Denver has always invested in housing but we need more
Re: “Is Denver ready to be investment bank?” Oct. 9 news story
The article makes it seem that the investment of funds to be raised by Ballot Issue 2R for affordable housing represents a new, novel role for the city. Not so. The city has been investing in housing, albeit on a much more modest scale, for decades using limited local funds and a variety of federal funds it receives, such as the annual allocation Home Investment Partnership Act funds first received in the 1990’s.
Recent history of the housing market has brought into sharper focus the need for public sector investment in housing if Denver is to be affordable for people of modest and limited incomes. The basic concepts are clear (although details can be complex). When you try to develop housing for people with limited incomes where the rent needs to be limited, the private market and non-profit groups need a lot of help to ensure viability.
Limited rents mean limited ability for a project to generate income to pay debt service. When you try to serve the lowest income households, the rent they can afford may not even cover the cost of operating and maintaining the unit, so there needs to be a source of operating subsidy to go with the development subsidy. The city must be prepared to invest its funds carefully and prudently, but with sufficiently generous subsidies to ensure the property can be sustained in good condition for the long haul.
Having worked in the field of affordable housing for most of my adult life, I hope I can convince my fellow citizens that at this time more than ever, Denver needs the resources to up its game for investment in affordable housing.
Charles Kreiman, Denver
Thirty-five years ago I was the staff person who founded the MacArthur Foundation’s below-market program investments, and I’m familiar with the risks of investing in low-income housing and economic development. Those risks are real, but all investments have unavoidable risks. When an investment goal is important, you must do what is necessary to manage the risk, not avoid action.
Denver’s affordable housing problem is serious. It will get worse without bold, innovative interventions like Ballot Issue 2R. The mayor and City Council must be accountable for responsible risk management, but voters should give them the resources to address the problem. I vote yes.
Paul Lingenfelter, Denver
No, the CEA does not support Amendment 80
Yesterday my husband and I each received a text which very falsely implied that the Colorado Education Association supports Amendment 80. Neither CEA nor its president Kevin Vick support Amendment 80.
Amendment 80 sounds very benign. Who isn’t for school choice? But Colorado law has supported school choice for decades and the system is working. As reported in the Colorado Sun on Oct 9:
“The right to school choice is already well enshrined in our Colorado law and has been for over 30 years,” CEA President Kevin Vick said during a rally earlier this year at a Denver middle school. “The only reason this would be needed is if people want to further the funding of private schools.”
Vick worries about inflicting significant harm on rural schools, saying the measure could result in a system that pulls money from public schools all over the state to fund private school tuition for a small number of students primarily in metro Denver and Boulder.
Please don’t be fooled by these underhanded texts that you probably received as well. As a retired teacher who cares about protecting our public school system, I urge you to vote NO on Amendment 80.
Susan Secord, Boulder
As Colorado voters consider Amendment 80, it’s important to reflect on the impact it could have on public schools–especially for students with special needs. While Amendment 80 appears to promote educational freedom, it opens the door for policies that could reduce funding for public schools, which are required to provide essential services like Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), speech therapy, and mental health support.
Charter schools, while publicly funded, operate independently and vary greatly in their ability to serve students with special needs. Some excel, but many lack the resources or expertise necessary for students with disabilities. When public funds are diverted to charter and private schools, traditional public schools–already serving most special needs students—are left with fewer resources to maintain critical services.
For students with ADHD, autism, and learning disabilities, public schools are a lifeline. Without strong public school systems, these children risk falling behind, facing higher dropout rates, or even being funneled into the school-to-prison pipeline. We must protect the resources that allow all students to thrive.
Vote “No” on Amendment 80 to ensure every child in Colorado has access to the services they need to succeed.
Cindy Goldrich, Boulder
Don’t mess with my TABOR refund
The “2024 State Ballot Information Booklet” (Blue Book), raises some disturbing issues in Propositions JJ (Sports Betting Revenue) and KK (Firearms Excise Tax). The same disturbing principle appears in Jefferson County Issue 1A (Retain Property Taxes). The common denominator is that all these ballot issues would otherwise violate the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) the voter-approved constitutional amendment from 1992.
In short, TABOR provides a formula based on growth and inflation, and any tax receipts beyond that cap must be refunded to the taxpayers. But, growth never pays for the associated costs, so the governments try to bypass TABOR by asking the voters to approve exemptions, be they from sales tax, property tax or whatever tax. Fortunately, TABOR requires that government ask voters for such approval, so we still control the purse strings.
Statewide Propositions JJ, KK and in Jeffco, Initiative 1A, are exactly this form of TABOR end-around, and on that basis alone, should be denied. Jeffco is the most egregious by explicitly stating that the proposal is not a tax increase. JJ would exempt sports betting revenues from TABOR and KK is a new tax that would be exempt from TABOR. In all cases, government would keep your TABOR refund.
TABOR was approved specifically to make government more responsible with OUR MONEY. I say HELL NO. Don’t mess with my TABOR refund.
Greg Scott, Evergreen
Trump’s cognitive issues raise concern
Re: “Trump’s speeches, increasingly angry, are reigniting questions about his age,” Oct. 7 news analysis
Thank you for printing the article on the cognitive issues that former President Donald Trump exhibited during his recent appearances. The mainstream media has often given Trump a free pass on the absurd and ridiculous things that he often says.
I encourage readers to actually watch one of his recent speeches if they disagree with the article. After all of the attention given to President Joe Biden and his age-related issues, it only seems right that the same attention should be given to former President Trump. Who knows what he will sound like in four years?
Edward Dranginis, Centennial
DIA needs a Plan B if its gate trains stop running
I have been a proponent of building DIA since the 1980s when this newspaper published my supportive op-ed.
I recall the early planning focus of “beautiful” architecture. As an engineer, I’ve been trained to always analyze the functionality and potential single-point failures in the design of a project. From the beginning, I’ve been concerned that there is no redundancy in moving passengers from the terminal to the gates. In early planning meetings, the question was raised about having a redundant solution in case there was a system failure, but management showed little concern.
About 10 years ago when terminal upgrades were being discussed publicly, I asked a DIA executive the question: “Why not build a redundant people mover during this costly construction period?” The response was like years before. Coincidentally, I mentioned to the person that I recently was on the passenger train twice when it incurred a stoppage for several minutes.
I know the airport is aiming for new passenger records and construction is expensive. Apparently, the Atlanta International Airport, the world’s busiest, believes that a redundant people mover that runs parallel to their trains was worth the cost of construction.
As a former business road warrior and now a vacation traveler, I pray Denver doesn’t find itself in the news for having a “busy, beautiful” airport that has experienced significant disruption or worse a major safety incident with the passenger train system.
Ralph Christie, Highlands Ranch
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.
