Mob tourism: If you tell them, they will come
Re: “Alternatives to Colorado’s high country leaves will spare your sanity,” Oct. 6 commentary and “Herman Gulch, alpine glory at the Continental Divide,” Sept. 29 feature story
I am writing regarding Krista Kafer’s commentary on “Autumn Tourists” last Sunday and on periodic Denver Post articles on places to go outdoors. I think The Post should start a series entitled “Now that we’ve screwed up these places by publicizing them, here are new places to trash in the coming years.”
For example, a recent article on Herman Gulch is going to exacerbate a growing problem there. My sister, who lives in Denver, now tells me that trailhead, which is one we used to use before it got so jammed, now on weekends has cars flooding the parking lot and lining up along the on and off ramps back almost to the interstate. Imagine the quality of the hiking experience.
Kafer’s article encapsulates the problem – after advertising all the cool places to go look at leaves, the complaint now is that all the “tourons” are taking up the suggestion. And now she is suggesting that new places to screw up, such as those in southeast Wyoming. Thanks. May all your trips outdoors be as terrible as the ones you are creating for others.
Reg. Rothwell, Cheyenne, Wyo.
Re: “Mountain drivers frustrated with traffic because of leaf-peeping ‘ding dongs,” Oct. 3 news story
We were one of the hundreds that got caught in the massive traffic jam on Guenella Pass last weekend. I read the article about Clear Creek County only having a small force and that they can not tow away illegally parked cars.
Now that everyone is aware of the county’s problem, do you think that is going to prevent this from happening again next year?
It’s time for the county to begin planning what they will do to keep the inconsiderate ding-dongs, as you have stated, from parking where they shouldn’t when the leaves turn golden next year. Oh, and by the way, let’s not forget the mountain of doggy (poop) bags that the ding-dongs left behind.
Chris Jimroglou, Centennial
Relationship ban should extend beyond tenured professors
Re: “CU should prohibit sexual relationships between students and professors,” Oct. 6 editorial
After this lengthy and worthy piece on the possibilities of sexual pressure by those in positions of influence at CU’s campus and an across-the-board need for change, the editorial ends with this, a very specific, “policy on amorous relationships must prohibit tenured faculty from pursuing and having sex with anyone enrolled as a student at the university.” Just “tenured faculty?” It seems like a very specific identification for what is described as a much broader issue than that!
Peter R. Cohn, Denver
Don’t ban the slaughterhouse
Re: “Ordinance 309: I worked at a slaughterhouse. I’m asking you to ban them.” Oct. 6 commentary
Jose Huizar is correct in his observations of how a slaughterhouse operates, though his observations are based on his experience. Meat kill and processing plants are intended to prepare meat for those of us who eat meat. It’s not for the faint of heart.
In the 1980s, I worked on Denver’s “packing house row’” on the same street as the lamb plant, a similar facility where cattle meat was processed after being killed down the street. I was a young person among many young people working at this plant. We were grateful for the good pay and knew that the line of work we were in wasn’t for everyone (like Huizar). My experience was positive. I became the first woman in a supervisory position at this meat processing plant. I went on to other great careers from this initial meat packing plant job. Many of my colleagues and I went on to college too. I’m sorry Huizar’s job experience was negative. The remaining lamb plant is all that remains of Denver’s history of meat plants. It’s being targeted by animal rights supporters. I am glad the employees process the lamb that I purchase in grocery stores, from my local butcher, and eat at restaurants.
By the way, I ride my bicycle on the Platte River Greenway past the lamb-holding pens and don’t have an issue with the smell of farm animals. I’m voting no on the ban.
Shayne Brady, Denver
Conjecture about abortion care is not helpful
Re: “Negligence, not laws, the danger to pregnant women,” Oct. 6 letter to the editor
I think this letter published in The Denver Post was ill-informed and represents misinformation. I don’t know the facts of Amber Nicole Thurman or Candi Miller’s medical care and neither does the letter writer, because federal law (HIPAA) limits access to their medical records without a valid reason. I assume this post was based on conjecture.
They died because physicians in states with abortion bans must resort to “conservative” treatment such as antibiotics for women who suffer an incomplete abortion, commonly known as a miscarriage. Prior to abortion bans, the standard of care for incomplete abortions was a D&C, not treatment with antibiotics alone. Physicians protect themselves by avoiding performing the procedure lest they be charged with a crime if someone claims doubt about whether the fetus had a detectable heartbeat.
This is a bottomless rabbit hole that physicians in states with abortion bans will do anything to avoid falling into. Women needing a D&C must now wait until they are critically ill from bleeding or infection to receive the necessary treatment to deem the procedure as “saving the life of the mother.”
Most of the states with post-Roe abortion bans were already the poorest-performing states in maternal and women’s health outcomes. Abortion bans have worsened this exponentially. According to the Commonwealth Fund (2024), overturning Roe v. Wade has significantly altered access to reproductive health care services and how providers are able to treat pregnancy complications in states that ban or restrict abortion access.
Laura Evans, Colorado Springs
The families and friends of these two women have brought their painful stories to the forefront in order to show just how dangerous it is for pregnant women to get necessary health care since the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Yet this letter writer seems to think he knows what happened better than the people directly involved.
Let’s be clear: The reason her medical team waited until the 11th hour is because helping her before that time would have resulted in the physicians facing possible arrest.
Ellen Haverl, Denver
A healthy choice for Firestone, Carbon Valley
As a longtime resident of Firestone, I’ve watched our community grow and change. I’ve raised my family here, and I’m committed to ensuring that future generations have local opportunities for recreation and wellness. I’m urging voters to support 6C, the Carbon Valley Parks and Recreation District’s (CVPRD) proposed expansion.
6C is about investing in our community’s health, well-being, and future. The proposed outdoor aquatics, indoor activities facilities in Firestone’s Central Park and Frederick’s recreation center renovation will provide accessible and affordable recreational opportunities for all.
With a resident discounted membership pass, you can visit all the facilities throughout Carbon Valley. A majority of district residents will be within a 10-minute drive of these amenities. This is especially important as our community continues to grow at a rapid pace.
The proposed funding is reasonable and equitable. For a small monthly cost per household (less for qualified seniors), we can enhance our quality of life, promote involvement, and foster a sense of community. This investment will benefit everyone, from young families to seniors.
I encourage my community to consider the long-term benefits of this expansion, which will provide recreational opportunities and contribute to the overall health and vitality of our community for generations to come.
Let’s vote yes on 6C and build a brighter future for the families of Firestone and Carbon Valley.
Brenda Ridgley, Firestone
Vote yes to help JeffCo prevent further budget cuts
The League of Women Voters of Jefferson County urges citizens to support Ballot Issue 1A with a Yes vote that will allow the county to keep the tax dollars it collects from taxpayers. The tax rates that are the basis of these taxes were previously authorized by voters. If passed, the revenue retention authorization will allow the county to maintain the Jeffco quality of life and invest in already established infrastructure and public safety.
How will it benefit voters? By keeping what the county collects without increasing any tax rate or the mill levy rate, that infrastructure will be improved. Public safety efforts such as wildfire and flood mitigation, mental health services and crime prevention will see increased funding.
The problem in funding needed improvements has been challenging since 1992 under the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, a constitutional amendment that limits the revenue that Colorado’s governments can retain and spend. With the passage of Jeffco 1A, the county will be able to keep the property taxes it collects rather than send a refund, which is typically less than $100 per household. Instead of refunds, that money goes back into the community.
If Jeffco 1A does NOT pass, the county predicts budget cuts of up to $20 million next year. The measure will NOT affect your state or federal tax refunds! Supporters assure it does not increase taxes. Commissioner Lesley Dahlkemper has stated that the county is already behind in transportation projects to the tune of $631 million.
LWVJeffco strongly supports Jeffco 1A and urges you to vote yes on Jeffco 1A.
Christina Manthey, Jefferson County
Editor’s note: Manthey is president of the League of Women Voters Jeffco.
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
