb Kirkmeyer, has a similarly dismal (from a conservative perspective) “F” rating. If you are a conservative Republican, there is often little reason to vote in a general election in Colorado.
Proposition 108 barely passed in Colorado, with a majority of Republicans believed to have voted against it. To pass constitutional muster, Proposition 108 provided that a party could opt out of the semi-open primary system only if an impossibly high percentage of its governing committee (75% of all members) approved. A federal district court judge recently ruled that the threshold was unconstitutionally high.
While the moderate/liberal wing of the party is in the minority, it does constitute more than 25% of the membership and has therefore been successful in keeping the Republican Party in the highly disadvantageous semi-open primary system that greatly favors moderate/liberal Republicans.
They have been able to do so by playing a deception game in which they pretend to support opting out while doing everything they can to prevent it. Every Republican chair since 2018 has played that game except one, Dave Williams (chair from 2023 to 2025), who is now in Washington, D.C.
The newest chair got elected by pretending he was for the opt-out, but since being elected has shown himself to be what they call a “DeceptiCon.”
The previous chair, Brita Horn, had to resign when it was discovered that she had allowed her attorney to loot the party of all its funds. Craig Steiner, since becoming chair, has done nothing to prevent all cash funds from being scooped up by the attorney, making it impossible to raise new funds.
Why in the world would Republican chairs like Horn and Steiner want to destroy the organization they head? It’s simple. The big donors to the Republican Party, who long propped up the moderate/liberal wing, no longer want a Republican Party to choose candidates at all. They and Kent Thiry want Colorado to move to jungle primaries, where candidates petition and/or pay to get on the ballot and the top two vote-getters, regardless of party affiliation or lack thereof, advance to the general election, just like California.
It is a system dominated by multi-millionaires and billionaires, and no one else need apply.
Perhaps it is all for the best. Instead of the present one-party state, we will become a no-party state where the very wealthy control all.
— Editorial Board
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 Mark Smiley | May 19, 2026 | General Featured
by Mark Smiley
Cherry Creek continues to solidify its position as one of Denver’s strongest economic engines, according to a newly released State of Cherry Creek report highlighting continued growth in development, retail, tourism, office space, and small business activity throughout the district.
Released May 15 by the Cherry Creek Alliance, the report paints a picture of a thriving mixed-use neighborhood that continues to outperform many national and regional trends despite broader economic uncertainty in commercial real estate and retail sectors.
The report found that Cherry Creek welcomed more than 16.8 million visitors annually and currently supports 1,694 businesses and more than 16,800 workers, reinforcing its reputation as one of Denver’s premier destinations for shopping, dining, business, and tourism.
One of the most notable findings involved office space performance. While office vacancies remain a challenge nationwide, Cherry Creek’s office market continued to outperform many competing urban districts. Cherry Creek North’s office vacancy rate dropped to just 1.3% in 2025, while the broader Cherry Creek office market posted a 10.5% vacancy rate — figures significantly stronger than many major U.S. markets.
Retail performance also remained exceptionally strong. The report cited a retail vacancy rate of just 1.9% along with average lease rates of $36.05 per square foot triple net, demonstrating continued demand from retailers seeking a presence in the high-traffic district.
Development activity throughout Cherry Creek also continues at a rapid pace. According to the report, eight projects are currently under construction while another eight developments have been announced. Major projects include the highly anticipated Cherry Creek West development, the Waldorf Astoria Residences, and Cherry Lane, all of which are expected to further reshape the neighborhood in the coming years.
The district also generated more than $119.3 million in tax revenue for the City and County of Denver in 2025, including $62.1 million in retail sales tax revenue, $44.7 million in property taxes, $7 million in lodger’s tax revenue, and $4.9 million from parking revenue.
Small businesses remain a major component of Cherry Creek’s economic identity. The report found that the district supports more than 462 ground-level retail and service businesses, with 87% classified as small businesses and 60% qualifying as micro businesses with fewer than 10 employees. More than half of the area’s small businesses are locally owned.
Employment and wages also continued to rise in 2025, with Cherry Creek posting 1.7% employment growth and 3% wage growth. Professional and office sectors contributed significantly to the gains, while the average annual wage in the district reached $102,266.
Tourism and hospitality indicators also remained strong. Hotels within the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District posted a 72.78% occupancy rate with an average daily room rate of $295.51 and revenue per available room reaching $216.61, outperforming citywide and statewide averages.
“Cherry Creek continues to prove that it is a vibrant, walkable mixed-use district and a powerful driver of economic growth and community vitality,” said Nick LeMasters, president of the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District, in the report. “The momentum we’re seeing today reflects years of thoughtful collaboration between businesses, developers, residents, and community leaders.”
The Cherry Creek Alliance said the findings underscore the district’s continued role as a major contributor to Metro Denver’s economic growth and long-term development strategy.
Photos courtesy of Cherry Creek North
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.
