by Valley Gadfly | Dec 15, 2025 | Main Articles
Slight Metro Rent Rate Up-Tick Expected; Denver Ranks 20th Among Nation’s Rental Markets
by Glen Richardson
Unclear Market: The Denver rental market is in flux which has rental property owners of all price points concerned.
Denver’s year-end rents will surge slightly — forecasts to be up 0.8% — as 2025 comes to a close. The upbeat is being supported by an improving supply-demand balance.
Metro rental rates, however, are down $71 since the second quarter of 2024, and $46 lower than the same period in 2023. Denver ranks 20th among the nation’s metro rental markets, with median rent for a one-bedroom at $1,760.
Property management company Keyrenter Denver says, “The Mile High’s rental market lately is like trying to hit a moving target. Vacancy numbers, rent trends, and development stats are shifting fast. Many landlords are noticing the ripple effects firsthand with slower lease-ups, more tenant inquiries, and a noticeable change in momentum.”
Upturn In 2026?
Downtown Digs: CoLab Apartments on Osage St. downtown has units for rent ranging from $935 to $2,176.
As of October 2025, the average rent in Denver was $1,627 per month. The national average rent price in the U.S. is currently $1,629 per month, which puts Denver rent prices $2 lower than the national average.
According to MMG Real Estate Advisors, Denver’s rental market is expected to shift from softness in 2025 to a moderate rent recovery by early 2026. They forecast a 2% to 3% annual rent growth.
Mountain region cities have seen a significant drop in rent costs over the last year, with prices in Denver down more than most. According to a report by rental website Zumper, rent prices in the Mile High City have gone down by 7.3% since September 2024.
Supply Surge
Ventana Venture: The Ventana at Colorado Station has studios to 3-bedrooms with rates at $872 to $2,315 per month.
The first half of 2025 reshaped Denver’s rental landscape. Apartment vacancies climbed to around 7%, marking the highest level since 2010. The spike was driven by an unprecedented flood of inventory — 20,000 new units were delivered in 2024 alone, with another 8,000 hitting the market in early 2025.
As supplies surged, average rents fell by around 3.6% year-over-year, with figures ranging from $1,733 to $1,824, depending on location and unit type.
Cushman & Wakefield even ranked Denver’s second quarter absorption among the top six quarters ever recorded nationally. Denver’s appeal as a relocation destination is holding firm.
Mobile Market
Glendale Glamor: The Phenix at Infinity Park on E. Mississippi Ave. in Glendale has 1 & 2-bedrooms renting from $999 to $1,669 per month.
Renters in Denver aren’t staying put for long. More than half move to a new place in less than two years, making the metro one of the most mobile rental markets in the U.S., according to RentCafe.com.
Denver ranks 5th among the nation’s “move-easy” hotspots. In Denver, 53% of renters move to a different apartment within two years. That’s up 19% in five years, even as the renter population dipped slightly. The local housing supply grew by nearly 10%, giving renters more choices and flexibility.
In Denver, Gen Z renters (78%) move the most, though they’reswitching their homes slightly less often than before. Moreover, Millennials (60%) remain just as mobile as before.
Safety Comes First
Creek Contrast: Rental options in Cherry Creek North range from Clayton Lane where 2-bedrooms bring $3,800 to 205 Columbine St. where 2-bedrooms are $6,500.
Most renters’ ideal apartment is one that offers style plus suburban comfort (41%). That’s followed by mixed-use convenience (33%), and eco-friendly living (28%).
When choosing neighborhoods, renters say safety comes first at 54%. Walkability and proximity to shopping and public transportation are also high on their list.
Budget-friendly neighborhoods (40%) adds to rentability — whether quiet or lively — where affordability meets comfort.
Stiff Competition
Despite the softening in rent and rising vacancies, leasing activity has remained robust. MMG Real Estate Advisors and CBRE — a real estate service & investment company — reported nearly 6,000 net absorbed units in the first half of the year.
Data from Institutional Property Advisors and MMG shows that older apartment buildings and C-class condos — especially those without amenities or recent updates — are struggling the most.
These units face stiff competition from newer, more incentivized alternatives, and are often where vacancy has climbed the fastest. Rent compression in these segments has been sharper, and in some submarkets, leasing speed has slowed considerably.
Pipeline Shrinks
Buildup Boom: More than 8,000 new condo-apartment units hit the Denver market in early 2025, reshaping Denver’s rental landscape.
A key turning point this year is how Denver’s construction pipeline is finally shrinking, albeit from previously record-breaking levels.
Denver-based CoStar Group — a commercial real estate data & analytics company — says that while approximately 19,000 new apartment units were delivered in 2024, the forecast for 2025 was a sharp drop to around 6,600 completions.
Upshot: The oversupply wave is receding, but not overnight. With 2025 completions expected to be nearly two-thirds lower than the previous year, inventory pressure was expected to begin easing by the fourth quarter. That shift — if actual — sets the stage for stabilization and early 2026 rent recovery.
Upgrades Help
For rental property owners, the next six months will be ideal for making smart, cost-effective improvements that boost tenant satisfaction and property performance. Whether it’s replacing aging fixtures, improving curb appeal, or upgrading outdated appliances, small enhancements can set a property apart.
Owners, property professionals suggest, should reach out directly to current tenants and ask if there are any minor upgrades they would like, items such as fresh bathroom flooring or better lighting.
Sometimes, they point out, low-cost improvements are all it takes to encourage a long-term renewal. That they note, can save far more than a full turnover. That’s especially true in today’s competitive environment.
Occupancy Drops
Metro apartment supply jumped 1.67%, more than double the 0.75% increase recorded last year. For renters, that meant more listings to choose from. As a result, 57% of renters renewed their leases, 0.9% fewer than last year.
The added supply was enough to pull occupancy down to 91.8%, compared to 94.3% a year ago. This season, seven renters competed for each available apartment, down from 10 last year. Apartments leased in 41 days on average, compared to just 35 a year ago.
Denver’s Rental Competitiveness Index (RCI) dropped to 67.9, down from 78, showing that the market is still competitive but significantly less intense than a year ago.
Rental Rates
The vacancy rate in Denver is the highest in the metro at 7.7%. The metro vacancy rate — the percentage of empty apartments on the market — is higher than at any time in the past 15 years.
Near the end of 2025 there were a total of 440,521 rentable units on the market. Nearly 31,000 apartments were unoccupied on any given day. Most often, vacant units are ready and waiting for their next tenant. The higher the vacancy rate, the better the deal for renters.
Median rent in the city of Denver for a two-bedroom apartment is $1,653. Apartments built before the 1970s are averaging $1,586, while newer units with more amenities are averaging as much as $2,340 a month.
by Mark Smiley | Dec 15, 2025 | Main Articles
A Penny Saved Is Now More Than Just A Penny Earned, It’s Also A Relic Of History
by Mark Smiley
Three Step: A 1927-D three leg buffalo nickel sells from $1.50 in good condition, or up to $22,500 for uncirculated coins.
Nickel’s Worth: Costing 14 cents to mint, the nickel’s cost will potentially lead it to face the same fate as the penny.
Penny Pinched: The Denver Mint has stopped minting new pennies. It costs more to produce a penny than it is worth.
Among the first coins produced more than 230 years ago, the United States is ceasing to mint new pennies as 2026 gets underway. The decision was made because it costs more to produce a penny than it is worth.
Existing pennies will remain legal tender and can still be used. However, once lost or damaged, they will not be replaced, as the government will no longer be supplying them. There’s also likely little value to stockpiling pennies, even as production halts. Unless you have a rare penny, your one-cent coins are likely still only worth one cent.
This isn’t the first time the U.S. has done away with a coin. In 1857, Congress discontinued the half-cent coin. Canada stopped minting its penny in 2012. In 2024, it cost the U.S. Mint 3.7 cents to produce and distribute a penny. This means taxpayers were essentially subsidizing the production of a coin that had little purchasing power.
Costly To Make
When it was introduced in 1793, a penny could buy a biscuit, a candle, or a piece of candy. Now most of them are cast aside to sit in jars or junk drawers, and each one costs nearly 4 cents to make.
Penny shortages are expected in mid-to-late 2026 but could, of course, set in — sooner. That could leave everyone — state and federal governments, as well as businesses — scrambling to put together policies on how to handle cash transactions without pennies.
Many businesses say they may round change. They can do that by either rounding up the change (if you’re owed $19.24, you get $19.25) or rounding the transaction down (your $6.13 transaction becomes $6.10).
Cost Versus Value
Compared to other coins, pennies are not expensive to make. Compared to its own value, however, they are expensive.
Penny Scoop: Denver Mint’s Guillermo Hernandez scoops a handful of “cents blanks” that will be stamped into pennies.
The average cost to make a single penny rose to 3.69 cents in 2024, marking the 19th consecutive year the coin has “remained above face value,” per the U.S. Mint report.
For comparison, it costs less than six cents to make a dime, about 15 cents to make a quarter, and nearly 34 cents for a half-dollar.
Pennies Per Person
That jar of pennies on your bookcase or dresser is not “skyrocketing in value.”
In 2024, about a quarter trillion pennies were estimated to be in circulation, or more than 700 pennies for each person in the United States.
A 5-gallon jug of pennies is worth approximately $350 to $450 in face value, depending on how densely they are packed. The total value could be significantly higher if the jug contains rare or old pennies.
You do not have to keep all your pennies, as they are still legal tender and can be spent or deposited into a bank. Hoarding them is generally not a good financial strategy because there are billions in circulation and they are not expected to become valuable collector’s items. It’s best to spend them, cash them in at a bank, or use a coin-counting machine, though be aware some machines charge a fee for cash payouts.
Penny Of Steel
During World War II’s critical years, the U.S. Mint made an unprecedented decision that would forever change American coinage. To conserve copper for military ammunition production, the traditional bronze penny was replaced with zinc-coated steel for 1943 only.
This wartime change created one of the most dramatic value contrasts in coin collecting. Most 1943 steel pennies remain affordable treasures. A fine condition example trades for just $0.69, while even “Mint State” specimens typically reach only $22.50 to $27.83, depending on the mint mark.
However, a few copper planchets accidentally remained in the presses, creating the legendary 1943 bronze pennies. A good condition bronze penny commands $43,067, while pristine Mint State examples soar to an astounding $723,350. This represents one of the most spectacular value jumps in numismatic history — from pocket change to potential retirement fund.
Pricy Pennies
A 1943 copper (bronze) penny is worth over a million dollars. They were created by an error when the U.S. Mint accidentally used leftover copper planchets instead of zinc-coated steel ones, which were needed for World War II.
The most valuable examples are those in the best condition, with specific coins selling for over $1 million, and the unique 1943-D bronze cent selling for $1.7 million in 2010.
Penny Wise: The Denver Mint is going to cease producing U.S. pennies due to their relative lack of value. There are exceptions as the above penny, the 1943-D Bronze Lincoln Wheat Cent, is estimated to be worth over $1.7 Million. When you go through your old pennies, be sure not to throw this one away.
To check if a 1943 penny might be rare, test it with a magnet. If it’s magnetic, it’s one of the common steel pennies worth only a few cents. However, if it’s not magnetic, it’s a valuable bronze error coin.
Is The Nickel Next?
It costs nearly 14 cents to make a nickel, significantly more than the 3.7 cents to make a penny. Thus, it faces a situation similar to the penny’s. Doing so, however, is more complicated than eliminating the penny. It would necessitate a new “rounding rule” for cash transactions ending in 5 cents, potentially increasing the “rounding tax” on consumers. Nevertheless, the nickel’s cost will potentially lead it to face the same fate as the penny.
The cost to mint a single nickel is significantly higher that its face value. It cost the U.S. Mint 13.78 cents to produce one nickel in 2024. That’s nearly nine cents per coin. The loss is even greater than that of the penny, which costs 3.69 cents to produce.
Coin Toss: After 230 years, the United States is ceasing to mint new pennies as 2026 gets underway.
Given the high cost of production and shifting consumer spending habits the nickel may eventually face the same fate as the penny. That’s particularly true if inflation continues to erode its purchasing power. Moreover, many other countries that have removed their smaller denomination coins later phased out the newest-lower coin.
A 1999 penny can be worth as much as $4,500 today because of a rare minting error called a “wide AM” variety, where the “A” and “M” in “AMERICA” are spaced further apart than normal. This error occurred when a reverse die intended for proof coins, which has a wide space, was mistakenly used on some business-strike pennies meant for circulation.
by Heather Brecl | Nov 17, 2025 | Main Articles
Cherry Creek North Residents Fight Government Overreach
by Heather Prochnow Brecl
Councilwoman Sawyer and GID Consultant Jamie Giellis present the proposed GID to CCN residents.
Cherry Creek North (CCN) residents successfully blocked the proposed General Improvement District (GID) for their neighborhood, keeping it from advancing toward the 2026 ballot. Their victory came after months of mounting opposition and culminated at a late-September meeting with consultant Jamie Giellis, representing Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer’s office, where residents made it clear they would not support the plan with the Cherry Creek North neighborhood in it. Their victory was reported in the Chronicle’s lead story last month, “Citizens Win! Neighbors Halt The Cherry Creek GID Takeover.”
But Giellis’ sudden and unexpected concession at the meeting without even the need to consult with the person who was purportedly heading the effort, Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer, left open many unanswered questions. What was the real genesis of this unwarranted and unwanted GID plan? What persons or entities were really behind the proposed Cherry Creek GID? Who were to be the real beneficiaries of the new GID?
The Official Story
CCN residents and activists Dana Busch, Wayne New, and Greg Jenkins battle to defeat the GID.
The story told to residents in Cherry Creek North by District 5 Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer was that numerous “constituents” had come to her requesting her aid in how to effectuate unspecified improvements in the Cherry Creek area. The story was spun that Swayer then consulted and engaged former Denver mayoral candidate and special district expert Jamie Giellis of Centro, Inc. to see what could be done to assist the constituents in their desire to improve the Cherry Creek area.
Councilwoman Sawyer went to Denver City Council and was awarded $15,000 to pay for a “feasibility study” regarding forming a General Improvement District for the entire Cherry Creek Statistical Area running from 6th Avenue to the North, Cherry Creek to the South, University Boulevard to the west, and Colorado Boulevard to the east. It is an unusually large GID with residential areas of Cherry Creek North and Cherry Creek East (containing 9,500 residents), the Cherry Creek Mall, and the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District.
Neighborhood Disbelief
Sawyer’s initial problem was that no one believed her, or Giellis. The residents included in the Cherry Creek GID are many highly sophisticated individuals who know how government actually works and the feel-good cover stories, such as those being peddled by Sawyer and Giellis, are seldom the true motivations behind a project.
Cherry Creek resident Frank Ooms and other residents believe that the special districts like the Cherry Creek GID were examples of gross overstepping by the Denver City government and its complete lack of fiscal responsibility and policy. Ooms emphatically stated that the proposed GID was “a quick money grab for the City to raise funds for carrying out their own agenda for what they determine are needed improvements rather than actually representing the needs or wishes of Cherry Creek residents.”
By statute, a GID is supposed to be initiated by residents according to their needs as it is in essence an additional self-imposed expense on top of property/co
mm
ercial taxes they owe each year. Ooms, an architectural photographer for commercial projects and resident of Cherry Creek North, in tandem with other CCN residents, stood firmly in their position that the GID that Sawyer and the City were pushing did not represent the wishes of the majority of residents and was instead a front for picking the pockets of residents who live in well-established upper-class neighborhood.
Dana Busch, a vocal CCN resident and leader in the efforts to stop the GID, stated that “the residents of CCN are outraged that the City would try and impose these additional funds and that it is an excuse used to compensate for the City’s gross overstepping of government and complete mismanagement of funds.” She continued, saying that “the City of Denver so grossly mis prioritized and mismanaged their finances and policies that they attempted to use the residents of CCN to fix their budget problems and serve their own agenda further increasing the City’s debt and more problems, not to mention violating due process with a complete lack of transparency.”
The City Of Denver
Tells A Different Narrative
Nick LeMasters, the respected and well-liked head of the Cherry Creek North Business Improvement District, appeared to be virtually the only business leader in the Cherry Creek area to admit what the GID was really about. When asked what the actual motivation of the City of Denver is for a GID in Cherry Creek, he described many critical areas of development that need to be addressed in Cherry Creek, such as public safety and mobility, including restoration of the Cherry Creek waterway, and an enhanced bikeway between University and Colorado which has become increasingly important for bikers. These are among the “shovel ready” proposed projects to maintain the elevated standard of living that residents of Cherry Creek expect and pay so dearly for.
Astro-Turf Survey
But, of course, residents were told nothing of the preplanned, “shovel ready” projects, that they were necessary since the city was bankrupting itself on the mayor’s homeless and “new comers” initiatives. The progressive City government was not going to spend money on what was viewed as the posh Cherry Creek area even if the area provided the second greatest amount of sales tax revenues to the City, surpassed only by downtown Denver.
Moreover, under the rubric of mobility (called “Denver Moves — Cherry Creek”), the City wanted to take out a driving lane for automobiles on Speer/1st and make it a bus lane which was not likely to be something that Cherry Creek residents wanted or were willing to pay for themselves. The businesses in Cherry Creek also did not want to pay for all of these shovel ready projects themselves. But the key to the project was to get residents to believe that they came up with the idea for more taxes to pay for vague and generalized improvements in Cherry Creek.
The gaslighting of the Cherry Creek residents was commenced with postcards sent out by Giellis last spring offering three improvement options — security, lighting, and beautification — and the results would later be presented as proof that residents supported forming a GID.
“The survey was designed to produce the answer the City wanted. It was a boondoggle, completely unscientific, and statistically meaningless,” says Dana Busch, CCN resident and entrepreneur.
Busch called the survey “a weaponized mechanism used to fabricate consent.” Residents note it failed to include a fourth option which was “no need for improvements,” creating a false narrative from the options that were included. Busch continued, saying that there was no credible demographic data, response rates, or cost transparency. Crucially, the City never disclosed how much a GID would cost homeowners, how assessments would be calculated, or that rates could increase over time without another vote. Furthermore, out of the almost 9,300 registered voters in the proposed GID area, only 200 votes are needed to get on the ballot. And, as is with other measures on the ballot, to pass the measure requires only a majority of those who actually end up voting.
“The City used bad statistics, omitted financial consequences, and spun the results as if residents were asking for services having no proof that they actually did,” Busch said. “That’s not just misleading, it’s manipulative.”
CCN resident Greg Jenkins, who has extensive experience with feasibility studies as an energy executive, pointed out that the survey that Geillis sent out falls far short of an actual feasibility study, noting that it is simply not possible to do a study when they do not even know what projects they are planning to do.
Denver’s Debt Habit
Continues with GIDs
As a whole, Denver has a lengthy track record for supporting bond measures, rapidly increasing the amount of debt that the City has in order to provide what they deem to be necessary services and what the people want. On the heels of defeating the proposed GID in CCN, Denver got the approval of a GID on Broadway and voted to pass the five “Vibrant Denver” Bonds in the amount $950M which will allow debt-funded construction.
Dana Busch expressed her disgust for the City’s overall irresponsible fiscal management. “They keep finding new ways to raise money instead of fixing the fiscal mess they already have. The City’s mismanagement is not our responsibility to underwrite. The CCN GID is a perfect example of going back into the pockets of residents to try and correct their gross misappropriation of funds to fix projects which are their responsibility to handle in the first place.”
How The CCN Neighborhood
Association Turned A Blind Eye
Initial discussions of the GID in CCN began with Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer and GID expert Jamie Geillis going first to sell developers like East West Partners and the Broe Group, and eventually the CCN Neighborhood Association (“CCNA”). Gradually CCN residents themselves were brought into forums. However, as discussion heated up and the City’s survey was sent out, the CCNA unexpectedly took a “neutral position” on the GID. CCN residents like Greg Jenkins became increasingly agitated by what they view as the unwillingness of their very own CCNA Board to protect the residents’ real interests.
Residents like Busch, Ooms, and Jenkins felt that their int
erests were not represented by the City or their own neighborhood association that was once the vanguard of advocating for responsible development under the direction of Wayne New. Jenkins in particular felt that the CCNA was allowing the City to “pick their pockets” and slowly saw a pattern of change over the last year or so leading up to the GID battle. He noted that the neighborhood bylaws slowly allowed for more decision-making of the CCNA Board without participation of others. Furthermore, he recognized the involvement of individuals on the Board who he believes compromised the ability to represent CCN fully with their own agenda. “There are three things that motivate people to do things — they are power, prestige, and money. Falling short of demonstrating that money was the motivator, it is clear that power and prestige is causing certain Board members to wander away from their moral compass. Their naïveté and irresponsible behavior created great distrust with the Board.”
GIDs — Curse Or Saving Grace?
“GIDs are supposed to be put in place for emerging neighborhoods to solve specific problems that they deem are of necessity to their neighborhood — this does NOT apply to CCN,” noted Jenkins.
As downtown Denver continues to struggle to rebuild after decades of problems like safety, budgets, and failed businesses, there are a number of existing GIDs like in RiNo (Riverfront North) and Ballpark, including the formation of the Broadway GID, formed to raise additional funds for so-called necessary improvements. While on the surface, this appears to be a saving grace with increased funding for safety measures and development, Jenkins and other neighborhood colleagues are of the opinion that the GIDs are, in actuality, simply convenient tools for the City to patch holes in the tremendous mess that the City created over decades with no safety mechanisms in place to control what the GID can actually do with the funds they collect. Jenkins believes that the GIDs “are the proverbial nose under the camel’s tent and that once they are in there is no stopping them.”
In an attempt to get more clarity on the motivation of the City for forming a GID, residents of CCN opposed to the GID put in a formal request for public information through CORA to which the City refused to respond.
Jenkins pointed out that the future GID Board will not be people in the area but is the City Council itself and they in turn appoint an “advisory board” whose powers and authority can be taken away at any time. Since GID’s take on debt they are almost impossible to ever terminate.
“The GID Board may adjust the annual assessment rate or expand services as necessary… GIDs may issue debt to pay for capital projects.” — City and County of Denver, Guide to GID Creation.
That language confirmed residents’ fears that the Board could raise assessments, redirect funds, or incur debt with minimal resident oversight.
“Once the GID is in place, there’s nothing stopping the City from raising assessments or repurposing funds,” said Jenkins, energy consultant.
“It’s a blank check with no accountability.”
For example, in May of 2025, Denver City Council voted to renew the RiNo GID for another 10 years.
Wolf At The Doorstep
While the City of Denver claims that the GID is NOT another tax, but rather just an assessment intended for their own good, CCN residents see it as another tax adding onto what is already one of the highest property taxes in Denver. Jenkins said “if it looks, sounds, and smells like a tax” — it is. This is just another example of pulling the wool over people’s eyes and moving it along the road until it’s too late to stop it.”
Hidden Costs And Unchecked Authority
“The residents have no idea of the financial implications of imposing a GID with layers upon layers of costs to homeowners. City Hall has neglected to share that critical part of the dialogue and instead focuses on a warm and fuzzy narrative of improvements. The City has yet to actually tell anyone how they plan to fund the projects and what the real projects even are,” declared Dana Busch.
When the idea of the GID was first introduced in initial conversations between the City of Denver and residents, the City proposed that a mill levy would be used to assess the cost of the GID to each of the residents and that this levy would be based on property values at three price points $750,000, $1.5M, and $3M. Residents believe that the mill levy proposal did not actually align with the actual property values in CCN that are much higher than $1M nor was it a fair way to assess fees. Busch commented that homeowners will pay vastly different amounts for the GID to receive the same services.
The one person who would clearly benefit from the GID’s formation would be Jamie Giellis, who would earning up to $149,000 for working on the CC GID, one of many special districts she would oversee. As stated in the agreement between the City and Centro, Inc.
“4.4. Maximum Contract Amount
4.4.1. “the City’s maximum payment obligation will not exceed $149,000”
“CCN would simply be used as a piggy bank to fund the needs of the City, which are in actuality the inherent responsibility of the City. It is not the responsibility of CCN residents to carry those financial burdens simply because the City did not handle business and development responsibly.” — Dana Busch.
Busch goes on to say that the only possible way for the GID to be effective would be for a complete overhaul of the formation of the GID to happen with a new system of checks and balances.
Lessons In Accountability
The defeat of the proposed GID was more than a neighborhood win, it was a stand for civic accountability.
By exposing the misuse of data, the failure to disclose financial impacts, and the City’s attempt to bypass resident consent, CCN homeowners believe they forced transparency back into the process.
“Cherry Creek isn’t against improvement — it’s against being exploited,” Ooms said.
This neighborhood’s revolt the residents believe, ensures that for now, that City Hall’s playbook of quiet but endless tax hikes stops at least temporarily at the edge of the Cherry Creek area.
by Valley Gadfly | Nov 17, 2025 | Main Articles
They Can Capture Audio, Video Images; Denver Police To Use As First Responders
by Glen Richardson
Drone Duo: Denver Police Sgt. Jeremy Cain (left) and Det. Jeremy Casias fly a drone outside of the Cherokee St. headquarters.
Already using Flock license plate cameras at intersections, the Denver Police Department appeared set to launch Flock’s “Aerodome” flying drones by December. Neither Denver nor Colorado regulates how police use drones.
The Denver Police Department has signed a free trial contract with Flock to use the company’s Aerodome flying drones — a “fully automated air support system” — that can reach crime scenes faster than police can often arrive. By deploying a drone to an incident scene ahead of ground units, it can provide real-time information.
Should you call 911, a drone would likely show up before an officer does. That’s especially true if the scene is being managed or secured by officers. Police drones are also used in specific scenarios, such as monitoring large events or providing aerial support in ongoing operations.
First Responders
The Denver Police Department has been exploring the utility of drones as a “First Responder” program. The department wants to improve its capacity to provide public safety services to the Mile High City.
“We saw benefit in these opportunities and have entered into a no-cost contract with Flock for a pilot package to evaluate its program,” according to a department spokesperson. The Denver Police Department is also in contract discussions with other venders to support a pilot program.”
The Flock drones are capable of capturing audio, video images, and other data that will be retained for 30 days. They look similar to consumer drones, with four propellers and a camera unit.
Dashboard Data
According to the contract, recorded images will be subject to Colorado Open Records Act requests. Once the police begin using the drones, the department plans to create a dashboard showing data about drone flights. Drones can be used to search for missing persons, respond to emergencies, document crime and crash scenes, and assist with bomb threats or “high-risk tactical situations,” among other uses. In some cases, they might be used to chase suspects.
In addition to surveillance, police can use drones for monitoring large crowds, assist in search and rescue operations, and gathering evidence. Federal and state laws govern the legality and extent of surveillance use. A warrant is often required for targeted surveillance, but permitting can be crucial in many circumstances, and state laws play a significant role in defining limits.
Thus far, about 65% of drone deployments are to assist in searches for suspects and during investigations. They have also been used in searches for missing people about 12% of the time.
Privacy Concerns
According to information obtained through an open records request by Denverite — Colorado Public Radio’s news website — the most recent contract with Flock will run through next August. If the city likes the product, it would begin to pay for Flock drones starting in 2026.
The company claims the technology makes policing more efficient and safer. However, advocacy groups argue the use of drone first responders — especially connected to a network of license plate readers — raises privacy concerns.
Moreover, the Electronic Frontier Foundation — a non-profit digital rights group based in San Francisco — argues that “integration of Flock’s ALPR technology with its Aerodome drone equipment is a police surveillance combo poised to elevate privacy threats to civilians.”
Sound, Lighting
Homeowners can often identify a police drone by its maneuverability, quieter, higher-pitched sound, and specific lighting. Police drones can make sudden, sharp movements, unlike planes and helicopters.
They often have a single, less-visible anti-collision light compared to the standard flashing lights on manned aircraft. In high-tech situations, police may also be using specialized equipment, and you might see them using a “Drone as First Responder” program, where the drone is deployed to a scene before officers arrive.
Police drones may be equipped with specialized payloads like thermal cameras or high-resolution zoom lenses for specific tasks like crime scene mapping. These programs deploy a drone to an incident scene ahead of ground units to provide real-time information.
Night Identity
Unmanned Aircraft: Remotely piloted police drones can make sudden, sharp movements, unlike planes and helicopters. Photo: Denver Police Department
At night, surveillance drones can look like moving lights, sometimes with steady white lights or flashing red and green ones. They may also appear as a heat signature to thermal cameras, even in complete darkness.
Drones can be distinguished from stars and planes by their movement patterns. They may hover, move in strange ways, or follow specific, repetitive paths that aircraft cannot.
Some drones can hear conversations, especially through an open window or with specialized equipment, but most standard drones cannot eavesdrop through walls and have difficulty recording clear audio over their own rotor noise. Some commercial drones can record audio. Police or military drones may use advanced directional microphones to listen in, though these are not common.
Data Sharing?
Denver Police Drone: These small, unmanned, weapon-free aircraft support a variety of missions in Denver.
Earlier this year, Denver City Council refused to renew a contract with Flock after members raised concerns about the company’s data-sharing policies. Flock’s CEO came to Denver to lobby lawmakers about the technology.
However, Mayor Mike Johnston’s administration renewed the contract for less than the monetary amount that triggers a council vote, and the council may yet reconsider the larger contract.
Some groups — including the Party for Socialism & Liberation — have been rallying for the city to cut contracts with Flock, citing civil liberties concerns. Supporters, however, say they appreciate how police can use the technology to solve crimes. Arvada police officers recently used Flock cameras to track a stolen car after a carjacking and shooting.
by Elizabeth McCubbins | Nov 17, 2025 | Main Articles
by Elizabeth McCubbins
East Theatre History: While waiting for the play to begin, patrons could peruse posters of East’s past and buy merchandise to support the arts.
East High School (EHS) observed 150 Years of Excellence this September, marking the sesquicentennial milestone with a weekend of celebration. Founded in 1875, EHS claims the title of Denver’s original high school. Beginning Thursday, September 18, the 150th Committee held a re-dedication to kick off the remembrance. Followed by Homecoming, a breakfast, and an open house, students, staff, and alumni joined together to honor the history of the building and its community.
150 Years is a big accomplishment, and the occasion brought together decades of Angels to commemorate the legacy. In a modern society that is ever changing, East has clung to its traditions and honored the history well. Along with the foundation of the school, 2025 marks 100 years of the building itself. Constructed in 1925, the Jacobean architecture aimed to aesthetize the neighborhood, and in 1991 was declared a Denver Historic Landmark.
In celebration of the anniversary, East Theater Company put on a special play of their own creation. Written by the cast performing it, “Study No More” is a one-of-a-kind look into the history of the school.
History Of The Building: Former East student George Williamson designed the building, which was completed in 1925, and has been a beauty of the City Park neighborhood ever since.
The artistic director, Deborah Voss, conceptualized the idea last spring to chronicle the history of EHS. with a piece that told a story and moved throughout the actual building. About 20 theater students worked collaboratively to write the script, with the senior students claiming most of the work.
Relying on records, the East’s past was researched for the production. Luckily, historians have analogued the accounts for today’s society. “Flights of Angels: A History of Denver East High School” by Richard Nelson was relied on in the writing process of this play. Nelson, now retired, wrote the book after teaching English at East for 31 years. Along with his book, the students used the library of records at East and yearbooks from school years past.
Though the play narrates true historical events, the students used some creative liberties: fictionalizing characters and plot points to tell a cohesive story. With two main characters acting as a guide for the audience, together they travel back in time on a journey through the decades of East. Senior Mira Ghosh, one of the tour guides in the show, explained that there were no main characters, rather, everyone contributing equally to the production as a team. “We cast as an ensemble,” said Ghosh, “not individual characters.”
This performance was a special experience for the seniors who had the chance to direct individual scenes and revise the script as a team. Running from October 21-30, the ensemble put on four shows a night to audiences sized of 25 people. The nature of the show had audience members moving from classrooms to various spaces throughout the school, following the guides back into history through each scene.
Beautiful Architecture: East High School’s beautiful 100-year-old building shines on Colfax. The historic clock tower, which stands over 100 feet tall, was the location of the play’s final act.
It was a really unique show for the cast and audience members alike. East Theater Company delights in the arts promoting togetherness, which is the overall goal of the theater experience. This anniversary has brought the student body and neighborhood together, and through the immersive play, the crowd was connected to the cast in a feeling of community.
The show was an ode to the legacy we leave behind. The actors played high school characters who learned to embrace their current day experiences through inspiration from the past. As the audience was taken on a tour through the school building and previous decades, we watched and learned along with our navigators that it is possible for high school students to have an impact. And while progressive change is always important, the story also reminds us that the relationships we form and the memories we make along the way should never be forgotten.
by Heather Brecl | Oct 20, 2025 | Main Articles
After months of grassroots pressure, Cherry Creek North neighbors stop Denver City Hall’s and Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer’s attempt to create a new tax district — and set a new standard for local government accountability.
by Heather Prochnow Brecl
Signage: Grassroots campaign signage became a unifying symbol across Cherry Creek North, as residents rallied under the “Stop the GID Tax in CCN” movement to oppose the proposed district.
Map: A City of Denver map showing the Cherry Creek Statistical Neighborhood and proposed General Improvement District (GID) boundaries. The highlighted areas include the existing Business Improvement District (BID), Cherry Creek North and East Neighborhood Associations, and the “Triangle Study Area” south of 1st Avenue.
Enraged Citizens: Neighbors packed the Bromwell Elementary School meeting hall in September to demand answers about the proposed Cherry Creek North GID. Jamie Geillis responded to agitated attendees declaring that the City will no longer pursue the GID in Cherry Creek.
Bitter Defeat: Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer attacked her constituents following the defeat of the Cherry Creek North GID accusing them of “vitriol” and “intentional sharing of misinformation.”
Cherry Creek North residents have done what few neighborhoods manage to achieve — they held their local government accountable and won.
After months of organizing, petitioning, and pushing for answers, homeowners successfully defeated the City of Denver’s plan to form a General Improvement District (GID) — a proposal that would have imposed a new property tax on the neighborhood in the name of “enhancement projects.”
For now, the GID is officially off the table.
“Citizens will participate — but they expect honesty,” said Dana Busch, Cherry Creek North Resident.
Grassroots Unity Turned The Tide
What began as confusion over a postcard survey evolved into one of the most effective neighborhood movements Denver has seen in years.
After an initial article exposed flaws in the process, residents launched www.StopTheGIDinCCN.com to inform their community, share documents, track meetings, and mobilize volunteers.
Soon, yard signs lined every block, and door-to-door canvassing gathered more than 1,500 signatures opposing the tax. Standing-room-only meetings at Bromwell Elementary School drew hundreds of concerned neighbors demanding transparency.
Local media coverage followed, amplifying the message that the community was united, engaged, and watching closely.
September Showdown: Residents Demand Answers
The movement’s momentum peaked in two pivotal September meetings.
On September 9, residents dissected the GID’s legal structure, boundaries, and funding mechanisms — revealing that the City’s survey lacked residency verification and never disclosed that proposed projects would be funded through a permanent property tax.
At the September 16 meeting, Jamie Giellis, representing Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer’s office, addressed an agitated crowd and formally conceded that Cherry Creek North would be removed from consideration for the proposed GID. Giellis acknowledged the overwhelming opposition and confirmed that the City would not move forward with the plan in this area.
Councilwoman Sawyer’s
Formal Concession
The following day, September 17, 2025, Councilwoman Amanda Sawyer issued a formal statement confirming the decision:
“Last night officially ended the exploration and engagement effort to form a GID for the Cherry Creek North neighborhood,” Sawyer wrote.
“While we always welcome open dialogue and encourage all voices to be heard, it has been discouraging to see how misinformation and divisive rhetoric overshadowed what was intended to be a constructive community conversation.”
Her letter closed by noting that the City would continue to explore similar districts in other parts of the Cherry Creek study area — a tone that, to many residents, underscored the problem: City officials were still deflecting responsibility rather than acknowledging missteps in communication and transparency.
Why Residents Were Outraged
At the center of the conflict was what neighbors called a “weaponized survey.”
The City’s online questionnaire invited feedback on amenities such as lighting, landscaping, and safety patrols — but never asked the most basic question: Do you want a new tax to pay for these things?
Because anyone could take the survey — even those living outside the proposed district — residents questioned its legitimacy. Many felt it was designed to create a false narrative of support rather than
Cherry Cricket: The Cherry Cricket, a Cherry Creek North institution since 1945, sits near the heart of the area once targeted for the proposed GID — an emblem of the neighborhood’s mix of tradition, independence, and local pride.
collect meaningful feedback.
“This was about standing up when government oversteps,” added Busch.
Neighborhood Association:
“It’s Time To Heal”
Following the decision, the Cherry Creek North Neighborhood Association (CCNNA) issued a statement:
“The General Improvement District discussions are OVER; there will be no GID in the Cherry Creek area. A GID is simply a tool to address issues that residents want to fund. Currently, the majority of residents don’t feel that the scale of the problems warrants establishment of a GID in CCN.
The issues surrounding the GID formation discussions were complicated and led to deep wounds in our neighborhood that we would like to help heal.”
That healing, residents say, begins with rebuilding trust — not only within Cherry Creek North, but also between the neighborhood and City Hall.
A Broader Call For Reform
The defeat of the GID represents more than a neighborhood victory — it’s a lesson in civic accountability.
Residents are now calling for reforms in how Denver initiates and communicates potential improvement districts, including verified surveys, full financial transparency, and clear disclosures before any tax proposal moves forward.
The experience also raised broader questions about how public officials interpret “engagement.” For many in Cherry Creek North, the City’s version of outreach felt more like persuasion than participation.
“Government should never forget that it serves the people — not the other way around,” said Busch.
The Larger Lesson:
Power In Participation
The Cherry Creek North movement has become a model for how citizens can challenge opaque government processes through persistence and collaboration.
Their campaign — built on open dialogue, data gathering, and neighbor-to-neighbor engagement — proved that local democracy still works when residents get involved. The fight connected neighbors who had never met, empowered volunteers to learn city policy, and reminded everyone that complex bureaucratic actions can be stopped through collective action.
Now, neighbors are discussing next steps — how to stay engaged, promote transparency, and ensure future proposals begin with genuine community input.
The Legacy Of The Movement
What began as opposition to a single proposal has reshaped Cherry Creek North’s civic identity. The neighborhood discovered its collective strength and proved that engaged citizens can stop bad policy in its tracks. The newly bonded community of residents plans to stay engaged and stay strong in their resolve to protect the neighborhood they love.
While Denver leaders may revisit similar proposals elsewhere, residents of Cherry Creek North have established a precedent: informed, organized communities can — and will — demand accountability.
The GID is gone, but its legacy endures — a reminder that transparency, consent, and communication are the cornerstones of good governance.
Tree-lined Street: Tree-lined streets and architecturally distinctive homes define Cherry Creek North — a neighborhood where residents take deep pride in preserving the character and quality of the place they call home.
