House Bill 26-1337 moved through fiscal revision this morning, advancing a legislative effort to expand Colorado’s nuclear energy footprint. The bill establishes an ambitious state policy to begin construction on at least one nuclear project by 2040. To streamline development, the measure designates the Colorado Energy Office as the central permitting coordinator, providing a single point of contact to help developers navigate complex regulatory hurdles. The bill also incentivizes utility participation by allowing companies to recoup up to $20 million in expenditures for necessary siting and design studies.

The recent fiscal revision transforms these policy goals into an operational framework by creating the “Advanced Nuclear Energy and Technical Assistance Office.” This office will be staffed by a dedicated state nuclear engineer and a project manager. Rather than drawing from general tax dollars, the office will be self-funded through an annual fee of up to $1.15 million charged to developing utilities.

HB26-1337 passed the House Energy & Environment Committee last week with a narrow 7–6 vote. While all Republican committee members supported the measure, Democrats were split. High-profile party members like Representative Junie Joseph voted against it, while Democrats Alex Valdez (a co-sponsor), Amy Paschal, and Manny Rutinel joined Republicans to advance the bill. Ty Winter, a co-sponsor, described the legislation as a “meaningful step for nuclear energy and Colorado’s energy future.” He also praised nuclear power for providing “reliable base load power, good-paying blue-collar jobs and stability for energy-producing communities.”

Valdez and Winter did not respond to requests for further comment by the time of publication.

Despite this support, the bill faces intense opposition from grassroots organizations. The Colorado Renewable Energy Society (CRES) issued a formal letter of opposition, arguing that “nuclear is the exact opposite of clean” because it produces waste that remains “dangerously radioactive for tens of thousands of years.” CRES also highlighted the economic risks, citing Georgia’s Vogtle Units 3 and 4 as a warning. Those reactors were completed seven years behind schedule at a cost of $36.8 billion, leading to a 23.7% increase in ratepayer bills. Opponents further argued that the 15-year timeline for nuclear construction is too slow compared to the one-to-two-year window for wind and solar projects.

Ean Tafoya of Colorado GreenLatinos told the Colorado Sun that the bill is a “tone-deaf […] betrayal” of environmental justice. Critics also raised concerns regarding the high water-usage rates required for nuclear facilities, a sensitive issue as many Colorado cities face chronic droughts.

The bill’s future remains uncertain as it faces a deadline of May 13, 2026, when the General Assembly adjourns. To become law, it must pass second and third readings in the House before moving through the Senate. CRES has already begun mobilizing opposition by releasing a voter toolkit to help citizens vocalize their concerns to lawmakers.

Like journalism like this? Consider becoming a sustaining supporter — and get our print edition delivered to your home each month.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth — your support helps us keep doing it for the next four and beyond. Administrations come and go. Our team stays ready to lead, no matter who’s in charge.

The post Nuclear Split: GOP and Key Democrats Push Through Nuclear Bill appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Editor’s Note: In the interest of public transparency and community dialogue, Yellow Scene Magazine is publishing this response to address recent criticisms of our investigative reporting. We remain committed to the facts as documented in the public record.

We appreciate the response from Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell regarding our recent investigative article. However, his response was also unfortunately inaccurate regarding the nature of our reporting. It is necessary to address his criticisms with the clarity that the public record demands.

Firstly, to address the claim that this reporting is an attack on faith: at no point does the article claim that either council member is a parishioner of St. Scholastica. In fact, the only claim made regarding Mr. Bell is that he was included in email chains and involved in specific discussions. Mr. Bell actually confirms this in his own response as he recounts conversations he had with staff, the church, and Mayor Moore. Furthermore, we have explicitly reported twice that there is no evidence Mayor Moore attends this church. His personal religious background is irrelevant to our reporting. Our work is driven by his own words, both in council meetings and in emails obtained through the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA). To frame this as a question of faith, rather than a matter of bureaucratic transparency, appears to be an attempt to politicize a standard investigative process.

Secondly, Mr. Bell asserts that he was accused of “backdoor dealings.” No such language appears in our article. Our reporting described the planning as being “privately underway” or “quietly pursued.” These descriptions are based on the following established facts:

“The CORA records reveal that a planning process involving St. Scholastica, Catholic Charities, a project management firm, the Mayor, and other Erie figures had been privately underway for at least five months before Moore raised it at the November council meeting. Aside from Pro Tem Brandon Bell, no other council members were included in the conversations Yellow Scene Magazine obtained.”

Our central point is that this planning process occurred for months without the knowledge of the broader Town Council or project managers. Mr. Bell does not attempt to refute this. In fact, he extends the timeline of these discussions by stating he participated in early talks about this plan as far back as “2022 or 2023”. Our statement that the majority of the council was left out of the loop was substantiated by two of Mr. Bell’s own colleagues on the council.

Thirdly, Mr. Bell criticizes our reporting for misrepresenting the consultants involved, stating, “These consultants were parishioners volunteering their time—not individuals hired by the Town.”

At no point did our article claim they were hired by the town. We stated they were involved in the planning and discussions, and we quoted their emails directly. Whether they are volunteers or people of faith is irrelevant to the fact that they were participating in government-level planning. Mr. Bell seems to be attempting to turn a systemic critique into a personal one.

In his response, Mr. Bell also admits to his misgivings about the further subsidization of affordable housing.

“[…] providing additional subsidies for affordable housing could lead to similar outcomes: vacant units that remain too expensive for those who need them and insufficient demand among those who can afford them.”

While this may be a valid policy position, it adds weight to our reporting regarding his and Mayor Moore’s potential opposition to using funds specifically intended for affordable housing for their original purpose. While Mr. Bell describes the legal room for ARPA funds to be used otherwise, that is a separate matter from the original intention of the funding or the needs expressed by the Erie community through last year’s survey.

Finally, I will address the allegation that our article is “purely hearsay.” If by hearsay Mr. Bell means that the article quotes the individuals involved and references their own emails obtained by process of CORA, then we have provided exactly that. Any allegations made regarding the actions of the involved parties are supported by their own words on the public record for any citizen to see.

It is telling that despite Mr. Bell’s framing, he fundamentally agrees with our primary claims. He, Mayor Moore, the church, and others began considering a project to relocate the church for several months and did not communicate these plans with the full council. In November, Mayor Moore framed the project as a new thought he was ‘tossing around,’ despite having discussed it extensively for months.

Yellow Scene Magazine holds a deep respect for all religious individuals and backgrounds. This is not a matter of partisan division, but a matter of transparency. Our article aims to start a dialogue about processes from which the community and other council members were excluded. Before publication of our article, we reached out to Mayor Moore and the church for comment and they declined to respond. We would still welcome their voices. We hold our reporting to the highest standards, and every claim we have made is backed by evidence.

Thank you, Mr. Bell, for continuing the conversation our reporting has started.

The post Facts are Not Partisan: A Response to Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Earlier this month, we reported on The debate surrounding House Bill 1208, legislation affecting tipped minimum wage in Colorado. Since publication, Rep. Steve Woodrow, a Colorado state representative and one of the bill’s sponsors, criticized our reporting. In the interest of transparency and accountability, we are publishing his full response and explaining where we believe his critique falls short.

Rep. Woodrow wrote:

“Respectfully, this is very strange ‘reporting.’ HB25-1208 was passed back in April. The version that passed doesn’t lower anyone’s wage. It DOES allow local governments to adjust their tip credit to ensure that mandatory local minimum wage increases don’t force restaurants to keep raising menu prices, furlough workers, cut shifts, eliminate benefits, and close entirely. Why the author didn’t reach out to me or the other sponsors to discuss this, and why this is being published with grossly inaccurate information months after the bill was already passed into law, is bizarre to say the least.”

First, our reporting is consistent with coverage from peer outlets including the Colorado Sun and Boulder Reporting Lab, both of which are cited in the article. While each outlet emphasized different aspects of the bill, our framing was well within the mainstream of how this legislation has been covered. The suggestion that our reporting was unusually inaccurate or outside the norm is not supported by the broader media record.

Rep. Woodrow also takes issue with the timing of the article. While HB 1208 passed earlier this year, our article clearly notes that the bill was introduced in early 2025. Our reporting focused on the ongoing divide between labor organizations, restaurant owners, and policymakers, not simply the legislative vote. We published less than two weeks after a protest planned around a Nov. 20 public hearing involving labor groups. Passage of a bill does not end its public impact. The conflict, organizing, and community response around this legislation have continued, and that discourse warranted coverage. Our newsroom does not aim to be a breaking news outlet. We prioritize follow-up reporting that examines consequences and unresolved tensions after a bill becomes law.

On accuracy, our reporting is careful because the policy itself is nuanced. We explicitly state that the bill does not reduce the total wages tipped workers are legally entitled to earn. We also report that it allows cities to lower the guaranteed hourly base pay for tipped workers, increasing reliance on tips and exposing workers to greater income instability. That characterization is accurate. Rep. Woodrow’s own explanation reflects this reality. When he argues the bill prevents restaurants from raising menu prices or cutting costs elsewhere, he is acknowledging that the policy reduces labor expenses. That reduction comes through changes to wage structure.

Rep. Woodrow also criticizes our sourcing. While we did not directly interview him or every single sponsor of the bill, we extensively quoted Sen. Judy Amabile of Boulder, a bill sponsor, whose comments are among the most frequently cited in the article. We included her arguments that the bill could prevent restaurant closures, rising prices, and job losses. We also included responses from labor advocates and studies that challenge those claims. Presenting competing evidence and allowing readers to draw their own conclusions is the purpose of this reporting.

We have published positive coverage of Sen. Amabile in the past, and even endorsed her. Rep. Woodrow’s response reads this article as partisan rather than analytical. Our intent was not to take a side, but to document an ongoing conflict tied to a broader national debate between restaurant owners and labor advocates. Rep. Woodrow may disagree with our framing, but we reject the characterization of our reporting as strange or misleading.

The ones who dared to fight City Hall.

 When Boulder denied public access to police body-cam footage, we took it to court. Our fight for transparency is now before the Colorado Supreme Court — because accountability doesn’t stop at the city line.

Through December 31, every gift to Yellow Scene will be matched — dollar for dollar — through the Colorado Media Project’s Matching Grant. Give & Get Democracy this Holiday Season. Your $8 recurring monthly support not only gets you YS delivered to your house, but it’s matched for the entire year, bringing that $8/month to $192.

Because Independent journalism isn’t just about telling stories. It’s about protecting your right to know, holding power accountable, and keeping democracy in the light. This is #newsCOneeds Becoming a sustaining supporter today for $8 a month!

The post Editor’s Note: Why We Stand by Our Boulder Tipped Wage Reporting appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

We are two days out from Christmas, and it does not feel like it.

If you are feeling a little down this holiday season, you are not alone. On both a local and national scale, this year’s holidays feel strained and harder to settle into. Christmas has long been the dominant holiday in the American cultural imagination. Corporations roll out glossy ad campaigns, storefronts glow with red and green, and for a brief stretch the country appears to move in sync. Even for those who do not celebrate Christmas itself, the season has traditionally carried a sense of shared pause and collective ritual.

That sense of unity has become increasingly rare. As monoculture continues to fracture and Americans struggle to feel aligned on much of anything, the holiday season has remained one of the few moments where a shared national rhythm still exists. This year, even that feels disrupted. For Coloradans especially, the season has continued a year defined by dislocation.

According to CPR, Colorado experienced its second-latest first snowfall since 1882. This December has broken multiple heat records, ranking among the warmest in state history. The familiar markers of winter are missing. There have been fewer snowy mornings, fewer opportunities for sledding, fewer moments that anchor the season in place. These changes are not flukes. Climate watchdogs have long warned that as climate change accelerates, Colorado will face worsening heat, drought, and wildfire risk. What feels unusual now is quickly becoming the new normal.

Climate change is often discussed in terms of sweeping systems and future projections, but it also produces quieter losses. Fewer white Christmases. Fewer snow days. And fewer children who will have memories of snow angels and warming cold hands around a mug of cocoa.

The broader national mood has only deepened the dampening of the holiday spirit. In the past two weeks alone, the country has watched a string of violent and disturbing events unfold. On Saturday, Brown University students Ella Cook, 19, and Mukhammad Aziz Umurzokov, 18, were killed in a mass shooting on campus that left nine others injured. Just days later, MIT physics professor Nuno F.G. Loureiro was killed at his home in Brookline, Massachusetts.

Then came the killings of filmmaker Rob Reiner and his wife, Michele, who were found stabbed to death in their Brentwood home. Their son, Nick Reiner, has been charged with two counts of murder. In response, President Donald Trump posted on Truth Social mocking Reiner’s death, suggesting it was caused by his past criticism of the president. The post drew condemnation across the political spectrum. When shown a screenshot of the post, 72 percent of Americans said it was inappropriate, while just 17 percent said it was appropriate.

Much has already been written about how the United States has entered a new era of normalized violence, both political and otherwise. Mass shootings and high-profile killings have become grim fixtures of the news cycle. Still, there is something particularly jarring about this level of brutality unfolding during a season traditionally associated with warmth, reflection, and goodwill. Rather than lowering the temperature, national leadership has often chosen to inflame it, reinforcing a sense that even the holidays are no longer insulated from political cruelty.

Economic pressure has further dampened the season. Prices continue to creep upward, making holiday shopping more difficult for families already stretched thin. Analysts predict those costs will keep rising in the year ahead. Despite repeated rhetoric about economic relief and support for working families, the numbers tell a different story.

With the country facing the strong possibility of another government shutdown, meaningful legislative intervention appears unlikely. While the holidays have never been a time when political conflict disappeared, the combination of economic strain and relentless political hostility has cast a long shadow over this year’s celebrations.

There is data to support the sense that this season feels heavier. A Gallup poll released yesterday found that just 24 percent of Americans are satisfied with the direction of the country, while nearly half describe current economic conditions as poor. Another poll suggests that this sense of political and economic doom is taking a measurable toll on Americans’ mental health. The share of people who say they are experiencing holiday season stress in America this year has risen sharply compared to last year, with much of that anxiety centered on affordability. Polls cannot capture every emotion, but they point to a public that feels anxious, strained, and worn down.

So what do we do with a holiday season that feels off-kilter?

Despite the doom and gloom, reports show that many people still experience an increase in mood during the holidays. That joy has not disappeared entirely. Coloradans do not need to turn away from the realities unfolding around them, but those realities do not need to consume every moment either. There is still joy to be found in celebrating with family and friends. Holding onto those moments may be the only way to enter the new year with any sense of steadiness at all.

The ones who dared to fight City Hall.

 When Boulder denied public access to police body-cam footage, we took it to court. Our fight for transparency is now before the Colorado Supreme Court — because accountability doesn’t stop at the city line.

Through December 31, every gift to Yellow Scene will be matched — dollar for dollar — through the Colorado Media Project’s Matching Grant. Give & Get Democracy this Holiday Season. Your $8 recurring monthly support not only gets you YS delivered to your house, but it’s matched for the entire year, bringing that $8/month to $192.

Because Independent journalism isn’t just about telling stories. It’s about protecting your right to know, holding power accountable, and keeping democracy in the light. This is #newsCOneeds Becoming a sustaining supporter today for $8 a month!

The post A Strange Christmas in an Unsettled America appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Last week, we published a story examining the role of independent political groups in Boulder’s election. Election coverage always attracts scrutiny, especially when it touches on dark money and the influence of private spending. That’s expected, and we welcome it. Our coverage of money in politics is ongoing. This isn’t the first or last time we’ll report on organizations shaping local elections.

This year’s New York City’s mayoral race, won by Mr. Zohran Mamdani, reflected more than local divides. It touched on the national split between corporate Democrats and progressives, rising affordability issues, and even foreign policy debates like Gaza. One thread deserves more attention: the growing divide between candidates backed by deep pockets and those running grassroots campaigns. Mamdani often contrasted himself with his opponent Andrew Cuomo by calling out his alleged billionaire donors and emphasizing his own independence. That framing resonated because Americans across the spectrum are increasingly uneasy about private money, gerrymandering, and other forms of influence shaping elections.

At Yellow Scene, our job is to help voters understand who’s funding what and how that funding shapes local politics. “Dark money” isn’t a simple topic. The funding streams are often complex, and organizations are not monolithic. Each group operates differently, with its own goals and methods. While broad trends matter, we agree that nuance is essential.

We stand by our reporting on Boulder but recognize that some details deserve clarification. In the interest of transparency, we’re addressing a few of the critiques directly.

Firstly, a letter sent to us from one organization.

Letter from Open Boulder

Dear Mr. Clichenbeard,

Your reporter, Bella Farris, wrote an article on dark money in Boulder politics. She included Open Boulder as an independent political organization leveraging undisclosed funding and no funding caps.

Actually, Open Boulder formed a UCC (unaffiliated candidate committee). All contributions and expenses are disclosed, and donations are capped at $100. We have followed the rules down to the letter of the law and have not co-mingled funds as other organizations have done.

In fact, our public filings show every donor and every expense. Your inclusion of Open Boulder in a “dark money” discussion is slanderous. What will you do about it?

—Open Boulder 2025 UCC

A quick note before we respond: our editor hasn’t been Austin Clickenbeard for a while now, though his work helped define Yellow Scene for a time. Angry letters about our current coverage should instead be directed toward me, Destiny Hale. I read them all, I promise.

Now, to the point.

The accusation is that we slandered Open Boulder. To be clear, the article’s primary focus was on Engage Boulder. Here’s the full and only mention of Open Boulder:

“Caruso is not the first to form an independent political group in Boulder. Open Boulder, a civic organization with a more centrist reputation, has endorsed several 2025 candidates — including Jenny Robins, Rob Kaplan, Matt Benjamin, and Mark Wallach. Both groups reflect a broader trend in local politics: small organizations and well-funded individuals seeking to shape Boulder’s political direction outside formal campaigns.”

A fairly tame and accurate statement hardly indicative of slander. That said, grouping Engage Boulder and Open Boulder together was somewhat imprecise. Open Boulder has endorsed candidates that Engage Boulder opposes and operates more transparently. It’s fair to acknowledge that difference. But it’s equally fair to note that Open Boulder remains a private organization seeking to influence elections, as its own materials make clear. Our role is to help voters understand those dynamics and then many people vying to influence their vote.

Comment on Dan Caruso

“Why am I not surprise that you would lie to your readers. Dan Caruso is not even close to being a billionaire. In fact, he’s not even worth a $100 million. For every billionaire representing the Republican party there are two representing the Democratic party. As journalist espousing to speak the truth, the only truth here is your lying. Spreading misinformation and disinformation. It is shameful and necessary for me to call you out. Please do better and start by admitting to not researching you statements in this article and that it is misinformation. Although you risk losing some readership (subscribers) will earn some respect from many of them.”

Our article described Dan Caruso as a billionaire. Public records suggest his net worth is closer to the hundreds of millions, not billions. However, companies he’s led have managed and negotiated investments worth billions, and his role as a venture capitalist makes precise valuation difficult. Calling him a billionaire may have been an overstatement; calling him a major financial power player is not. The broader point about large financial interests shaping Boulder’s elections remains accurate.

The more serious criticism here is about bias. Yellow Scene Magazine has clear values: transparency, accountability, and fair elections. We’re loyal to those principles, not to any party. We’ve called out dark money and election manipulation by Democrats and Republicans alike. Mamdani’s race in New York and the Democratic establishment’s quiet backing of Cuomo are just one example that this issue cuts both ways.

Private organizations and wealthy donors continue to shape outcomes. The candidates backed by Caruso and Engage Boulder performed strongly. And ignoring that would be a disservice to Boulder voters.

Final Word

Our commitment is simple: report the facts, show our work, and correct when precision demands it. The role of journalism is to exam and critique power. Boulder’s voters deserve transparency from everyone shaping their democracy, including us.

The post An Editor’s Note – Dark Money in Boulder & Transparency appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

The “No Kings” demonstrations, a national movement against authoritarianism, have stretched from Denver to Erie and as well as the neighboring cities of Longmont and Boulder. Across Colorado’s Front Range, protestors gathered not just to resist, but to reclaim what they believe democracy truly looks like.

NO KINGS DAY: Longmont

By Carlina Grillo & Destiny Hale

By midmorning, Longmont’s downtown was alive with movement and sound. The crowd, hundreds strong, streamed through the streets in rhythm, a chorus of voices bouncing off storefront windows and brick façades.
“Show me what democracy looks like!” shouted one protestor through a megaphone.
“This is what democracy looks like!” came the rolling reply, wave after wave of voices answering back.

Among the crowd, a man in a bright yellow chicken costume flapped his arms dramatically, drawing laughter and cheers. Handmade signs cut through the sea of color, “No Kings,” “Save Democracy” and “Fascism Has No Home Here.”

At one point, the chanting softened, replaced by the familiar opening melody of “This Land Is Your Land.”
Voices joined hesitantly at first, then in full harmony, filling the street with the language of protest that has echoed through generations. That was not the only song sung that day, a handful of protestors brought violins, guitars, and small speakers, and would periodically perform.

By singing one of America’s most iconic folk songs at an anti-Trump rally, marchers were making a statement: we are the inheritors of democracy, not its enemies.
Woody Guthrie’s lyrics,  once written as a counterpoint to blind nationalism, have taken on new meaning here. When the crowd sang “This land is your land, this land is my land,” they were making a demand for inclusion, for equality, for a vision of America that resists ownership by one man.

The chants and songs worked to produce a sense of solidarity and unity. The rhythm kept people walking. The music kept them together. Every beat, every lyric, every shout was allowed Longmont to make their voice heard.

NO KINGS DAY: Boulder

By Emilia Martinez

If you were walking down Pearl Street in Boulder that same Saturday, you would have seen one of over 2,000 “No Kings” rallies nationwide. The turnout was massive. and the mood was electric. The crowd stretched from one block to the next, and the sky was filled with homemade banners rippling in the autumn wind, flags of every kind unfurling above our heads.

Flyers for the Socialist Democratic Party of Boulder circulated through the crowd. One representative told me he found it “outrageous” that government and military figures “seem to be pushing loyalty to an individual and not the Bill of Rights they swore to uphold.” His words carried easily above the noise of drums and chanting.

Everywhere we looked  color and symbolism:

a woman in a Handmaid’s Tale dress stood silently near the courthouse, her crimson robe stark against the gray stone; a group of college students led chants through megaphones; others held signs reading “No Kings,” “Democracy Belongs to the People,” and “We Remember January 6.” The air vibrated with energy as whistles, clapping, the hum of conversation and sound of protest filled the area.

Police stood in small clusters along the sidewalks, present, watchful, but distant. Boulder PD’s Deputy Chief Hartkopp later told me that “a successful protest is one in which everyone is able to safely exercise their First Amendment rights.” He described de-escalation, property protection, and communication with organizers as central to department police. In practice, public confidence in these measures remains mixed as fear of government crackdown grows.

As the afternoon waned, the crowd thinned and the tone softened. I met a woman sitting on a bench, holding a sign that read: “How did you fight dictatorship today?”
She told me she’s been out here every weekend since February, calling her participation “street philosophy” that is represented by anyone who’s willing to lift their head for a moment and break the bubble of normal daily comfort.
“It’s not just protest,” she said. “It’s a conversation about fear, about hope, about what kind of country we’re becoming.”

When we parted, she hugged me, eyes wet. For a moment, the noise and slogans fell away. What remained was something quieter: people trying, in their own ways, to keep faith in one another and in the idea of democracy itself.

From the music-filled streets of Longmont to the charged avenues of Boulder, the “No Kings” movement continues to echo across Colorado’s Front Range with ordinary citizens defining, in unison, what democracy looks like.

Like Journalism Like this? Consider becoming a Sustaining Supporter, and we can cover even more.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. For 25 years, we’ve told the truth — your support helps us keep doing it for the next four and beyond. Administrations come and go. Our team stays, ready to lead no matter who’s in charge.

Plus you get the hard copy delivered to your home—reading is good.

The post Chants of Democracy: Longmont and Boulder March for No Kings appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This piece is part of Yellow Scene Magazine’s Opinion section. The views expressed here are those of the author in their role as Associate Editor, and do not represent a reported news position. At Yellow Scene, opinion pieces speak freely, challenge assumptions, and say the quiet parts out loud.

Last week, Charlie Kirk was assassinated on a college campus. First, it must be said: this event has left a wife without a husband, a family without a father, and countless witnesses shaken by trauma they will carry with them for the rest of their lives. There is no downplaying that.

And yet, in the aftermath, I’m struck by the way this tragedy is being iconized and weaponized.

Charlie Kirk was a known political figure, though far from the stature of a Ben Shapiro or Joe Rogan. Much has been said about his legacy — but we can’t ignore what he actually stood for. Kirk spent years belittling Black people’s skills, questioning whether Black professionals earned their positions by merit or “affirmative action.” He once suggested he wouldn’t trust a Black pilot because of his race. He also believed the Civil Rights Act a “mistake” and “an anti-white weapon.” He championed the racist “great replacement” conspiracy theory, casting immigrants as pawns in a Jewish plot to erase white America. He denounced feminism, told women to “submit,” and consistently ridiculed LGBTQ+ people, religious minorities, and anyone outside his worldview.

None of this justifies his death, nor do I raise it to attack his grieving family. But to have a serious conversation about this moment, we must be honest about what Kirk contributed to. He didn’t simply “debate across the aisle.” He stoked a politics of division and fear, one that normalized hatred and, in some cases, inspired violence. The “great replacement” myth, which Kirk openly promoted, has appeared in the manifestos of multiple mass shooters. Kirk once told his listeners: “Happening all the time in urban America, prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target white people, that’s a fact.” Is it any wonder that young white men radicalized by this narrative have gone on to kill?

That’s why I cannot agree with those rushing to say Kirk was “practicing politics in exactly the right way,” as Ezra Klein recently wrote. Nor do I see Kirk as a martyr of “free speech.” If anything, his career shows how words have impact, and how rhetoric shapes the environment in which violence thrives.

We also need perspective. Some on the right are treating this assassination as a new turning point in American life. But political violence did not begin here. Last summer, a Democratic caucus leader was gunned down with her husband. In 2022, Nancy Pelosi’s husband was attacked in his home by a man who intended to kill her. The year before, January 6th rioters sought to execute lawmakers. These events were minimized, mocked, or even encouraged by many on the right — Kirk included. When violence targeted their opponents, it wasn’t treated as existential.

So no, Charlie Kirk’s death is not “the end of civil conversation.” It’s part of a longer pattern: political violence becoming normalized in America. The difference now is that figures who once fanned the flames are beginning to feel the burn.

Meanwhile, those who refuse to glorify Kirk are facing their own backlash. MSNBC’s Matthew Dowd was fired after suggesting Kirk’s rhetoric may have contributed to the circumstances of his death. Our own outlet, Yellow Scene Magazine, has received threats for publishing criticisms of Kirk. Ironically, the assassination is now being used as justification to silence critique of Kirk and his agenda, even though he was the one constantly parading as a defender of “free speech.”

We have a choice. We can pretend this assassination is an isolated tragedy, a break from civility in an otherwise healthy system. Or we can confront the ideologies of hatred and grievance that created the conditions for this violence, ideologies that Kirk himself helped spread. If we choose the former, more people will die. If we choose the latter, we might begin to reckon honestly with the politics that brought us here.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.

The post Let’s Have an Honest Conversation about Charlie Kirk appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

It’s apparent now more than ever that the world is quickly changing under our feet in ways we’re still struggling to name. That change shows up everywhere: from the entertainment we consume; to how we spend money, vote, and, crucially, how we stay informed. Newspapers have been in decline for decades, but now it looks like another domino has fallen: traditional cable news. For years, political discourse was shaped by giants like NPR, CNN, Fox News, and the AP. However, new data from Pew Research shows that a new contender, the social media influencer, has entered the ring. When we think of influencers, we usually imagine beauty tutorials, comedy skits, and viral nonsense. That still exists, but it’s no longer the whole picture. There’s now a fast-growing community of independent political voices that are having a real impact on how people understand the world.

Take the 2025 election. In the wake of Kamala Harris’ defeat, critics noted her reliance on legacy outlets like CBS and NBC while largely ignoring newer, more disruptive platforms like The Joe Rogan Experience. Saying the Democrats lost solely because they didn’t go on enough podcasts may be an overstatement, but the fact remains that one-third of Americans now get some of their news from YouTube or Facebook and nearly half from other nontraditional sources. Alternative media is no longer fringe; it’s a growing, influential force. One that both politicians and voters need to understand to stay connected in today’s shifting political landscape. 

So, what does it mean to be informed in 2025? There’s no single answer. But we can point you toward the voices wrestling with that question in real-time. Here at Yellow Scene Magazine, we’ve highlighted a few of the most compelling independent media figures out there. We’ve also scored interviews with two heavyweights, Mehdi Hasan, and Sam Seder, to hear directly from them on the future of news, the Democratic Party, and the role independent media plays in shaping both.

Mehdi Hasan
Veteran journalist Mehdi Hasan is known for fearless, surgical interviews that cut straight through manufactured narratives. With a career spanning Al Jazeera, MSNBC, and The Intercept, he’s now leading his own venture: Zeteo Media, a platform for unfiltered, independent reporting and pursuit of truth.
Follow Hasan and Zeteo for a rare mix of independent media’s freedom and traditional journalism’s standards.

Sam Seder

Host of The Majority Report, Sam Seder blends deep knowledge with relentless curiosity. He’s a former host of Air America, who reimagined his radio show into a daily must-watch livestream. Seder doesn’t just read headlines. He debates, interviews, and even takes live calls from viewers who disagree.
We recommend Seder for sharp, nuanced political analysis, and conversations with figures across the political spectrum.

Hasan Piker
He’s not your dad’s news anchor, and that’s the point. A Twitch powerhouse and former TYT host, HasanAbi delivers news and commentary with the energy of live streaming, the language of his generation, and a commitment to leftist politics. He’s impressed us with his work on the ground interviewing imprisoned firefighters in Southern California and coverage of the LA ICE protests.
We recommend Piker for digestible takes that especially resonate with younger audiences.

Krystal Ball
Former MSNBC host and now co-anchor of Breaking Points, Krystal Ball is a level-headed populist challenging power from both sides. Calm under fire, incisive in her critiques, she’s a steady voice in a media environment built for outrage.

Follow Ball for grounded, anti-establishment takes that reject partisan loyalty and corporate narratives.

Kyle Kulinski
Founder of Secular Talk and co-creator of Justice Democrats, Kyle Kulinski brings blunt, principled commentary with a progressive edge. Whether he’s breaking down policy or calling out both parties, Kulinski stays focused on his values.

We recommend Kulinski for hard-hitting progressive commentary and a long-term vision for political change.

Interview with Medhi Hassan

Can you share your personal political journey and how it’s influenced your work in independent media? 

So I’m in a slightly different place to a lot of people in independent media, although people are now following in my footsteps in the sense that I come from mainstream media. I’ve worked in mainstream media organizations across the world. I worked at the BBC and Sky News in the UK. I worked at Al Jazeera, an English international channel based out of Doha. I’ve worked here in Washington, DC for NBC News, MSNBC, and now I’m running my own independent media company Zeteo. So I come at it from a slightly different place. I’m not born from within independent media. I was actually very mainstream and very corporate for a very long time, and I enjoyed it for a very long time too. 

I know when Tucker Carlson quit Fox, he had his mantra: ‘corporate media is dead, join us’. And  I didn’t take that hostile [of] a position. Obviously, I’m very critical of mainstream media. I was critical of mainstream media when I worked within mainstream media. But I don’t want to burn it all down. I do believe that there’s a lot of mainstream journalists who do a lot of good work. And so I do believe there should be some kind of synergy between the two.

What unique value does independent media offer that mainstream outlets might not?

I think what Zeteo is doing is trying to find spaces that are not occupied right now and trying to amplify voices. Something I did when I was at MSNBC, was trying to get guests who other people aren’t getting. If you switch on cable news, you will see the same people every hour of every day on every network. It’s the same consultants, the same former officials, the same journalists, the same op-ed writers. And what I tried to do at MSNBC, and what I now do, successfully at Zeto is try and amplify the voices you don’t always see.

I always chuckle to myself that if I never do anything else in life, I could always proudly say that I’m the guy who booked Noam Chomsky on MSNBC. And Noam wrote to me at the time, for 25 years, MSNBC has been on, and you’re the first person ever asked me to come on air, which was bizarre to me. So, for me, that was a lot of it amplifying really important voices who aren’t being heard, that are counter establishment. 

The Mehdi Hasan Show

You mentioned there’s a synergy between independent and mainstream media, what does that look like?

Corporate media does a lot of good work with the resources it has that I don’t. But they also have to worry about their advertisers in a way that I don’t have to worry about advertisers. They also have to worry about their C suite in a way that I don’t have to worry about a C suite.

I’m funded purely by subscribers, which gives me huge editorial freedom to be able to take risks, to say things that others won’t say, to not have to worry about, oh, can I say Donald Trump’s a racist, or do I have to worry about calling him unhinged? But I do think there is synergy, because if the mainstream media is covering a story in the right way, we will supplement it. If they’re covering in the wrong way, we will be the first to bring the critique.

Kamala Harris’ decision not to interview with Joe Rogan during her campaign sparked discussion. What role, if any, do you think that decision played in the last election cycle?

It’s an important question, although, personally, I think the Joe Rogan thing is slightly overblown. Number one, I think they lied a bit about her, I think they [Kamala’s team] did want to do it, and there’s a debate about dates. I also think if she had that would have been a car crash, because I don’t think they would have really melded those two.

Some have suggested Democrats need a “Joe Rogan for the left”. What are your thoughts on such discussions?

My worry about the whole podcast debate is the danger of saying podcasters are now going to lead the way when it comes to political coverage. Podcasters tend not to ask tough questions. If you go on a Lex Friedman or Joe Rogan or whatever it is, it ends up being super conversational, and it’s a great listen. That’s why people listen to them, and they go on for two hours, but they’re not asking the follow-up questions, they’re not doing the forensic questioning, they’re not holding feet to the fire. They’re not being challenging in the way that I tend to be, or some others tend to be.

So politicians like the idea of, let’s just do podcasts, because it means they get to go on and say nonsense, no one’s gonna come prepared with policy-oriented questions, no one’s gonna have follow-ups or say, well, actually, what you said is not true. I think that is a problem for our political culture. American media already has too many softball interviews. And my worry with podcasting is that it’s just going to increase the number of cozy chats.

How has your approach or role changed with the arrival of a new administration, which feels markedly different from previous ones?

I just tweeted today in the wake of Jeffrey Goldberg publishing a second round of texts from the signal chat, ‘Dear fellow journalists, stop believing what these people say. Start from the assumption that they’re lying.’

The old ways of journalism do not apply to this administration, where you have to get a right to reply. You have to say he said X, but she said Y, he said something, but the administration denies it. That has to be thrown out. This is an administration that has lied so much, so often, so relentlessly, so demonstrably, that journalists have to start from the premise that everything they say is a lie. Otherwise it’s a dereliction of journalistic beauty.  You have to adapt to the world you’re in, and the world you’re in is one where these people lie about everything, 

Amid the challenges and polarization, what gives you hope for the future?

It’s hard to stay hope filled at a time like now, when there’s an all across the board assault on democracy, on freedom, on free speech, on the free press. I guess two things keep giving me hope. One is that the government may be a bunch of authoritarians and neo-fascists but they’re also super incompetent.  Otherwise, we’d really be screwed. But number two, I do take hope in a lot of the young people who are on college campuses speaking out, who are becoming journalists like yourself, who are running for office and trying to displace the gerontocracy we have in this country, I do take a lot of hope from young people. I’m the father of two kids, and I think there is a young generation that hopefully will stand up to this stuff and make sure that America and the democratic experiment that is America survives beyond 2025 we’re only three months in, and it feels like we’re going to struggle to make the summer at this rate.

Interview with Sam Seder

 What unique value does independent media offer that mainstream outlets might not?

Well, I think there is a sense of less pretense. There is no appeal to authority; you get judged more on what you are delivering over time. Also, you’re independent. Theoretically, you’re not influenced by who the sponsors are. I mean, I think it’s a problem in certain areas where people are getting money from certain places. And, we try to be very careful. We don’t take sponsorships from different industries that we think are problematic, anything we might criticize or is associated with policy, we won’t get involved with. We have gotten rid of sponsors because they were producing their goods in the West Bank, that was years ago. 

Our audience keeps us on our toes about that. We’ll hear from our audience  hey, this company is on the BDS list, or this company is providing support for oppressive regimes, whatever it is and will react to it. And I think on some level, younger generations expect a little bit more transparency and a little bit more access to tell us when we’ve gotten things wrong. And so the artifice is less important than it used to be.

Kamala Harris’ decision not to interview with Joe Rogan during her campaign sparked discussion. What role, if any, do you think that decision played in the last election cycle?

I think the Democrats need to communicate better. I don’t know that you need a Joe Rogan of the left per se to do that, but they need to communicate better, without a doubt. Part of that is a function of leadership that has clung to power in the Democratic Party for too long. So there’s almost a cultural problem in understanding, and I get that. For a long time, when people asked me what I did, I was embarrassed to say I’m doing a YouTube show. Because people my age and older would respond “oh, what?” But younger people don’t have that attitude. And I think, Democrats, for too long, were led by people who didn’t appreciate that. 

I think there’s also a structural problem with the consultant class and the Democratic Party. They make more money if they steer their candidates towards TV advertising. I think if Democrats need a better vehicle to message, it’s out there, they just need to figure out how to use it more.

Sam Seder debating Charlie Kirk at Politicon.

The right has built a powerful independent media ecosystem, often backed by billionaire funding. Why hasn’t the left developed a comparable infrastructure, and what are the obstacles?

Well, they’re [Republicans] definitely more aligned with these people [right wing commentators]. They’re paid by these people. There was a moment recently on Tim pool where Milo Yiannopoulos revealed that Ben Shapiro and others in that sphere bought a lot of their views, and he called it, ‘fake it till you make it’. And this was clear.  A couple years ago Ben Shapiro spent over a million dollars on Facebook advertising, and that was what was recorded. There’s no doubt in my mind that they get billionaire support that will come in, give them money to juice them in the marketplace, and then that becomes self perpetuating. 

If I buy my way into the top 10 of iTunes, then it’s much easier to grow from that point. And frankly, you know, the agendas are more aligned because you’re not going to find many left wing billionaires. And to the extent that you do, they’re not going to be terribly happy with what I’m calling the floor, which is for them not to exist: a wealth tax. That’s a Dilemma.

How has your approach or role changed with the arrival of the new administration, which feels markedly different from previous ones?

It’s a good question; I’m still adjusting to it frankly. The job shifted on January 20, to one where I am reacting a lot more to the news, because so much of it is coming so fast. The difference is really tightening the criteria on what we assess is most important, and also making sure that we are finding opportunities to empower our audience. I think something that’s been difficult about this presidency is that there’s so many breaking stories coming out every day, and it almost feels deliberate, like some of these tickets of orders, nobody expects them to like pass, but they expect them to get articles. And it kind of feels like we might knock down the big, flashy thing. But what are all these, smaller things that are happening, and what’s the most important thing to have the audience know today? 

With figures like Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, and Jeff Bezos wielding immense influence over platforms central to our news intake, are you concerned about algorithmic bias or the blurring lines between political power and media control?

It’s scary, I find it really, really disturbing. It is quite clear, the Washington Post endorsement was not going to make any difference whatsoever in this election, but the idea that Bezos was so determined to not offend Trump was the scariest part about that. It sounds a little bit like hyperbole, but that’s what fascism looks like. It looks like an authoritarian leader, and then major corporations and other institutions deciding it’s in their best interest to play ball. All of these things have melded into one agenda where all of these incentives are aligned, and it’s scary.

Amid the challenges and polarization, what gives you hope for the future?

Times have been worse in this country. It’s not super optimistic, the idea that things could be worse. I am encouraged by just getting a sense that people are mobilizing and are engaging in substantive stuff this time.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.

The post The New News: The Rise of Independent Political Media appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

It seems that every year, new reports announce record-high rates of depression and anxiety. As many think pieces have already explored, factors may include social media, workplace dissatisfaction, the pandemic, and modern politics. However, one under-discussed element is our physical environments: the homes, neighborhoods, and streets where we spend the vast majority of our lives. What role might our daily commute or local parks play in shaping our capacity to imagine a better future? Jill Locantore, a former psychology student turned urban planner, now serves as the executive director of Denver Street Partnership. In her work, she focuses on building community through public transit and creating spaces where people can connect, thrive, and envision a better tomorrow. A few weeks ago, she joined me for an open conversation on the intersection between hope and urban design.

Our conversation began with her personal journey.

What’s your story? What led you to do this work?

I trace it back to when I moved to Toronto to go to graduate school. I was making a tiny amount of income as a teaching and research assistant, but I was trying to figure out how to live on a very small income, and decided to give up my car. I actually ended up loving living in Toronto, precisely because it is designed in a way that makes it possible, not only to survive, but to thrive without having a car. 

It has this amazing public transit system. It’s got incredible main streets in many different neighborhoods throughout the city that have all of these small, locally owned businesses, a bakery, a cheese shop, a produce stand, a hardware store, everything you need on a daily basis within walking distance.

I realized that this didn’t happen by accident, that there were policy decisions and decisions about how to invest public dollars that resulted in Toronto being the kind of city where somebody like me, who was very low income, could live a really high quality of life and really feel connected with the community that I was in. Because I walked everywhere I went, I got to know other people who were walking around the neighborhood, riding transit and frequenting the local businesses.

It caused me to change my career path. I was like, I want to help design cities like this that are great places to live, regardless of who you are and what your economic standing is. 

Tell me about Denver Streets Partnership.

Denver Street Partnership is a grassroots advocacy organization, and our mission is to reduce Denver’s unsustainable dependence on cars and to make it possible for people to thrive in Denver using other forms of transportation to get around, whether it’s walking or biking or public transit or scooters, or skateboards. Our focus is on culture change and systems change.

We’ve [Denver] spent decades enacting policies and investing money that is all focused on driving, and we really need to undo that damage and rebalance the system, so we’re once again prioritizing people and human dignity as the top principles that should be guiding how we think about our transportation systems.

I noticed DSP lists joy as one of its key values. Why?

A big part of how we think about our streets is not just as conduits for getting from one place to another, but they’re public spaces. In fact, it’s the majority of public space in most cities, about 80% of the public space is streets and sidewalks. If you look at how those streets were used and organized 100 years ago, they were a place where people gathered. 

We really want to spark people’s imaginations about what is possible with all this public space in our city, if we weren’t prioritizing the high-speed movement of vehicles through that space. 

A great example is […] in the Sun Valley neighborhood, which is one of Denver’s lowest-income neighborhoods and also incredibly culturally diverse. There’s a lot of highway infrastructure that was built through that area in the 1960s, including the Colfax viaduct, which is this huge elevated bridge structure. 

We worked with the community to start reclaiming that space underneath the viaduct as a place where they could host international marketplaces, the Sun Valley viaduct, night markets, and celebrate the amazing local culture there with music and art and food that really reflects the people who live in that neighborhood and celebrates it and allows economic entrepreneurship, where people who don’t have brick and mortar businesses have an opportunity to sell whatever, products they’re creating and connect with their community. 

It’s been wildly popular not just with the people who live in Sun Valley, but with people all over Denver because they want to experience that kind of community that truly is authentic.

What does it mean to reclaim a neighborhood and how do you balance concerns about gentrification?

It is a very complicated and nuanced issue. What does it truly mean to repair those harms of the past without creating new harms today? 

Sun Valley is affordable because it is a neighborhood that’s divided from the rest of the city by highways, and it is one of the most polluted neighborhoods in the city. So, of course, wealthy people don’t want to live there. If we start repairing those harms of the past and reinvesting in redesigning, […] reconnecting the street grid, reinvesting in infrastructure that benefits the community, all of a sudden it does become much more desirable  neighborhood. 

People are going to want to move in, and that’s going to increase property values, and then you may end up displacing the very people that you’re trying to benefit.

I don’t think there’s easy answers about how to do this right. Part of it is really centering the community’s voice and being thoughtful about whose voice is at the table when you’re making these decisions. 

I think also there needs to be a very deliberate intention around proactively preventing involuntary gentrification and displacement. One idea we’ve been talking about is modeling something after Denver’s 1% for the arts program. If you have an infrastructure project that’s above, I think about a million dollars, city ordinance dictates that 1% of that budget has to be set aside for public art projects.

We’ve been proposing, what if we had a 1% for anti-displacement and anti-gentrification policies, so you could support local businesses […] and set aside funding for things like property tax abatement for people who’ve lived there for many, many years. Those are just a couple of ideas of how to be really intentional in addressing those equity issues and not further compounding the problem we’re trying to solve. 

How do you make people care about streets and transit when they are issues that tend to fly under the radar?

That’s where imagination comes in. It is very hard for people to imagine our city functioning and looking and feeling different than it does right now. Most of us who live in Denver today, grew up in car-centric communities, and that’s all we know. 

Sometimes people’s imaginations can be sparked by traveling. This is why the downtown Denver Partnership does their urban exploration trips every year, where they take city leaders to different cities across the country and across the world, so they can experience things that are different, but even that can be hard to translate.

Like, yeah, sure, that works great in Copenhagen, but that’s not really relevant here in Denver. That’s why demonstration projects are so important to give people a chance to physically experience how the streets could be different. 

We had that natural experience during the pandemic when the city very quickly converted several streets throughout the city into priority walking and biking shared streets by throwing up some orange barricades and signs. It allowed people to experience those streets in a very different way than they ever had before. We took advantage of the opportunity to do some really extensive surveying during that time, to ask people how they liked it and if they felt like it was something that should be put in place permanently, even after the pandemic ended.

We found overwhelming support, around 90 to 95% of people were like:

 ‘I love this. This is amazing. I’m experiencing my city in a completely different way than I ever did before. I’m able to be out on the street with my two-year-old, and I was able to teach my five-year-old how to ride a bike, and that never would have been possible before.’

It’s about this willingness to experiment and not just talk about things in the abstract or show people a diagram that nobody understands how to interpret, but giving them real world examples that they can interact with and give feedback on.

Why focus locally when the national scene feels so bleak?

It is really depressing thinking about what’s going on federally, at the national level, but I think the silver lining of that is that it allows us to focus more at the local level and what we can accomplish right here in Denver with our own resources in a community where we know each other.

We are all in this same shared space together, and we all have a collective interest in making Denver a good place to live. How can we identify common, shared goals that we have right here in Denver and solve problems locally, and not be waiting for the federal government to come down and solve these problems for us?

I think there’s a huge opportunity to be coming together at that local level and making change and setting an example for other parts of the country to follow.

Can you share any moments where you saw your work help someone have an “Aha” moment?

Every time we do a demonstration project, we always do before-and-after surveys. One that really stands out to me, focused on West Colfax corridor in Denver.  We basically did a road diet, where you reduce the number of travel lanes and reallocate that space for wider sidewalks, more trees, and greenery.

We surveyed people ahead of time, and we said, ‘What do you think of making these changes to Colfax? Would you support having a bike lane on Colfax? Would you support reducing the number of travel lanes’

People were like, ‘No, that seems like a terrible idea. Why would we do that? ‘

Then we did the actual demonstration, and we surveyed people day of, and the number one most popular thing was the bike lane on Colfax. When people were able to experience what an actual safe, comfortable, protected bike lane on Colfax was like, ‘They were like, This is amazing. Why are we just doing this for one day? Can we do it every day? ‘

Almost every time we do one of those demonstration projects, there’s somebody who has a light bulb moment, and often a lot of people who have a light bulb moment. 

How can people get involved?

If they want to support the Denver Street partnership, we always are happy to accept donations, but also we have lots of opportunities for people to volunteer at events. If you just sign up for our newsletter, there are so many opportunities to provide input on these decisions that are being made locally. 

Right now, the city of Denver is debating a general obligation bond that they’re going to refer to the voters, that will fund nearly a billion dollars’ worth of infrastructure projects, and they’re debating how that money should be spent. Should we be spending it on car infrastructure? Should we be spending it on pedestrian improvements? Should we investigate on bike improvements? Now is the time to speak up and let city officials know what you want to see in those bond packages. 

More generally, just be involved in your community. Showing up is 80% of the battle. Go to your neighborhood meeting. See what’s happening locally. Be part of the conversation, that is where change is possible and where change is happening.

Jill Locantore at a Bus Driver Appreciate Event. Photo From Active Towns

It hit hard when, after 31 years, a beloved local publication closed its doors. Independent journalism in Colorado just got a little smaller. And a lot more vulnerable.

In Boulder County, only one locally-owned, independent news platform remains: Yellow Scene Magazine. We don’t answer to a corporate board. We’re not backed by a hedge fund. We answer and report to our readers..

The future isn’t found in selling out or corporate donors. It’s in community.

Help us keep unbought, unbossed journalism alive and delivered to your mailbox.

Become a sustaining supporter for just $8/month:

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.

The post Talking Public Transit, Community, and Hope with Jill Locantore appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This piece is part of Yellow Scene Magazine’s Opinion section. The views expressed here are those of the author in their role as Associate Editor, and do not represent a reported news position. At Yellow Scene, opinion pieces speak freely, challenge assumptions, and say the quiet parts out loud.

I’m a Superman fan. Let’s start there. I think Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel trilogy had some artistic value, but I never thought it really got to the heart of who Superman is. This new Superman (2025) movie?  It gets it. It understands that Superman isn’t just some overpowered alien or a symbol of might: he’s an ideal. He’s what America wants to be at its absolute best: brave, generous, compassionate, powerful in the service of good, and not afraid to stand up for people when it matters most.

And if we’re being real right now, that ideal feels distant. The systems around us are massive and stuck. We’ve got tech oligarchs hoarding wealth and building weapons, AI accelerating inequality, a political system that feels like it’s fracturing at the seams. The White House feels unaccountable, our congressmen are asleep at the wheel, and the whole structure seems impossible for any one person to meaningfully influence.

That political landscape and the way it makes people feel disempowered is what the movie attempts to tackle. Superman  isn’t naive about politics. It doesn’t handwave away consequences. Its inciting incident begins when Superman intervenes in a foreign war and is met with suddenly a storm of voices: Should he have signed a treaty? Gone to the UN? Respected sovereignty? What are the implications for the world stage ?

Lois Lane’s character arc lives inside that debate. She starts the film cynical, not just about Superman’s choices, but about the possibility of doing good at all. Her background, her loneliness, her cynicism all of it points toward someone who has stopped believing anything truly good can last. She even struggles to believe in her relationship with Clark. However, over the course of the movie, she shifts. Not because Clark lectures her, but because she witnesses good being done. She sees a person choose compassion again and again, even when it’s hard, and she starts to believe that something better is possible.

That’s the first thing Superman teaches us: cynicism is not intelligence. That constant meta-analysis—”Is it it too naïve? What will the UN say? Will this upset the balance of power? “—can become a smokescreen for inaction. There’s a scene where Superman is basically asked, “But what about the consequences of stopping the war?” and his answer is simple: “People were going to die. What should I have done instead?”

There’s a silence. Because that’s it. Sometimes the right thing isn’t safe or neat or bureaucratically sanctioned. Sometimes it’s just… good. And you do it because it needs to be done.

Compare that to the way many establishment voices—media outlets like the New York Times, legacy Democrats, even some younger voices—frame political possibility. You hear a lot of “well, there’s only so much we can do,” or “you have to stay within the lines.” Activists have to “be realistic.” All that cautious hand-wringing is what Superman blows apart. He sees what’s wrong and acts. That’s the second thing Superman shows us: you don’t have to stop being good to be effective. He doesn’t need to “grow up” out of his ideals. He doesn’t need to give up on people, abandon his values, or break himself to win. He doesn’t need a power-up from a special sun or some cosmic boost. His real strength is his humanity. He goes home and talks to his parents. He remembers that there are people who need help, and that’s enough to keep going. He is strong because he cares. 

And that brings me to the third lesson: hope is a chain reaction. Throughout the film, Superman not just do good, but also inspires it. Lois breaks open a global conspiracy. A regular man stands up for Superman and pays the price. Mr. Terrific risks everything to fight for something bigger than himself. They don’t do it because they have to. They do it because they see someone else trying.

Hope is hard. It’s not always practical. It can feel embarrassing. But it’s also powerful and contagious.

That’s what Superman reminds us: even when the world feels impossibly broken, even when you’ve been told your whole life that nothing can change, you can still choose to act. You can be soft-hearted, idealistic, kind, and still be strong.

In other words, pessimism and apathy are out—and optimism is punk rock now.

The post What Superman (2025) Teaches Us About Politics and Hope appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This piece is part of Yellow Scene Magazine’s Opinion section. The views expressed here are those of the author in their role as Associate Editor, and do not represent a reported news position. At Yellow Scene, opinion pieces speak freely, challenge assumptions, and say the quiet parts out loud.

Earlier this week, Yellow Scene reached out to the Town of Erie to request a copy of the full community survey. In response, the town informed us that. to protect the integrity of the fielding process, they would not be releasing the questions publicly until after the survey closes.

Let’s be clear: while we have serious criticisms of how this survey was constructed and deployed, we have no desire to undermine the people involved (however flawed the execution) or invalidate a process that, for better or worse, cost the town $70,000. We decided we would respect the process and avoid publishing the questions today. However, we are going to share our initial impressions. All images of questions will come from the publicly available survey draft, and may have minor differences from the presentation of the final questions. What follows is a breakdown of the types of questions that make up the survey, based on known phrasing, public discussions, and our reporting. We’re sharing this to shed light on broader patterns in the survey design, not to necessarily dive into the political topics it covers or comprehensively cover the questions.

When the survey was first introduced, residents and council members raised concerns about the questions. There were fears that the survey would ask residents to weigh in on technical issues they weren’t equipped to evaluate, or present false choices in overly simplistic ways. At the root of it all is a deeper concern: that this survey, marketed as a way to reflect the “will of the people,” is being used to manufacture consent for decisions that may not actually serve Erie’s long-term interests and provide cover for city officials seeking to avoid accountability.

Now that we’ve seen the questions, the verdict is mixed. Some of those fears have come to fruition. Others haven’t. Overall, I’d break the survey questions down into four categories: Solid, Serviceable, Ill-Fitting, and Loaded.

Solid Questions

First, some praise.

There are questions in this survey that are thoughtful, well-constructed, and likely to yield valuable insight. One example: a question that asks residents to describe what a “small-town feel” means to them. This question stands out because it doesn’t force a numerical answer or push residents into a false binary. It invites reflection, and in doing so, it taps into a real, emotional tension as Erie grows. What makes Erie feel like home? What elements of that tight-knit identity might be at risk as development accelerates?

That’s the kind of question a survey should ask.

My only critique is that the framing presumes Erie does have a small-town feel, and that this is inherently good. It’s a subtle slant, but worth noting. Still, I’d estimate fewer than a dozen of the survey’s questions strike this kind of thoughtful, balanced tone.

Serviceable Questions

Next up: the middle-of-the-road questions. These aren’t great, but they aren’t harmful either. Some are simply boring. Others are vague or imprecise. But they don’t mislead or cause real damage. Think basic demographic questions (race, income) or broad approval ratings.

Take Question 6, for example:
“Do you approve or disapprove of the job the Town of Erie is doing to provide public services, projects, and programs for Town residents?”

It’s a reasonable pulse check. But it’s incredibly broad. What counts as a “public service” or “town project”? Does that include festivals? Parks? Affordable housing? And what does “approve” mean? Is “mostly fine” enough to click “approve”? The question tries to measure overall satisfaction, but it’s so fuzzy that the results may not tell the town anything useful. And because the answers are multiple choice rather than open-ended, there’s no room to clarify.

Ill-Fitting Questions

Now we enter problematic territory.

These are questions that simply shouldn’t be in a public opinion survey because they require expert analysis or have empirically measurable answers that shouldn’t be swayed by gut feelings or individual bias.

For example:
Should Erie prioritize building a water park or investing in sustainable infrastructure?

This is not a question of public opinion—it’s a policy decision that should be based on data, long-term impacts, and expert input. Pretending otherwise is irresponsible at best—and at worst, a thinly veiled attempt to justify bad decisions with cherry-picked public sentiment.

These types of questions create a false equivalence. Celebratory fireworks and water conservation efforts don’t belong in the same ranking list.

Another example:
“How much of a problem is rental availability?”

That’s something we can measure. Vacancy rates, average time on market, income-to-rent ratios, all of that data exists. Asking residents to weigh in without that context will generate results based on anecdote, bias, and personal circumstance, rather than fact.

And here’s the deeper issue:
Let’s say the majority of residents rank building a “water park” as their top priority. What then? Will the town scrap housing and sustainability initiatives to fund more splash pads?

If yes, that’s a governance failure. If not, why ask the question in the first place?

This is a $70,000 survey. That breaks down to roughly $1,400 per question. And some of these questions simply aren’t worth that price tag. Yes, part of the cost covers distribution and vendor fees, but that’s all the more reason to treat each question like it matters.

Loaded Questions

Finally, the worst offenders: loaded, leading, or misleading questions.

Despite public concerns, the final survey still includes several questions asking residents to weigh in on specific, highly technical complex issues, without enough context to make an informed decision. Two sentences of background isn’t enough for a resident to decide whether Erie should invest in high-density versus low-density housing, or use a particular tax structure to fund infrastructure.

Many of these questions boil complex tradeoffs down to a single, misleading frame:
Raise taxes or don’t?

Predictably, most people will choose “don’t” especially when the question doesn’t provide critical information like project timelines, interest rates, or long-term community benefits. But that’s exactly the problem: surveys aren’t built for this kind of nuance. What we’re left with is a set of questions that pretend to ask for guidance, when really, they’re just looking for permission.

Final Verdict: 5/10

There are worse surveys out there. But given the time, money, and political weight placed behind this one, it leaves a lot to be desired There’s nothing wrong with wanting to involve residents in decisions that affect their lives. In fact, that’s admirable. But there are far better tools than this: Hold real town halls. Share accessible, informative materials. Engage directly with community groups. Host public votes when appropriate.

This survey? It feels more like a cover story than a real conversation.

And for $70,000, Erie deserves more than that.

What the survey postcard looks like (don’t discard it!)

It hit hard when, after 31 years, a beloved local publication closed its doors. Independent journalism in Colorado just got a little smaller. And a lot more vulnerable.

In Boulder County, only one locally-owned, independent news platform remains: Yellow Scene Magazine. We don’t answer to a corporate board. We’re not backed by a hedge fund. We answer and report to our readers..

The future isn’t found in selling out or corporate donors. It’s in community.

Help us keep unbought, unbossed journalism alive and delivered to your mailbox.

Become a sustaining supporter for just $8/month

The post What Erie’s $70K Survey Gets Right—and So, So Wrong appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Erie has been conducting annual surveys for years to collect data on residents’ perspectives. However, this year’s survey, headlined by the Mayor, Andrew Moore, includes a number of changes that have made it both more expensive and more controversial. One major change: Moore wants to survey a much larger portion of the population. Previous surveys aimed to reach around 3,000 people. Moore wants to send the survey to every household in the city. According to him, it’s simply about hearing from more people and better understanding what the town wants.

He told YS, “It’s [the cost] about $70,000. So the way I look at that, we’re a town of almost 300 employees, this is the cost of less than one employee. And to get the input from our residents, to know where they’re at —to me, that’s priceless.”

Not everyone is as cavalier about the increased cost. The usual survey cost about $30,000. Moore’s expanded version is currently estimated to be more than double that. Critics argue that the change dramatically inflates the cost and burden of the survey with very little added benefit. Although the old survey only sampled a smaller portion of the population, it was handled by a professional survey company that used statistical sampling techniques to gather a representative set of responses. Think about how the federal government collects data. It would be impossibly expensive and impractical to ask all 300 million Americans for their opinions. Instead, it relies on trained statisticians who use sampling methods to make sure the data is still valid without needing to hear from everyone. Erie’s past surveys worked the same way. So while it might sound good to increase the sample size, the reality is that doing so will increase costs without necessarily improving the data.

In fact, some argue that surveying this many people could make the data less useful, not more. Town of Erie Communications Director, Gabi Rae told YS, “The consulting team does say that after a certain amount of responses, there’s really no scientific need to continue asking. You won’t see a difference in the data from basically 3,000 people versus 10,000 people who respond to it. So it becomes more difficult to look at the data after a certain amount, and you don’t have any more useful data that you gather.”

Others are concerned not just about the volume of data, but the survey questions themselves.

Previous surveys were conducted by a company that administers surveys across the country and uses carefully crafted questions designed by consultants. The benefit of this was twofold: the questions were designed to minimize bias, and Erie could compare its answers to those from other towns and cities nationwide. Moore, however, saw the previous surveys as too generic and lacking in side-by-side comparisons between options, and has called for a revamp of the questions.

He explained, “I think the other challenge with the national survey is it doesn’t give you any type of comparative information. Would you prefer an outdoor pool over a performing arts center? And so one of the key goals of this survey is to get comparative-type information that we simply do not have in the other survey.”

This new approach, and the new questions generated, have sparked controversy. Multiple meetings have been held to comb through the new language, with concerns raised about potential bias and manipulation.

At first glance, the questions seem innocuous enough, so what about them is worth debating for multiple days? One concern is the type of questions being asked. Many of Mayor Moore’s proposed questions go beyond asking for general town preferences and instead ask residents to weigh in on complex matters that may be better off posed to experts. For instance, one draft version of the survey includes Question 11 (shown below), which asks citizens whether they would prefer the town use taxes and bonds or Certificates of Participation (COPs) to finance new facilities.

I consider myself a well-educated and informed individual, and even I would feel unprepared to answer such a question. In fairness, the survey does provide a short explanation of the difference between financing options, but it’s limited to just a few sentences, when the subject could warrant pages of context. From the brief description, I, and I suspect many others, got the impression that the main difference between COPs and bonds is the level of public input. The question explains that bonds require a vote of the people, whereas COPs do not. That might make it seem like a question of democratic process versus speed: do you want a say, or do you want the project done faster? 

But with even minimal research, I realized that framing is a major oversimplification. Bonds are less flexible and have more red tape, but they’re generally considered a stable, lower-risk investment and are often a better choice for long-term projects. COPs, by contrast, are seen as riskier, meaning they carry higher interest rates. Over time, that can make projects financed through COPs significantly more expensive, which risks a serious strain on town resources. The point isn’t whether COPs are good or bad, it’s that there is a lot of nuance here, nuance that’s nearly impossible for the average citizen to grasp from a two-sentence blurb on a survey.

Mayor Moore spoke to YS at length about the importance of ensuring residents are informed before they’re asked to weigh in. He said:

“If you’re asking somebody to raise their taxes, and they have no awareness, they’re absolutely going to say no. If you haven’t shared enough information to explain what the challenge is, they’re going to have no desire to move forward with the change.”

At Yellow Scene, we agree with Mayor Moore on the value of public awareness. People should be informed before being asked to make decisions that could affect not just their lives, but the lives of their children and grandchildren. But we question whether this survey is putting citizens in a position to make truly informed decisions.

And the concern goes far beyond one question. 

Questions of similar complexity appear across topics, from affordable housing to traffic. For example, Question T32 asks residents whether they would support taxes to fund road and infrastructure projects, but doesn’t explain what that funding would actually cover.

Are we talking about filling potholes? Expanding public transportation? Building new roads? That question has since been removed following the most recent council meeting.

Question T35 is perhaps the most emblematic of the deeper problems with the survey. 

It doesn’t just ask citizens what projects they want funded, but how to fund them.

One version of the question asks respondents to weigh the pros and cons of financing options like Property Taxes, Sales Taxes, and the Town of Erie’s General Fund with little explanation of how each method works or what tradeoffs they involve. These questions aren’t just complex, they touch on high-stakes decisions that Erie can’t afford to get wrong. Choosing COPs over bonds in the wrong situation could cost the town millions. Mishandling the affordable housing crisis could worsen it as Erie continues to grow. Which raises the question: Is a survey really the best tool to make these calls?

Councilman Pesaramelli says no.

“This comprehensive survey has become an obstacle,” he told YS. “Town staff, who I’d call subject matter experts, prepare to move forward on projects, but now they’re being told to pause and wait for survey data. It’s created a directionless environment. Surveys can help with general sentiment, but the staff and council are the ones who should make funding and policy decisions. You don’t ask the public whether we should have water in 20 years. That’s a basic necessity. Not everything needs to go to a vote.”

Pesaramelli also believes that ironically, the survey’s length and complexity may discourage public engagement. With dozens of questions, many of them dense and time-consuming, he worries that busy citizens will opt out altogether. It’s not hard to imagine a busy parent skimming through Question 35 and deciding they don’t have time to take a 50-question quiz on tax strategy. Critics of Moore’s approach say they’re not opposed to public input on big issues, but believe there are better ways to involve residents, such as targeted town halls or community outreach that both inform and engage.

In response to those concerns, Moore has stood firm.

“My response is simple,” he said. “I want to hear from our constituents. I don’t know what I don’t know… I’ve told anyone who’ll listen: I’ll follow what the survey guides us to do, even if it’s not the direction I personally support. I wasn’t elected to do whatever I want, I was elected to represent the will of the people.”

But some question whether Moore’s approach is as selfless as it sounds. Councilman Hoback worries the survey may be used to justify policies Moore already supports. “He’s on the record as being skeptical of affordable housing programs,” Hoback said. “We got federal ARPA funding to buy land for affordable housing—now he wants to hit pause.”

This is where critics say question wording matters. If the survey isn’t clear about what affordable housing really is, people may oppose it simply because they don’t think it applies to them.

“If the survey just asks, ‘Do you want affordable housing here?’ without explaining what that means […] like entry-level homes for young people or smaller homes for seniors, people won’t connect with the need. That can tilt answers against affordable housing, not because it’s unwanted, but because the question doesn’t explain the real issues or who it helps.”

In the end the case against Moore’s survey is straightforward. The survey is more than twice as expensive as the regular one, and if this becomes the new standard, the long-term cost will add up fast. Because the questions are unique, Erie loses the ability to compare responses over time or against other towns. Some of the questions are poorly framed or too technical for the average resident to answer meaningfully. And at 50 questions, it’s long enough to discourage participation, not boost it. Regardless, Moore’s survey has likely become too big to fail. There’s already been too much time, money, and political capital put into it. It’s the path we’re on. Where that path leads will depend on what happens next. Residents should stay engaged. Watch how the results get used. Push for transparency in how they’re interpreted. And make sure major town decisions aren’t being quietly driven by flawed data or unchecked assumptions. Whether the survey gets improved or scrapped, repeated or replaced, what matters now is that the public stays in the loop.

The post Erie’s Survey Gamble: Community Input at a High Cost appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This piece is part of Yellow Scene Magazine’s Opinion section. The views expressed here are those of the author in their role as Associate Editor, and do not represent a reported news position. At Yellow Scene, opinion pieces speak freely, challenge assumptions, and say the quiet parts out loud.

A few days ago, the Boulder community experienced an act of horror that will take a long time to heal from. Mohamed Sabry Soliman threw a makeshift Molotov cocktail, setting people on fire, as bystanders watched in shock and disbelief. I was stunned when I first heard what had happened. While many in the city are grieving and searching for answers, others are responding in a more cynical manner. As national attention converges on Boulder County, some are wasting no time in using it to their advantage.

I’m not here to make sweeping claims about what should happen next, or how this could have been predicted or prevented. I’m not here to make assumptions about the suspect, his motives, or the victims. But I will say this: we must not let this tragedy, or the opportunists exploiting it, drag us away from our values and into hatred.

Firstly, Yellow Scene Magazine has been consistently clear in our stance: we condemn the genocide in Gaza. Our criticism of Israel does not make it difficult for us also to condemn lighting people on fire or to recognize this for what it is: a tragedy. Many victims remain hospitalized, some may not survive, and many more are traumatized and forever affected. The grief people are feeling is legitimate. What isn’t legitimate is the attempt to paint this act of violence as representative of broader political movements or ideologies.

 This was not the work of a radicalized twenty-something college student. Nor was it the act of a leftist radical fighting in the name of Marx. The alleged attacker is an Egyptian man in his 40s, who had reportedly been planning this act for over a year; his relationship to the war and its trauma likely looks nothing like that of the average American protester. Attempts to use this incident to demonize the left, to vilify those who’ve spoken up for Palestinians, or to tie this act to pro-Gaza advocacy are not just dishonest; They are calculated and opportunistic at best, and dangerously misleading at worst.

We know what pro-Palestinian advocacy in Boulder and Colorado looks like. We’ve covered it: art exhibits with kites carrying the last words of dead Palestinians killed; a peaceful protest against military contractors, press conferences in Denver where Palestinian community members elevated South Africa’s case, accusing Israel of genocide; a fast last week in protest of starvation in Gaza. The connection between this man and those actions is tenuous at best, and often manufactured by people with an agenda. I point to the many forms Palestinian advocacy has taken in Boulder and Colorado, not to claim there’s a single legitimate way to protest, but to reject the attempt to conflate principled dissent with indiscriminate violence.

Yes, this attack follows the embassy firebombing in D.C., and now some are calling it the start of a violent “pattern.” But what exactly is starting? This pattern of violence didn’t begin last week or the week before; it’s been there all along. It just wasn’t politically convenient to name it until now.

Just last month, Joseph Czuba, an Illinois man, was sentenced to 53 years for murdering a six-year-old Palestinian-American boy simply because he believed all Muslims should die. A few months ago, two people were shot in Miami because the perpetrator was “hunting Palestinians.” And that’s not even touching the violence faced by protestors, like the UCLA students who were brutalized by a masked mob and then shot with rubber bullets by police, or the relentless, daily violence in Gaza and the West Bank. Since breaking the ceasefire, Israel has killed hundreds of Palestinians. On March 18, 2025, the death toll hit 600 in a single 24-hour period. Four hundred of those were children.

This is not whataboutism. The other instances of violence I’ve mentioned don’t erase what happened in Boulder. They don’t minimize the pain, the horror, or the real human suffering. What they do call into question is the idea that violence is unique to the “left” or somehow inherent to those who support Palestinian liberation. They also expose a painful double standard: the violence inflicted on Gaza and those who advocate against the genocide treated very differently than violence committed against the Jewish community or, more precisely, supporters of Zionism 

Has antisemitism risen since October 7th and the discourse that followed? Undoubtedly. And we must take that rise seriously. In many ways, we have. Since the Boulder attack, we’ve seen dozens of think pieces, statements from the governor and president, and swift condemnation. There’s also been heightened scrutiny, and in some cases, outright crackdowns, on anyone who dares to say “Free Palestine.”

I find gratitude in the fact that the Jewish community is supported in moments of grief. What troubles me is how quickly that support is weaponized into suspicion, surveillance, and slander, painting the millions of Americans who’ve marched for Palestinian rights as terrorists or enemies of the state. And I think it’s worth asking: where was this urgency, this outrage, this reflex to protect, when it was Palestinians being bombed and brutalized? Where is it now, as Islamophobia quietly surges? This question feels especially sharp in Boulder, where the city council has passed a declaration condemning antisemitism, but not Islamophobia. These disparities make something clear: for many in power, this moment isn’t just about healing. It isn’t even solely about protecting Boulder’s Jewish community. It’s about who gets to be seen as deserving of protection and who doesn’t. It’s about whose grief moves institutions, and whose grief is ignored. In the end, it’s about power. 

Trump used the attack to blame immigrants and justify his authoritarian, hateful immigration policies. Never mind that most mass shootings in this country are carried out by white men, many of whom cite Trump in their manifestos. And now, unsurprisingly, the attacker’s family has been detained by ICE. All of this unfolds against the backdrop of an increasingly aggressive effort to suppress free speech on Palestine. The fact is, Trump and the GOP don’t see this as a tragedy, they see it as an opportunity. A way to seize power by stoking fear. A chance to turn grief into hatred, toward immigrants, toward protesters, toward speech, and toward each other.

Hilary Kalisman, an assistant professor of history and the endowed chair of Israel/Palestine Studies in the Program in Jewish Studies at the University of Colorado Boulder, wrote in the wake of this moment: 

“I hope my community will never face an attack like this again. And I hope, too, that we will avoid becoming political pawns, for Israel’s government or for the current administration. The Middle East is still experiencing devastating violence; while it does, Jews and Palestinians here in the U.S. will both face unpredictable and complicated threats.

To help combat them, we must stop making assumptions of one another. Doing so means finding a space to listen — to do the nuanced work that moments like this can endanger, in our classrooms, our communities, and our country.” 

Her words say what I’ve tried to throughout this piece: we can hold grief without surrendering to fear. We can demand justice without becoming pawns. We can protect each other without collapsing into hate.

The post Don’t Let Grief Become A Weapon appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Several years ago, I reached out to Yellow Scene Magazine with a gut feeling that I wanted to try my hand at journalism. I didn’t have a master plan, just a hunger to write, to ask questions, and to feel connected to the world around me in a more meaningful way. They liked my writing sample enough to give me a shot. A few weeks later, I was deep in the neck of research and interviews for my first-ever reported story.

It was a big step, and a somewhat chaotic one. But it felt like coming home.

Now, I write this as Yellow Scene’s new Associate Editor at a time that feels just as chaotic, just as formative. We’re in a transitional moment: the magazine is undergoing a kind of internal reorganization and realignment, the kind that comes after 20+ years of publishing and evolving. Like many small, independent outlets, we’re trying to figure out how to keep doing what we do well in an increasingly hostile and complicated media environment. It’s also just a strange, charged time to be a journalist. Especially a local one. Especially one working in a state like Colorado, in a county like Boulder, where national politics and local life no longer feel separate. Where everything is both connected and overwhelming, and trying to distill that into something people can read, trust, and act on is no small task.

When we talk about threats to the press, we often picture the big players: CBS, The Washington Post, CNN. But crackdowns on media don’t just hit the coasts or the cable newsrooms, they ripple outward. Local publications, independent outlets, alt-weeklies, we feel it just as sharply, if not more. Whether it’s legal pressure, economic strain, or the anxiety of what kind of coverage might provoke backlash, the stakes are high. And for us, there’s no corporate safety net. We have our values, our team, and the faith of our readers.

That’s part of what makes this work both more meaningful and more difficult. We don’t just ask questions. We try to ask the right ones. We don’t just report what’s happening. We try to figure out what matters most, and why. And in a time when national headlines dominate the narrative, we double down on the local, not because it’s easier, but because it matters.

At Yellow Scene, we don’t just report what’s happening, we ask why, who it affects, and what needs to be done. We take positions. We believe journalism is at its best when it’s clear-eyed and unflinching. Our readers deserve that. They deserve to know what’s going on in their neighborhoods, in their schools, in their city halls, and to feel just a little more empowered because of it.

One of the things I hope for most is that Yellow Scene continues to be a voice for the people of Boulder County. That we keep showing up with consistency, grow in our reach and impact, and stay rooted in the communities we serve. After we published my story on dark money in public education, I was contacted by the Advocates for Public Education Policy group. They told me how much it meant to see issues that rarely get the spotlight named and taken seriously. A few days later, I joined one of their weekly meetings to answer questions about the research, connect, and listen. It was one of the clearest reminders I’ve had that this work makes a difference.

In the coming months, we’re experimenting with formats, with voices, with how we show up in print and online. That’s part of what it means to be independent: we’re nimble enough to change when we need to, stubborn enough to keep our core intact. We’ll try new things, and not all of them will be perfect. But we’ll keep showing up. We’ll keep asking better questions. And we’ll keep making space for the kinds of stories that don’t always get told, but should.

I’m especially excited to be working with our current team of writers, who are as diverse in experience as they are in voice. We’ve got seasoned journalists who’ve been writing for decades and know their way around a complicated lead. We’ve got writers fresh out of grad school, tackling big stories with sharp minds and open hearts. And we’ve got people who didn’t formally study journalism but whose talent and passion for writing, research, and truth-telling are undeniable. One of Yellow Scene’s greatest strengths is that we let writers develop their voices. We encourage well-sourced, deeply researched pieces. And we give space for people who care to show up and do the work.

Working for an independent magazine in 2025 is, if I’m being honest, not the most rational career move. But that’s kind of the point. Rationality doesn’t always lead to the most vital work. Passion does. Curiosity does. A belief that stories matter and that someone should still be willing to say the things no one else is saying. We’re not owned by a hedge fund. We’re not beholden to corporate interests. We answer to our readers, our mission, and our sense of what’s right.

This job is hard. But it’s also fun. Weirdly fun. Getting to work alongside people who are passionate, scrappy, principled, and a little chaotic, in the best way, is one of the great privileges of my life. I hope the stories we publish reflect that spirit. I hope they help you understand your neighbors, your communities, and your world just a little better. I hope they surprise you sometimes. And I hope they make you feel something.

Thanks for reading. We’ll keep going as long as we can.

— Destiny Hale

Like journalism like this? Support the local press that’s been telling the truth for 25 years. Become a sustaining member and get our monthly print edition at home. We’ve weathered 9/11, floods, fires, economic crashes—and some deeply chaotic years. With your support, we’ll keep going. Because democracy still depends on journalism.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.

The post Editor’s Note | May 2025 appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

On March 28, the executive committee of the Boulder NAACP branch announced that it was dissolving. The message landed as both unexpected and, in some ways, inevitable. Tensions between the branch, city officials, and the police department had been building for years, culminating in disputes that left many relationships strained. While some community members were aware of ongoing disagreements, few anticipated the abrupt shuttering of the organization. 

In recent years, the City of Boulder has taken visible steps to align itself with marginalized communities, including the creation of a racial equity department and the launch of a “Reimagine Policing” initiative. Despite these efforts, the city now finds itself navigating a rupture with one of its most prominent civil rights organizations. The breakdown raises difficult questions: What went wrong? And how did efforts at collaboration give way to mutual distrust? 

Adding to the confusion was the way the local NAACP branch made its announcement, with no clear coordination or communication with state or national leadership. Within days, higher-level NAACP officials entered the public conversation to push back. In a March 31 Instagram Live, Colorado NAACP President Portia Prescott stated, “We have a Boulder branch that actually is thriving,” and emphasized that “the only body with authority to dissolve a chapter is the national board.” The public contradiction left many uncertain about the branch’s status and marked a rare instance of open disagreement between local and national leadership.

What is clear is that, within a matter of days, Boulder’s NAACP went from being a key player in the city’s civic landscape to being at odds with both the local government and the national organization. Through exclusive interviews, Yellow Scene Magazine is unpacking what led to this breakdown and what’s at stake for the community moving forward.

The Shadow of Elijah McClain

Any effort to understand this conflict must begin with the legacy of Elijah McClain.

In 2019, McClain died after being violently detained by Aurora police and injected with ketamine by paramedics. The incident sparked national outrage and led to lawsuits, criminal charges, and renewed demands for police reform.

At the time, Stephen Redfearn was a captain in the Aurora Police Department. Although he was not involved in the physical confrontation that led to Elijah McClain’s death, he was present during its aftermath and played a role in the administrative decisions that followed. Among those actions was the reclassification of the incident report—from “suspicious person” to “assault on officer.” While the change drew little attention at the time, it would become a focal point of controversy years later.

In October 2024, the Boulder NAACP published a press release criticizing City Manager Nuria Rivera-Vandermyde’s decision to promote Redfearn to Chief of Police. They described his alteration of the call log as tantamount to a “cover-up” and emphasized his connection to the McClain case:

“He was the Nightshift Duty Commander overseeing the officers responsible for Elijah McClain’s death, as well as the leader of a brutal assault with chemical weapons against violin vigil participants honoring Elijah McClain’s memory.”

By that point, Redfearn had served three years in Boulder and had acted as interim chief. To city officials, he was a seasoned candidate with local experience, and they continued to support him despite the criticism. Redfearn defended his reclassification of the logs as a procedural decision made after speaking with the officers involved in the incident. According to him, the change aligned with department policy. But to members of the Boulder NAACP, it reflected a deeper cultural concern: a willingness to adjust official records in ways that could obscure or minimize misconduct.

Their concern extended beyond a single form or call log. Redfearn’s tenure in a department with a well-documented history of excessive force raised broader questions about the values and priorities he might bring to leadership. For the Boulder NAACP, this was not just a matter of personnel. It was a matter of trust, transparency, and the kind of leadership the city was choosing to endorse.

The Meeting That Changed Everything

In July 2024, before the press release, Boulder’s NAACP hosted a public town hall on criminal justice, where they publicly discussed their concerns about Redfearn. City officials responded by proposing a private mediated conversation to repair trust and build a collaborative relationship.

It didn’t go as planned.

According to those present, what began as a cautious conversation quickly unraveled after Redfearn commented on the NAACP president’s facial expression. She pushed back, asserting her right to respond and process information in whatever way came naturally. Other members jumped in, calling the comment a form of hyper-surveillance and an example of racial policing in interpersonal spaces.

The exchange derailed the meeting. Criminal Justice Chair Darren O’Connor, who attended, later described Redfearn’s reaction: “It seemed like Redfearn lost it and refused to talk for a while. A mediator actually told him, ‘This is the kind of thing that gets people killed.’”

In the aftermath, NAACP members left the meeting convinced Redfearn lacked the temperament and perspective to lead. Redfearn, by contrast, was reportedly frustrated and blindsided by the confrontation.

The Fallout

Unbeknownst to city officials, a member of the NAACP had recorded the meeting. Shortly after, the group informed the city: if Redfearn was promoted, they would consider releasing the video. To the NAACP, this was a matter of accountability. They felt a responsibility to the community to release evidence they believed demonstrated that Redfearn was unfit to act as the Chief of Police. However, the city viewed the move as an underhanded threat to use a private conversation as leverage. What began as a chance to rebuild trust now appeared, to some officials, as bad faith.

From that point forward, collaboration gave way to confrontation. City leaders began referring to the Boulder NAACP as uncooperative and untrustworthy—no longer a partner but a problem.

In a public statement, city manager Rivera-Vandermyde wrote:

“What I cannot tolerate is unethical behavior by people who purport to stand for progressive community values but then act in intentional ways that break trust, undermine public processes, and distract us from our collective mission.”

The NAACP did not back down. In an interview with the Denver Post,  O’Connor responded:

“It’s very troubling that the city manager is more upset that we recorded her than about what her now-selected police chief had to say. She’s more worried about the fact we’re sharing that information than about what she heard, which was disqualifying.”

In the weeks that followed, Rivera-Vandermyde would file a formal complaint with national NAACP leadership. As a result, the Boulder branch was required to submit all public communications for pre-approval to avoid what national leaders called “inflammatory or unsubstantiated rhetoric.” Local leaders rejected the characterization that their communications were unsubstantiated but agreed to comply. As national leadership became more hands-on, city officials allegedly became openly hostile.

Chief Redfearn allegedly made disparaging remarks about NAACP members and reportedly targeted O’Connor’s law license.

“He claimed I had gone to the media, that I was acting as an attorney, and that I was asserting privilege and confidentiality about who recorded the meeting—or whether I did it myself,” O’Connor told Yellow Scene. “He provided a link to a completely unrelated article from two years ago,[…] where I wasn’t mentioned at all. […] He submitted that as proof to get my bar license revoked or sanctioned.”

He continued:

“He may have done it willfully and maliciously to try and get my life taken away […] in retaliation for our First Amendment activities.”

O’Connor also recounted a separate incident in which Redfearn reportedly told others he had flipped him off at a candidate forum, an accusation he said he only heard secondhand but came across to him as needlessly petty and directed. Both incidents pushed O’Connor to file complaints with the city manager. Both, he said, were dismissed as unactionable.

To the NAACP members, these attempts to undermine his legal standing were more than personal. They represented a dangerous trend: the normalization of silencing dissent not through dialogue but through institutional retaliation. 

NAACP President Annett James told Yellow Scene, 

“We were systematically undermined by city officials. I think that’s what we want our community to understand. […] This community just does not allow one to disagree and have that discussion in the public sphere.”

In the weeks following the failed mediation, the situation only continued to unravel. Darren O’Connor was suspended by national leadership after publishing an op-ed criticizing the city’s policing transparency dashboard. The official reason: the piece was not cleared by the national office and was considered “inflammatory and unsubstantiated.”

O’Connor disagreed with that characterization.

“You know, I had listened directly to Redfearn,” he told Yellow Scene. “What I wrote about was true. And I think the NAACP had just decided that, despite them saying the restrictions were narrow, pretty much anything we were going to put out was going to be flagged.”

O’Connor, President James, and VP Jude Landsman all said the national restrictions went far beyond avoiding defamation. To them, it felt like silencing.

Following O’Connor’s suspension, the Boulder branch entered a series of tense meetings with national leadership. According to members, the message was unmistakable: the national office had no intention of supporting the Boulder branch in its fight for transparency or in defending it against retaliation from the city.

“Everyone was completely dismayed and in disbelief,”  said President James. 

“ think that it was the straw that led the Executive Committee of the NAACP, the county branch, to see for themselves that basically, we had no rights, no opportunity to express ourselves. […] There was just no due process.”

No one from the national office, members said, reached out to hear Boulder’s side.

“There was absolutely zero effort to say, ‘Okay, what’s going on in Boulder? Tell us what happened.’ There was nothing.”

Instead of mediating or cooling tensions, the national office seemed focused solely on controlling the branch’s messaging. In the aforementioned Instagram Live session, Prescott dismissed news of the Boulder branch’s possible dissolution as “fake news.” The legal or administrative questions surrounding the branch’s future were arguably less urgent than the pragmatic ones: Why wasn’t the national NAACP standing up for its local leaders, and what guidance did it have for the community?

The Boulder branch told Yellow Scene they felt the national office had been weaponized by the city to paint them as uncredible and unruly. They argued that the assertion of control from above failed to grasp that the decision to dissolve came not just from pressure but from disillusionment. After meeting after meeting with national leadership, it became clear there was no real support system in place, no path forward where their advocacy would be protected.

The NAACP is an organization that has experienced growing pains as it transitions into the modern era. Reports of declining membership and struggles to remain relevant have plagued it in recent years. Likewise, past issues with local coordination and support have led to public and destructive episodes similar to what we’re now seeing in Boulder. In 2013, NAACP members in Connecticut criticized national leadership for caring more about “brand names and fundraising” than about the health of its local chapters. That comment followed a series of branch seizures, forced resignations, and restructurings—many of which, critics argued, could have been avoided with proper support.

As recently as last May, D.C. broadcaster Roland Martin interviewed half a dozen former NAACP local leaders, each describing their own experiences with what they saw as mistreatment and villainization by the national office.

Former NAACP president Betty Williams recalled:

“My branch was threatened. […] If they said anything in support of me, the entire branch would be shut down. So there are these bully tactics meant to silence people.”

These stories don’t amount to bulletproof evidence of wrongdoing, but they do offer context. They position Boulder’s experience not as an isolated incident but as part of a pattern of national leadership failing to lead and protect its grassroots advocates.

Are Boulder branch members beyond critique? Of course not. At times, they may have overplayed their hand, and the decision to record and later threaten to release footage of the mediated conversation warrants scrutiny. But that’s not the full story. So far, little attention has been paid to how leadership at both the city and national level contributed to the escalation and, ultimately, the implosion of this conflict. 

National leadership offered little in the way of guidance, focusing instead on punitive measures. They seemed uninterested in the specifics of the branch’s concerns about Redfearn or transparency in community policing. The city, meanwhile, allegedly responded to dissent with retaliation verbal harassment, threats against legal licenses, and what branch members described as a concerted attempt to delegitimize them entirely. These incidents were brought to the city’s attention and brushed off as unactionable.

City Manager Nuria Vandermyde has said it was never the city’s desire to see the branch close. But intentions aside, it’s hard to ignore the throughline between the city’s actions and the current situation. When it became clear that the branch would not be easily controlled, both the city and national office took steps that, intentionally or not, undermined the branch’s ability to function.

This is the crux of why Boulder leaders told Yellow Scene they felt dissolution was necessary. They feared the city’s endgame was to turn them into a symbolic entity, something that bore the name of the NAACP but had none of the autonomy or power to challenge real systems of harm. Given the city’s hostility and the national office’s dismissiveness, it’s hard not to see where that concern came from.

What’s Been Lost

Amid the political battle between the city, the local branch, and the national office, the biggest loss may be to the community itself.

The Boulder NAACP organized voter registration drives, legal aid workshops, and educational forums. In a political climate where DEI efforts are increasingly under attack, the collapse of a local civil rights institution leaves a visible and painful gap. Beyond their political advocacy, the branch hosted annual Freedom Fund celebrations, supported Black-owned businesses, and threw graduation parties for Black students. They were more than just activists—they were community builders.

Still, President James and her peers insist their work is far from finished.

“We’re not quitting,” she said. “We intend to continue, with or without the NAACP name.”

Like journalism like this? Support the local press that’s been telling the truth for 25 years. Become a sustaining member and get our monthly print edition at home. We’ve weathered 9/11, floods, fires, economic crashes—and some deeply chaotic years. With your support, we’ll keep going. Because democracy still depends on journalism.

The post Inside the Collapse of Boulder NAACP appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Last November, Republican Yazmin Navarro defeated incumbent Democrat Rhonda Solis in the race to represent Colorado’s 8th district on the State Board of Education. Navarro’s victory marks the completion of a silent coup that threatens to undermine its public schools and election integrity.

Navarro is an unconventional candidate. A former substitute teacher, she entered the race with limited teaching and political experience. By contrast, Solis brought years of service as a local school board member, over a decade of broader community engagement, and the advantage of incumbency. How did a first-time candidate manage to overcome these odds and flip a key seat? While multiple factors were at play, one stands out: over $300,000 was spent on Navarro’s behalf. The outsized role of dark money in this race cannot be ignored.

What is Dark Money?

The term “dark money” has become ubiquitous in discussions of Colorado’s education races, often leaving it feeling like a vague buzzword. Dark money refers to funds spent to influence elections by organizations that are not required to disclose their donors. Unlike other forms of campaign funding, which are subject to strict rules regarding limits, transparency, and reporting, dark money operates largely in the shadows. This lack of accountability is one of the primary concerns. Voters have no way of knowing who is behind the influx of money shaping elections. Beyond transparency issues, dark money undermines democratic processes. Millions of dollars poured into newspaper ads, television, and YouTube can easily sway election outcomes, especially in low-turnout races like those for school boards. According to the National School Boards Association, as few as 5 to 10 percent of eligible voters participate in these elections. In such contests, money holds disproportionate sway, potentially allowing a handful of wealthy donors to determine outcomes. 

Dark money played a documented and substantial role in Navarro’s success. A significant contributor was the Colorado League of Charter Schools (CLCS), a nonprofit organization whose stated mission is to advance the interests of charter schools. This group poured thousands of dollars into Independent Expenditure Committees (IECs) supporting Navarro. Unlike Political Action Committees (PACs), which face strict contribution limits, IECs can funnel unlimited funds into campaigns to further their agendas. Navarro’s win appears less like an unexpected triumph from a passionate political newcomer and more like a demonstration of the power wielded by deep-pocketed interests. Navarro offered few concrete policy proposals during her campaign, with one notable exception: her strong support for school choice and expansion of charter schools. Navarro made this stance explicit on her Facebook page: “A win for Navarro this year would mean a win for charter schools.” She also stated, “This election will shape Colorado’s charter schools for years to come.”

Her messaging left little doubt about who stood to benefit from her victory.

Bribes, giving money from behind, hidden transactions

A Broader Trend: Money’s Influence in Education Elections

While the focus thus far has been on the 8th district race for the State Board of Education, this is far from an isolated case. Dark money’s influence has been felt in other education-related elections across Colorado, signaling a broader trend with significant implications for the future of public education and electoral integrity. Although much of the focus thus far has been on the 8th district race, it is just one of many education elections where dark money has played a role.

Last June, nearly $1 million was spent supporting Marisol Rodriguez’s attempt to defeat Kathy Gebhardt in the District 2 race. The spending was ostentatious enough to draw attention from various news outlets, including Forbes, and prompted a response from Rodriguez.

“I’m not fighting for charter schools, so no one is buying me in this election,” she told Boulder Weekly.

Despite Rodriguez’s statement, her ties to the charter school agenda are difficult to ignore. She is a former employee of the Walton Family Foundation, a prominent proponent of charter schools. Rodriguez has also worked as a consultant for several pro-charter organizations, including the Colorado League of Charter Schools (CLCS)—the same group that backed Yazmin Navarro. Rodriguez’s campaign, history, and associations all reflected her strong support for school choice—a stance that earned her substantial backing, most notably from an IEC called Better Leaders Stronger Schools (BLSS). BLSS, like CLCS, supports charter schools and is connected to a network of pro-charter organizations, including CLCS, which it has donated to. Despite the significant financial opposition, Gebhardt managed to retain her seat. 

Following her victory, she said, “I feel like people have spoken in support of public education and their public schools.”

Gebhardt entered the race with a strong foundation: years of experience on both local and national education boards, support from the teachers’ union, and the advantage of being a well-regarded incumbent. Her win demonstrates that candidates can overcome the influence of dark money and convey their message to voters despite substantial financial barriers. Unfortunately, this is not the entire story.

It has become increasingly clear that the attempts by organizations like CLCS and BLSS to funnel money into their preferred candidates are not isolated incidents. In 2023, Better Leaders Stronger Schools poured tens of thousands of dollars into education races in Districts 1 and 5, as well as the at-large seat. That time, they succeeded in ousting the incumbents. As in past races, their chosen candidates were all vocal, pro-charter advocates. One such candidate, Kimberlee Sia, was even a former CEO of the pro-charter organization KIPP Colorado and a board member of CLCS.

It is evident that very wealthy groups have a vested interest in promoting pro-charter candidates, investing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, into Colorado elections. But why the sudden surge in spending? One answer lies in the power of the State School Board. Charter schools have a strong interest in maintaining control of the board, as it provides a way to bypass uncooperative local boards. If a charter request is denied at the local level, it can be escalated to the state board. Historically, decisions have been evenly split in favor of and against charter schools, but recent events have heightened concerns among school choice advocates. Gebhard, for instance, drew the ire of charter school supporters after she denied a charter program that refused to include non-discrimination protections for gender identity and expression. This placed her on the radar of pro-charter organizations as a potential “threat” to their interests. Similarly, Solis raised alarms by voicing concerns about charter schools’ lack of transparency and accountability. Further rattling pro-choice advocates was a bill introduced last March aiming to enforce greater transparency in charter schools—a move some viewed as an  “attack.”  Though the bill was ultimately defeated in April, it reflected a growing push for regulation and accountability. As charters face heightened scrutiny, these recent electoral wins have been instrumental in securing a pro-charter majority on the state school board, offering them a measure of protection.

Charters and Discrimination

It’s important to clarify that neither Solis nor Gebhard could fairly be described as anti-school choice. Both have been vocal in supporting quality charter initiatives, and their records reflect that. Their criticism, however, centered on the lack of oversight for charter schools compared to public schools, particularly regarding issues of discrimination. It’s also worth noting that evidence, both in Colorado and nationally, suggests their concerns should be taken seriously.

In October 2021, charter schools in Colorado were found guilty of discriminating against disabled students. An investigation found that they not only enrolled fewer disabled students than public schools but also had lower enrollment compared to other charter schools in other states. The following year, a law was passed attempting to circumvent this ruling by allowing charter schools to deny disabled students enrollment. A complaint was filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights, alleging that the law essentially permits legal discrimination. This legal matter is still ongoing and has not yet been resolved. Beyond disabled students, Colorado charter schools have faced criticism for potentially discriminating against racial and sexual minorities. 

As recently as last November, Liberty Common Charter School was found guilty of racial harassment, and Rocky Mountain Classical Academy is facing a lawsuit (still unresolved) for allegations of gender discrimination in its dress code. Nationally, similar cases of discrimination have consistently emerged from charter schools.

These cases point to two critical issues: First, there is legitimate cause for concern regarding discrimination and the lack of accountability in charter schools. Second, a state education board that is uncritically supportive of charter schools could lead to students—particularly those from already marginalized groups—being mistreated, harassed, or otherwise discriminated against. This situation underscores the significant risks we face when wealthy and powerful interests are allowed to influence and undermine our elections.

The Rise of City Fund

The nature of dark money, particularly when funneled through nonprofits, is its lack of transparency. These organizations face fewer requirements to disclose who is funding them and why, but that doesn’t mean we know nothing about their operations. We’ve already identified two nonprofits, CLCS, and Progressives Supporting Teachers and Students, that are focused on advancing the goals of charter schools. Tax documents reveal that both organizations receive much of their funding from a national nonprofit known as City Fund.

City Fund was co-founded by Netflix billionaire Reed Hastings and John Arnold, and they’ve been vocal about their goals. Hastings has publicly stated his opposition to democracy in school boards, advocating for an end to school elections instead. Why? He says appointed boards lead to consistency and “stable governance.” He leaves unsaid that this approach shifts power away from the average citizen and into the hands of charters and their wealthy donors. Hastings has also expressed a desire for the near-elimination of public schools, stating, “So what we have to do is continue to grow and grow… It’s going to take 20-30 years to get to 90% of charter kids.”

Through City Fund, Hastings and his associates have funneled millions of dollars into nationwide organizations solely dedicated to undermining public schools and promoting charters. Examples include Engaging Redefined Atlanta in Georgia, KIPP Nashville in Tennessee, New Schools for New Orleans in Louisiana, and Newark Charter School Fund in New Jersey, among many others. Louisiana provides a stark example of what Hastings considers a success—and where Colorado could be heading. In New Orleans, Hastings has celebrated the city’s nearly 90% charter school enrollment rate, achieved after an aggressive push to shut down public schools and redirect funding to charters.

However, this “success” has been a monumental failure for students. “After spending $6 billion of taxpayers’ money to become the only all-charter system in the state, a staggering 73% of our children are not performing at grade level—worse than the 63% in 2005, when the state took control of over 100 schools,” wrote a Louisiana senator. When charters replace public schools, students suffer. The fact that Hastings views this model as a national blueprint is alarming. To be clear, this is not a claim that all charter schools are inherently bad, but they face serious issues, from discrimination to underperformance, making the push to replace public schools with charters shortsighted at best. What charter schools need is more oversight, not less.

Hastings’ money flows into various organizations in Colorado that align with his broader agenda, creating concerns, especially considering his ties to Governor Jared Polis, one of the state’s most influential political figures.

Polis has a long history with charter schools, having worked for one and founded several. He is also closely linked to Democrats for Education Reform (DFER), a prominent pro-charter group. From the start of his governorship, Polis has faced criticism for appointing a pro-charter team to oversee education in Colorado.

Cheating and bribery, using money in exchange for votes

While Polis’s connections to Hastings and City Fund are more indirect, they are still significant. His charter schools received $59,000 from Denver Families for Public Schools, which, according to 2023 tax filings, received over $1 million from City Fund. Polis’s ties to DFER, also funded by City Fund, further link him to this network. The clearest connection came during the recent election season when he appeared in ads for a pro-charter group, endorsing Marisol Rodriguez through Progressives Supporting Teachers and Students.

 Polis often shows up when charter money is involved.

It’s hard not to be concerned that Polis’s financial ties and associations may bias his agenda. While there is no definitive proof of wrongdoing, the many connections raise serious questions about a politician who appears to be heavily influenced by charter interests. We’ve presented enough evidence to justify skepticism about charter schools and how a charter-dominated era could impact Colorado’s students and teachers. However, it’s unclear whether Polis even cares about addressing these concerns. Also troubling is criticism from The Colorado Sun, which has pointed out Polis’s lack of transparency regarding the substantial amounts of money he receives from private donors and how it may influence his decisions. There are too many backroom deals, too much money, and insufficient transparency from the organizations and politicians involved.

Why is so much money and energy being invested in charter schools in the first place? Several groups stand to benefit from expanding these schools. For one, charter schools face less government regulation, allowing them to make decisions without the constraints of community oversight. Charters also operate without teacher unions, limiting teachers’ ability to organize, protest, or influence decisions within these systems. They’re also often money-making machines. Though charter schools are technically non-profits, they often function as profit-driven entities through various loopholes. A 2021 report exposed how individuals profit from these schools while students suffer from inadequate resources and educational outcomes. If the well-being of students, families, and education is not the priority, many reasons exist to advocate for expanding charter schools.

Money has played a significant role in the 2023 and 2024 Colorado school board elections, shaping how we talk about school choice locally and nationally. The recent polls in Colorado mirror trends across the U.S., with grassroots candidates overshadowing pro-charter candidates backed by dark money. Many of these groups have strikingly similar names and origins, often with City Fund money involved. We must stay alert to what’s happening and recognize what’s at stake. This isn’t about banning charter schools; it’s about demanding accountability, knowing who’s influencing our elections, and questioning whether they truly have our best interests in mind.

Gebhard said after her victory against Rodriguez, “We’ve shown that people’s voices are stronger than money.” Now, we must ensure our voices continue to rise above the influence of money and special interests.

Like journalism like this? Support the local press that’s been telling the truth for 25 years. Become a sustaining member and get our monthly print edition at home. We’ve weathered 9/11, floods, fires, economic crashes—and some deeply chaotic years. With your support, we’ll keep going. Because democracy still depends on journalism.

Democracy needs journalism more than ever. We’ve been telling the truth for 24 years. Your support helps us keep telling it for at least the next four years.

The post Dark Money in Education appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

With 17 candidates on the ballot this race isn’t like any in recent memory. The introduction of the Fair Election Fund has allowed more people than ever to run, and Denverites are taking advantage of it. The consequence of everyone trying their hand at running for mayor is that voters have never been so split. No candidate has yet received more than 8% of the vote, and the vast majority of voters are still undecided. If you’re reading this from Denver, the chances are you don’t know who you are putting on the runoff ballot yet (it will come down to the top two). Yellow Scene Magazine interviewed candidates on the most important issues facing the capitol to help you make an informed decision. 

YS isn’t based in Denver, we focus on North Metro and BOCO, so we don’t have a dog in this fight. We are disconnected observers so we can give you perspectives different from the other organizations covering the race. However, don’t think that we don’t care about the outcome of this race. We may be based a little further north, but this race still matters to us. Denver is the center of Colorado, and the policies there will impact all the surrounding towns eventually. For Denverites, the race is even more critical as it will decide what direction the city goes after Mayor Michael B. Hancock. With affordable housing and homelessness on everyone’s minds, now is the time to get invested in the election.

No candidate has more than 8% of the vote, which means Denver’s next mayor might not have the support of over 90% of the population. If you live in Denver, the only way you can stop this outcome is to get informed. Luckily, we’ve got the details to prepare you for election day, as well as our endorsements for who we think will be best for the job. Good luck and Happy Voting.

Primary Contenders

In a race as tight as this, it’d be presumptuous to assert that any one candidate is a clear front-runner. However, some are definitely pulling ahead of the pack. These primary candidates have developed policies, possess relevant experience, and secured funding for their campaign. 

 The candidates and their responses to the questions are listed below. Additionally, underneath their responses will be a small editor’s note for each candidate to contextualize our positions on them. Although YS doesn’t typically explicitly comment on the candidates in our election guide beyond giving endorsements, a sizable pool of top candidates combined with a largely undecided voter base has led us here to believe it best to provide our insight.

(D) Lisa Calderon – ENDORSED

Life Experience and Leadership: I am a fourth-generation Denverite who grew up in poverty from teenage parents, a Mexican American mother, and a black father. We lived in the projects on food stamps. I really understand that our public housing system really needs to be overhauled. If we go to a social housing model, that means that someone like me growing up could have been in a housing unit where you couldn’t tell who was rich or poor just from the looks of it. Everyone would have great amenities and buildings would be up to code.. 

I was also homeless as a teen when I was put out of the house by domestic violence from my parents, and in some ways, it felt like a safer option. Of course, that created its own problems: lack of food, shelter, and couch-surfing. I experienced all of that.

I’ve been a 20-year service provider for 12 years as a domestic violence legal director and advocate. I also ran the city’s Reentry Program. I know the perspective of having experienced homelessness and having provided service for decades for people in that area. I really take the other candidates to task when they don’t know what they’re talking about, especially when they are trying to criminalize people for being poor.

Top 3 Issues: Homelessness & Affordability, Safety, and Inflation

Homelessness: Hancock’s housing and homelessness policies have been a disaster. I’d completely revamp our approach. 

I’d immediately repeal the encampment ban and replace the sweeps with crisis intervention responders. Instead of just moving people, they’d assess the needs of the unhoused and get them into housing.  

I’d also focus on converting motels and hotels to permanent housing. I think temporary measures like tiny houses and safe outdoor sites could also be valuable. However, I want to mainly concentrate on permanent housing. I think we need to transition from a shelter first approach to a housing first approach if we want to see long term change.We also need to audit all our city land and buildings to see which ones are being used to their maximum capacity.

A broader policy we need to push for are social housing development authorities. It would be similar to what has recently been done in Oregon. A city-funded independent authority would be created to manage housing development.

I’m also a big supporter of rent control and a range of rent stabilization tools. I would also support landlords who are providing low-income housing units and struggling with paying their own mortgages. 

Cities to Learn From: The number one city we need to learn from is Houston. They had a rising homelessness problem, but through the housing first approach, they understood that you need to give people homes with keys that they can lock. Houston’s plan included scaled-up coordination including city agencies — but also working as a coordinating entity with the nonprofits, providing resources for the nonprofits.Houston also scaled up. Denver tends to dabble in many different approaches instead of sticking to what works and scaling it up.

Harm Reduction and Safe Injection Sites: I can’t believe we haven’t implemented them yet. The ordinance was passed in 2017, but it’s still not legal because of our state law. Our current state law focuses on treating addiction as a crime and stigmatizing it when [policy]  should instead focus on saving lives. We must look at substance abuse through a public health lens instead of a criminal justice or legal system lens. Once the state legislature approves it, Denver should go through with developing a safe injection site; I support it 100%.

Policing and STAR: I’m a big fan of STAR, but I also think the city is putting a massive burden on a tiny little program. We need to give it resources and scale it up. As far as community policing, I think that it’s a great concept in theory that has not worked in the long term. There are many reasons for that, but mainly it’s because the institution of policing must be reimagined. We are two years past the death of George Floyd and nationally we still have more people being killed by police than before his death. That tells me that our next police chief needs to truly be a visionary and really reimagine the institution of policing.

Economic Vision for Denver: My vision is a Denver where everyone has the opportunity to thrive, whether you are someone who came here for the tech industry or you’re someone who makes their goods at home. I’m particularly supportive of small businesses. One of the reasons Denver has recovered from recessions historically better than other economies is because of our small businesses. We’ve been able to be nimble and adapt to changing circumstances. 

Cost of Living:  I want Denverites worried about the rising cost of living to know I’m fighting for you. You need to elect me because nothing is going to change. I waited because I wanted to see a candidate who reflected my values fully in terms of the social justice lens. And what I saw instead were candidates backed by the same people of the current administration. I knew I couldn’t do another 12 years without knowing I’d tried everything to get a seat at the table. The face of the mayor may change, but their policies are rooted in the same thing that we’ve been dealing with in an increasingly unaffordable city. So I stepped in to do something. I need support and votes, so I can help the people of Denver.

Downtown Recovery: I think we need to stop looking at downtown primarily as a business and tourist area. We need to see it as a community. Obviously, there are residences down there, but we need to make sure there is a spectrum of incomes — this is  where social housing comes in. We should promote diversity downtown, so we can have that vibrant community life because we know that society is better when we feel more connected. Additionally, our transit systems need to be expanded so that exploring downtown doesn’t require a vehicle, but we’re not there yet. Improving public transit would be a priority for my administration.

Editor’s Note

Calderón has strong positions on the principal issues of the mayoral race and well-developed solutions. Homelessness and broader affordability issues are weighing on the mind of every Denverite, and Calderón has one of the most holistic approaches to the issues. Many of the candidates implement a part of the many policies Calderón has at her disposal to address homelessness in Denver, however most of the contenders simply lack policies with the same depth as Calderón’s. This likely is in part due to her years of experience working with the unhoused.

Beyond policy, Calderón has proven herself a competent communicator as well as someone dedicated to Denver. She also has strong performances in the political debates she has participated in. In her YS interview, she performed similarly well. Calderón has an earnestness not always seen in politicians as well as an ability to engage in real conversation. She is not limited to a script where she spouts a few talking points. Calderón has the policy, experience, and personality fit for the mayor of Denver.

(D) Mike Johnston – SECONDARY ENDORSEMENT

Life Experience and Leadership: I’ve served as a principal, a Senator, and even a CEO. I think what I was trying to do in each role was build supportive, encouraging communities where people feel like they can be at their best. As an educator, I often had to find the balance between high expectations for people in the community and high levels of support because if you provide expectations without support, then you set people up for failure. And if you give support without expectations, you set people up for mediocrity. I think the goal is to support people in fulfilling their dreams. That means we give them the support and expectations they need. Whether it’s around the school community, public safety, or a micro-community. I think those are all places where we want to find that balance of expectations and support so people can feel successful.

Top 3 Issues: Homelessness, Affordability & Housing, and Public Safety. I’d say homelessness is the single most important issue we’re facing.

Homelessness: . I think we’ve seen things that have worked and others that haven’t. What hasn’t worked is trying to move people one at a time across town. I think the attempt to sweep people off the streets has not worked when there’s no place for them to go because they don’t have access to housing. However, I also don’t think we should leave people sleeping in tents on the side of the street, where they can freeze to death.

I think what we know works is providing housing to the unhoused. That means building what I’ve described as micro-communities— half-acre sites that have 40 to 50 tiny homes on them— where people can get full wraparound services, mental health support, addiction treatment, workforce training, and long-term housing support. They’ll be places where people can be in safe, stable, heated, and protected environments. I would build those around the city. The thing that I think we’ve missed is how this plan respects communities. When people are part of a community that is on the streets, they want to preserve it when moving to a healthier, more stable place. So this allows them to open to a micro-community with 40 to 50 units, so we transition clusters of people to a safer and stable environment. That’s an approach that we know we’ve used before and has worked very successfully and can work at scale.

Cities to Learn From: I think I learned the most when I was in Austin, Texas. They have a place there called Mobile Loaves and Fishes. It has tiny homes, mobile homes, RVs, and all different structures. However, it also has a real sense of community and stability. It’s a much larger site, a 60-acre campus, so I think that part of it is not practical for us. But I’ve seen the places where this housing exists, where people live in safety, stability, and a community. When you add the wraparound services, it feels really dignified and protected, and successful. And that was part of what inspired us to try that here in Denver. I was the head of the foundation for the last three years, and we led some pilot projects with partners to do this. It was very, very successful. So I mean, this is not just an idea that we think might work. It’s an idea we know has worked. We’ve already shown it to work

Harm Reduction and Safe Injection Sites: I support harm reduction as a strategy, but I don’t currently support safe injection sites. I don’t think it’s the first important step for Denver to help take on this problem. I think the much more essential step is to help get more people access to treatment and focus on reducing the public use of drugs and the distribution of it.

Policing and STAR: I think my entire focus on policing is built around community policing, on reestablishing relationships and partnerships with neighborhoods. I want officers to protect and serve while also being community members. I’m also an advocate for restorative judgment. I think it’s important for people to focus on repairing the harm they’ve done because it’s the most important thing to come to grips with. I think it’s really helpful for offenders and victims. I’m a big believer in STAR as well. It’s worked really well to have first responders with mental health and law enforcement because sometimes an officer can trigger a more extreme reaction from someone in a mental health crisis. 

Economic Vision for Denver: My vision is to build a city that is economically thriving, and that is equitably thriving. That means creating an ecosystem that encourages people to launch and grow businesses. It means an ecosystem where people can get access to job training they need to get into middle class jobs. And it means one where we see that growth reaching all corners of the city, and not just select neighborhoods or demographic

Cost of Living:  I was the lead author of Proposition 123, a ballot measure we passed last year to try to provide statewide funding for affordable housing because we have such a crisis in Colorado. Right now. 50% of Denverites can’t afford to live in Denver. The biggest driver in people’s costs is housing. That’s why I would build 25,000 more permanently affordable housing units in Denver, meaning you would never have to pay more than 30% of what you make to your income in rent. That is my biggest priority in housing and affordability. If we get that right, we can make Denver the first big city in America where working-class folks can still afford to live. My second priority is to move us away from fossil fuels and onto electric energy. Utility bills are another large expense for people that can be lowered with a move towards electric energy that is more green and affordable.

Downtown Recovery: Downtown must be revitalized because once the center collapses, the city dies from the inside out. Resolving homelessness is critical since it’s perceived as a major reason to avoid downtown because people don’t feel safe or comfortable. That also comes with a more significant police and first responder presence downtown, so people feel like they can go for a run at nine o’clock at night. It’s about a lot of incentives to bring workers back downtown. I’ll reduce fares on public transit for commuters and incentivize childcare facilities to be put on-site in workplaces; so people have a reason to come back down with their kids. We’ll look at how we can reuse some buildings occupied for residential or other public goods. We have a real obligation to revive downtown very quickly. 

Editor’s Note

Johnston is another candidate that has put in strong efforts in developing a plan to tackle homelessness in Denver. He has been tested and has proved the merit of micro-communities before, so we are interested to see how his project scales up. If he can meet even one of his high goals concerning affordability, Denver will be in great shape. We also appreciate his focus on community both the housed and the unhoused. We don’t agree with every position held by Johnston, but he’s a quality candidate with well-thought-out beliefs. During our interview, he was able to clarify and answer tough specifics on his plan — something most candidates are not prepared to do. There are a lot of candidates trying to split the difference between progressiveness and centrism. Johnston is the only one that threads the needle well.

(D) Kelly Brough

Life Experience and Leadership: I’ve worked for the city two times in my career. Early on, I worked for the Denver City Council and the personnel department for the city. Then I came back for the Hickenlooper administration. I was the head of HR  again in the personnel department and his chief of staff. I think I’ve learned from my experience just how huge the city is. More than that, I understand how incredible the city’s workforce is. I have such respect for them. I love being one of them.

Top 3 Issues: Homelessness, Affordability, and Community Safety

Homelessness: When encampments pose a public health problem, the city notices that they have to move [unhoused people]  along, so we sweep them across the street, down the block to the next neighborhood. We do it all again a few weeks later. I think it’s incredibly inhumane and ineffective. It doesn’t improve the living conditions for people who are unhoused or the neighborhoods where they’re living. It was also expensive. We just keep doing it: sweeping people. I’ll end sweeping and instead focus on getting people to housing and shelter at safer locations. To do that I will temporarily sanction safe outdoor sites so we have a safer place for everyone. We can’t get everyone indoors right away.

Cities to Learn From: Houston realized that you can stabilize unhoused people with jobs really quickly if you get them into homes again. I think that was a good lesson about getting people rehoused quickly. Washington DC and Kansas City have taught us important lessons about prevention. It’s much less expensive to support families before they lose their housing. It’s all about whether we can predict who may be at risk and partner with them before they lose their housing. These cities also highlight the importance of collecting more data on the unhoused, so we can make more informed decisions.

Harm Reduction and Safe Injection Sites: My husband struggled with addiction our entire life together, we were married for 25 years. I know how hard it is every single day to figure out how to love and support someone but not enable behaviors that are destroying someone you love and your family. My personal experience causes me to say I don’t support safe injection sites because it crosses that line of enabling that was just so hard for my family. That said, I also don’t pretend that any one of us knows exactly how to best support someone who’s struggling with an addiction. So I have visited the Harm Reduction Center to learn more, my heart is open, and my priority is saving lives.

Policing and STAR:  I’m particularly interested in restorative justice; I think it’s powerful. I got the chance early in my career to work with a woman who really has led this work, and that experience stuck with me.Concerning the STAR program, I’ll just add when you look at the data in our 911 Call Center, it’s clear, we can expand that STAR program. I would expand it by at least 50% right out of the gate based on that data, and I would monitor it to see if our 911 calls continue at these volumes. I think there’s an argument to be made to grow it even more, and I would grow it based on the data.

Economic Vision for Denver: We need companies to choose us to bring in great jobs. One of the things I would do as mayor is make sure I’m helping sell our city as a place where companies should make that investment. I also know what really builds a great city is the diversity of the city. Meeting people they wouldn’t have otherwise met and experiencing each other’s culture is powerful. They are the things that build a powerful city. Every single decision I make about our city’s future would be around how do you build a city, so social capital is naturally occurring? You’re removing the inequities we see of race and gender in our economy. We’re creating this really sustainable city, and by sustainable I mean in every way, not just environmentally sustainable, economically stable for all of its residents. That’s my vision.

Cost of Living: I’m interested in building entry-level homes for our own residents instead of trying to get the private sector developers to make them. I want to take publicly owned land, the parking lots to libraries, rec centers, police stations, and public schools, and build on them. I saw this in Germany, where they built on top of a parking lot while maintaining the parking. They had basically these big pillars that took four parking places, and they had 100 units.Additionally, our downtown has a lot of office buildings that don’t have enough people. I would look into transitioning those office buildings to residential buildings. Not only could we now build a real neighborhood downtown, but we could even build it with income levels that invite all the workers who work downtown to decide if they’d like to live there.

Downtown Recovery: On one hand, we need to accept that things have changed, and working from home is the new normal for many. However, I think we should invite small businesses and young entrepreneurs to use space downtown to start their businesses. Since there’s so much vacant space, I think this could be really a way that we revitalize our downtown and make it not only bring people back into it but also introduce a whole another generation into business opportunities. I also would make sure that we continue to keep businesses down there making investments in our downtown, whether it’s the retail or restaurants, or the companies in the office buildings, that we address the concerns that are causing them to leave downtown. We need to make it so you feel comfortable riding the trains to come into downtown, so that we continue to ensure we have vibrant sports and cultural experiences.

Editor’s Note

This doesn’t seem like the right moment for a candidate like Brough. Denver needs someone who can dramatically shake things up, and she isn’t that type of candidate. It’s likely few things would change under her administration. While we’d usually be happy to see someone running with experience, Brough’s status as a long-time political insider only further cast doubt on her ability to move away from the status quo. Brough’s time as  CEO of the chamber of commerce further begs questions about her commitment to business interests.

Strong policies could shake any doubts we had, but we have many concerns about her policies, and her interview with YS did not ease them. When we got into the nitty-gritty of logistics there was just a lot of uncertainty about Brough. We are particularly skeptical of Brough’s plan to seize the parking lots of libraries, rec centers, and police department’s develop affordable housing. She claims she can build on these lots without losing significant parking spaces. She also claims she funds these buildings with no increase in revenue. Brough also isn’t one of the candidates advocating an audit. We simply don’t know how the math will work out, and our interview did not ease this or any other of our policy concerns. Beyond this, we don’t think Brough is pushing for a large enough change to put a dent in this issue. For homelessness, Brough advocates for involuntary commitments, wrap-around services, and sanctioned outdoor temporary camps. Brough’s policies lack the vision or detail of Johnston or Calderón’s plans.

(D) Chris Hansen

Life Experience and Leadership: I have an interesting mix of experience as someone who has worked both in the private and public sectors. Not a lot of people can say they’ve seen both worlds as I have. To run a city you need to be able to come at these issues from a variety of perspectives. I already know this well from my time as Senator. I think that my mix of experiences gives me a balanced view that allows me to better consider the tough issues facing Denver today.

Top 3 Issues: Homelessness & Affordable Housing, Public Safety, and Environmental Sustainability.

Homelessness: What I advocate for most is balance. We need to acknowledge both what is and isn’t working. We cannot be successful if open camping is allowed. To keep people from sleeping on the streets, I support the sweeps. However, I think an encampment ban must be combined with the appropriate wrap-around services. We’re currently failing to connect resources for shelter, services, and support to those who need it. We must do more to bridge this gap.I’d also like to see Denver revalue its budget. We’re spending $250 million trying to address homelessness despite not seeing major improvements. That’s why I advocate for an audit of our major programs. I think we need to reevaluate how we’re spending our money and really look at what the data is saying. That’s why I’ve advocated for evidence-based budgeting here as well as at the state level.I want to bring focus and consistency to Denver’s approach to the unhoused.

Cities to Learn From: San Antonio has made impressive strides in reducing homelessness. San Antonio has found success by using many of the policies I advocate for. They’ve banned public encampments while connecting their homeless population to relevant services. They’ve also sanctioned an outdoor area for the unhoused to easily find these services. We need that combination of housing, a camping ban. and wrap-around services.

Harm Reduction and Safe Injection Sites: I’m in favor of harm reduction, but I’m not currently supportive of safe injection sites. The current data suggests that they are not effective ways of dealing with addiction. Safe injection sites just don’t seem to be very efficient.

Policing and STAR:  So far, we’ve lost about 3 million dollars from lawsuits against our police department. That’s just not effective spending. I’m for restorative justice and community policing. I also want accountability for our police. We need to rebuild and reinvest in our police, so they can be better equipped to protect our city.I’m also supportive of the STAR program. It seems to be effective. Our police cannot and should nor respond to every crisis situation and it’s great we have another option.

Economic Vision for Denver: I envision a Denver that is interconnected by public transit. That’s green pushing toward its sustainability goals. And most importantly, that’s safe. Where people feel comfortable going on jogs or letting their kids run around.

Cost of Living: Denver doesn’t look like Denver anymore. That’s a concern I often hear echoes when talking to voters. As the rising cost of living pushes out our working-class families, Denver becomes more and more unaffordable. These fears only grow more reasonable. I want voters to know I hear their concerns and have the policies that fix them. I will push for an expansion of public transit. This will allow people to access more of the city without needing to spend gas money. I will also push for the expansion of new affordable housing units. Another important piece here is sustainability. Moving away from fossil fuels isn’t just good for the environment, it’s something that can easily promote the economy. We’ll see an increase in green jobs, and movement away from fossil fuels will decrease the utility bills of citizens. Other candidates don’t often give much air time to green issues, but I think it’s a key part of the puzzle.

Denver will again move towards being more livable. I will not let our working-class families get pushed out. During my time as a senator, I’ve proven again and again my proficiency in balancing the budget. I will take Denver down the path to be a place we can afford to live. I will help Denver stay in Denver.

Downtown Recovery: We’ve definitely seen a hit downtown since the pandemic. The next mayor needs to focus on bringing companies back down town. We need a balance of both big companies that bring high-paying jobs and smaller businesses that bring culture and community to downtown. We also need to see the expansion of public transit. When it’s cheaper and easier to return downtown, we’ll see an increased amount of people return. We also must continue to enforce the camping ban, so downtown remains safe and appealing.

Editor’s Note

Hansen has a focus on balance metaphorically and fiscally that can come off as delightfully pragmatic. However, Hansen looks less appealing next to other candidates. His answers have often had a more narrow look to them. He’s not a candidate going for a dramatic change or any visionary solution. He’s not the worst candidate, but if you’re looking to see change, his incremental approach won’t get you there.

(D) Leslie Herod

Life Experience and Leadership: We need a mayor that knows how to get things done. As a legislator, I took the bold steps necessary to lead the moment and ensure that we are making changes that affect people’s real lives. I’m really proud of that work and I know that we can work in partnership to tackle some of our toughest issues today. 

I also come from my single mom and the army. We struggled to live; I was on food stamps in college. I put myself through school working two jobs. I know what it’s like to struggle and my real lived experience forms my politics. My sister was incarcerated, and that was predominantly due to mental health challenges and sexual trauma that was never addressed. I know what happens when we push people away — those people are my family. I will ensure that Denver has a more humane approach to politics.

Top 3 Issues: Affordability, Homelessness, and Safety.

Homelessness: Denver’s current plan to address homelessness is completely broken, and it’s just not working. I believe we need a more humane approach to addressing and working with our unhoused population. People on the streets right now are asking for housing. They’re asking for mental health support. They’re asking for jobs, and I think it’s essential for the city to address the challenges from a human perspective.

Cities to Learn From: We need to look towards cities that focus on a humanistic approach to addressing the unhoused. We don’t just have to look outwards. We can also look inwards to see what’s already working in Denver. I created Caring for Denver, which funds organizations that provide mental health and substance abuse services. Now in partnership with Caring for Denver, we have the opportunity to really change the infrastructure of support and make sure that our providers, unhoused, and families are cared for. 

Harm Reduction and Safe Injection Sites: I support safe injection sites and harm reduction. It’s an essential piece of a comprehensive strategy for addressing substance abuse and mental health problems in our community.

Policing and STAR: Caring for Denver is what we (congress) funded to create STAR. We set out, we stood up, and we championed STAR. We did it alongside community leaders also pushing for the program. We made it happen, and I’m proud of that work. I support expanding STAR. I also support community-based policing. And I support restorative justice when done right.

Economic Vision for Denver: I believe in a city that supports and embraces every single one of us. I  especially believe in our duty to ensure that those who have been disproportionately impacted by race are supported. That means more support for our small businesses of color. That means more support for our historically disadvantaged neighborhoods and business districts and that we actually have an economy that supports each other.

Cost of Living: The number one thing that we have to do is make sure that we have a diverse housing stock across all of our communities in Denver. That’s anything from a triplex, to duplexes, and below-market-rate housing in the city. Right now, we’re building for the wealthy rather than ensuring our communities can stay. I’ll focus on making sure communities are centered in the conversation.

Downtown Recovery: We must make sure that we activate downtown. We’ve got to make it a place people want to go to again. We need our small businesses to be able to open up downtown together because when they open up in isolation, it doesn’t drive the traffic. I believe we could set up a program like what we did at DIA, where our local small businesses, especially those of color, are incentivized and supported in opening their satellite location. Or opening right in the heart of downtown Denver. In the first 100 days, I will start to work to bring businesses back down, get workers back downtown, and ensure that it’s thriving.

Editor’s Note

Herod received a lot of praise for her work in the house of representatives in pushing for bipartisan support for bills. She has popularity and political experience on her side without being considered an insider. However, Herod seems to have underestimated the difficulty of the transition from congress to mayor. During her YS interview, Herod failed to really flesh out concrete policy suggestions. We agree with Herod on the problems she’s identified, but compared to her peers, she lacks a real policy to get the city out of the crisis. Her interview was dramatically shorter than the other candidates reflecting the lack of depth in her answers. She’s done great work as a house rep, we feel her skills serve the public best there for now.

(D) Debbie Ortega

Life Experience and Leadership: A lot of my life experience comes from my family. My dad was a coal miner and was killed in a mine cave-in when I was young. When he was alive, I saw how he helped his colleagues when they were injured and the impact he had on their lives. I also saw after my dad passed that those same people came back to provide the same love and assistance to my family. My mother also impacted the community. She worked in food banks, and lots of times that food ended up on our table. The impact my parents had on families in our community is ingrained in my DNA and who I am. I’ve never considered myself a career politician; I have been a dedicated public servant. And I do this because it’s been a labor of love.

Top 3 Issues: Crime and Safety, Housing Affordability, and Traffic Congestion. I think crime is right at the top of everybody’s mind. We’ve seen unprecedented car theft across our city. We’ve seen deadly drugs, traveling all across the US that are in our city, or on our streets, or in our schools. Guns are causing a lot of violence and crime across our city.

Homelessness: When our city brought forward this no-camping ban, I did not support it because we didn’t bring services to the table. We’ve seen a proliferation of encampments in our city since that time.  We’ve been housing people for two years. So we have to have an exit plan. I believe that the exit plan helps bring together our workforce tools with our service providers that get grant funds to be helping people get back to work to be training them, and we’ve got, you know, the skilled trades. We have a number of organizations out in the community that are doing other kinds of training programs. For me, it’s always about wealth, building opportunities, and moving people to self-sufficiency. 

As long as we can help people do that, they’re going to be successful standing on their own two feet, and then we can convert that housing to long-term housing for people that will lead it. In Denver. We also need different price points for housing because over time we’ve become very expensive.

Cities to Learn From: So I’ve been to a couple of different cities. I’ve been to San Francisco to see their Delancey Street model, which is more specific to an offender population. But it’s a great model built around social enterprises focused on giving people amazing skill sets and promoting independence. By the time they leave, these people all have skills as managers of different businesses, they understand the financial aspects of it, and they’ve had to order the supplies for the restaurant. They then can use their new skills to be successful in a plethora of professions.

Another incredible model is The Mobile Loaves and Fishes site down in Austin. It’s a combination of tiny homes and trailers that are serving a community. Toyota helped build a facility there where they trained people from the community to work on cars.

Harm Reduction and Safe Injection Sites: I supported legislation for a safe injection site, but we couldn’t do anything to move our harm reduction facility to a safe injection site until the state legislature took action. I know that’s a piece of legislation being talked about right now. Whether that passes or not. I don’t know. We can’t do that until the legislature acts. If they do act, we’ve already passed the legislation that would allow that to happen.

Policing and STAR: I support community policing. I want cops to know people in these neighborhoods at the grassroots level, and it’s important for our kids. It’s important to have preventative programs for our young people of all types, not just recreation, but a whole host of offerings for young people.

I also believe that our police must be held accountable for their actions. I also think that a lot of people in our community want the laws to be enforced. We’ve had too many people affected by their cars being stolen.

Economic Vision for Denver: I want to create a Denver where people have opportunities for the connection that leads to wealth building so that people can reach economic stability. As we’ve seen our city grow, we haven’t the economic wealth be spread equally beyond neighborhoods, and that’s something I want to make sure is resolved.

Cost of Living: The economy and its impacts affect everyone. Our city is no longer affordable for everyone. We need to return to having all different pricing levels of housing. That’s why I’m focused on manufactured housing as a way to bring down costs for renters.

Downtown Recovery: We bring back downtown by focusing on many things I’ve already discussed. We need affordable housing. We need improved public transit to mitigate traffic congestion and ease of movement. We also need to welcome small businesses and offer training programs to promote their development. All of that ties back to the economy, but we need to be intentional in our actions.

Editor’s Note

Candidates like Ortega are in an interesting place. She has the boost of being one of the few candidates with extensive political experience. However, like Brough, she’ll be scrutinized as someone who may be satisfied with the status quo to help Denver. Not helping matters is Ortega’s approach to communication. She struggles to answer questions. She’s struggled in debates to answer questions directly, she’s struggled in her YS interview, and she has struggled in other interviews. While we enjoyed the conversation with her, she was the only candidate that pushed us to repeat a question multiple times. She’s done great work as a councilwoman, but as long as she is so hesitant to take strong positions on anything worthwhile, we can’t give her our endorsement.

(R) Andy Rougeot – RADIO SILENT – TOO EXTREME

Editor’s Note

Under no circumstances could we endorse Andy Rougeot. His views on the unhoused are extreme and he approaches problem solving like a hammer.

Fair Contenders

These candidates aren’t front-runners, but they still might have a shot at the mayoral seat. Their responses to our questions are below.

(D) Ian Tafoya

Life Experience and Leadership: Every step I take is another step on the path of my ancestors and my immediate family. My mother, a social worker and union steward, raised me to love and support my neighbors. Growing up in Denver’s diverse West Side, I connected with so many incredible people, including my own Chicano community, and I’ve carried that connection into my leadership today. 

Growing up Denver’s city programs mentored me and shaped me. I rode the bus to my first job at the Museum of Arts and Sciences. I took advantage of the free concerts, arts programs, and youth activities. I went to the Metropolitan State University of Denver where I majored in Political Science with a minor in Native American Studies. These experiences have motivated me to organize policies that improve the lives of my communities: the marginalized and resilient groups traditionally left behind by policymakers. 

And as an indigenous person, I am called to reach out in all four directions and bring people together for the sake of our planet and one another. It’s time to make policy with the urgency our communities deserve and for the benefit of the next seven generations.

Top 3 Issues: Environmental justice, Housing, and Public Health & Safety. 

Homelessness: I don’t believe our city is investing in effective solutions to our housing crisis. First, I’ve always opposed Denver’s sweeps of homeless encampments. After years of wasting taxpayer money cruelly forcing people from one block to another and back again, the unhoused population has tripled. I founded an organization to provide water and trash pickup to encampments because the sweeps don’t address these public health issues. Second, many of the “solutions” our city invests in, like shelters, are more of a band-aid. We need to audit how we are spending funds and make sure they’re going to effective long-term solutions, and we need to do it in collaboration with unhoused communities themselves. 

Research shows the fastest, cheapest way to get people off the streets is to get them into housing with wrap-around services. In 2020, I presented a community plan that leveraged regional cooperation to rapidly get folks off the streets, and as Mayor, I would implement it while expanding programs that have actually been proven to work in Denver. We also have to address our housing crisis so nobody becomes homeless in the first place. 

Cities to Learn From: The Cauf Society released a report in 2022 on four cities that have essentially solved homelessness: Helsinki in Finland, Vienna in Austria, Columbus in Ohio, and Salt Lake City in Utah. They all dramatically reduced the number of people who were unhoused by simply housing them rather than providing temporary shelter or preconditions for treatment. Investing funds up-front in a Housing First Model puts a roof over someone’s head first and supports their recovery after that point. Utah reduced the number of unhoused people by 90% from 2005-2015.

Harm Reduction and Safe Injection Sites: I strongly support safe injection sites and view harm reduction as a crucial tool in reducing addiction and drug-related deaths. We can’t punish our way out of addiction and trauma, we have to guide people towards healing. Supervised drug use is the first step to prevent fentanyl overdoses and other dangerous overdoses, as well as reduce the public health risks of using dirty needles and needle disposal. Harm reduction is more than just safe use, though. I would build on Denver Harm Reduction’s existing efforts to supply methadone to help people fight addiction, counseling services and trauma-informed care. We need consistency of care for both inpatient and outpatient addiction services.

Policing and STAR: I strongly support the STAR program, and sat on the task force overseeing its implementation. As Mayor I would expand the STAR program so that they can truly replace police as a response to mental health crises. We need to pair STAR with broad systems of mental health support to ensure continuity of care. I’ll work with communities, experts and law enforcement to identify other areas where we can lessen the burden on police and reduce contact with the criminal justice system. 

I also strongly support restorative justice. This is an incredible way to heal our communities, disrupt cycles of trauma and keep people out of jail. Incarceration as it currently rarely solves the social problems and cycles that trap offenders at the onset. In contrast, restorative justice provides opportunities for everyone involved to heal and grow. Iit gives real mental health interventions and treatment a chance to work. Indigenous communities like the Jicarilla Apache have used restorative justice successfully for ages.

When it comes to Community Policing, I need to learn more about the data on its impacts. On the one hand, I believe it can never hurt to have officers understand a neighborhood and care deeply about it. But community policing alone isn’t a solution to our community’s ongoing, chronic, and persistent concerns about police violence. Police brutality still happens in Community Policing models. And communities of color can still be over-policed under a Community Policing model. Finally even the best police officers are not necessarily the best solution to many of the problems we expect them to address. I believe we need to also invest in non-police, community-based violence prevention programs that proactively prevent conflict in the neighborhood before it happens.

Economic Vision for Denver: I envision a clean, green city accessible to all, including pedestrians and disabled commuters. We’ll have reasonable rent for small businesses and mixed income apartments where all Denverites enjoy a comfortable home, not just the wealthy. We do this by passing rent control and a vacancy tax, using public banking to build more housing for working families and changing zoning so we can build on parking lots and commercial lots. We’ll make sure there are safe bike lanes, expand electric bus networks and thriving downtown parks. A creative arts scene is visited by locals and tourists alike. We’ll increase well-paying union jobs by supporting collective bargaining for all city workers and as we build a renewable transition we’ll invest in local workers with the highest labor standards. Too often “revitalization” in this city pushes our working families out or leaves them behind. I would make sure current residents lead the way on our city’s economic growth and get to enjoy the results. 

Cost of Living: I’m worried about it too. I too am a renter, this is one of our most urgent crises. We need swift leadership that puts people before corporations to address it. First, we need to make sure people can stay in the homes they have by passing rent control and a vacancy tax, so corporations can’t use empty buildings for write-offs. I recently co-led the coordinated campaign to pass ballot initiatives like Waste No More and No Eviction Without Representation, and we need to make sure that initiative is fully funded and enact a moratorium on evicting tenants without legal representation in the meantime. Then, we need to expand transitional housing programs and housing that seniors, the disabled, and working families can all afford. I served on the Inter-neighborhood Cooperation Zoning and Planning Committee, Blueprint Denver, and the task force implementing Colorado’s first inclusionary zoning law. It’s time to take that experience to the Mayor’s Office and push things further. We need heavy requirements and incentives for building actually affordable units for working families, allowing commercial zoning to become residential and ease permitting so people can build single-family homes to fit more people. 

All this housing construction is a huge opportunity for that construction to be sustainable. It’s also an opportunity to invest in local workforce development and contracting local businesses with the highest labor standards. 

Downtown Recovery: We need to lower rent so small businesses can stay downtown, and provide incentives for new local small businesses to move in. By expanding electric public transportation we can also make it easier for both tourists and residents of other neighborhoods to enjoy those businesses and a thriving arts scene. I propose to invest in support for local artists, especially artists of color, to invigorate the downtown cultural scene. 

Addressing our housing crisis will also help get folks housed and avert the public health crisis that is the downtown encampments. This will most importantly help the unhoused downtown residents, but also make things easier for downtown businesses.

(D) Al Gardner – RADIO SILENT

(D) Thomas Wolf

Life Experience and Leadership: Fourth in a family of five, with education in science and a graduate degree in finance, broad work experience with most depth in finance, nonprofit work in affordable housing, art, and education, gives me a circumspect grounding in how the world operates and how government can best serve its citizens.

Top 3 Issues: Encampments, Encampments, Encampments.

Homelessness: Should our laws be enforced and should we deliver shelter to our neediest? YES! Are we properly confronting this crisis? NO! This crisis requires the proper allocation of resources to divide and conquer. Since this population has been measured as chemically dependent, mentally ill, and criminal, the appropriate corresponding resources are clinicians, social workers, and police officers, respectively. This triage is the remedy to this crisis. We must acknowledge this as a humanitarian crisis and get this population sheltered; anything less is inhumane and inexcusable.

Shelter is the answer provided by your city on its land and within its surplus buildings. To not shelter Denver’s neediest is inhumane and inexcusable. The big picture is demand exceeding supply. A couple smaller fixable issues are the state needs to address the length of time builders are liable for construction defects, and our city needs to expedite P&Z, building, and fire reviews to lower costs. I also think there is an opportunity with the city balance sheet to assist credit-worthy renters with home ownership and equity creation, which is a double win because it frees up a rental unit. 

I have a plan to broaden access to affordable health insurance, which should improve citizens’ budgets for housing.

Cities to Learn From: I have been successful in my business career by setting attainable goals, problem solving within budgets, and having a bias to action. My plan speaks specifically to encampments, an identifiable most needy subset of homelessness, and the solution is city provided shelter. Most cities that are making any progress on this issue see this as the most humane and cost-effective approach.

Harm Reduction and Safe Injection Sites: I am for shelter for those in encampments, so that they then have a chance to make better life decisions and have access to rehabilitative care. To enable bad life decisions has not shown positive longitudinal outcomes so I would oppose these sites.

Policing and STAR: Our city has been paralyzed with lawlessness for the past three years and it is getting worse while we continue to spend over a quarter of our budget on safety. Safety’s job is to enforce laws, protect and keep our streets safe, this department like all departments needs to be instructed on their deliverables, held accountable for their work, and measured on their outcomes. I have met with DA Beth McCann and have attended a fundraiser on restorative justice, the initial outcomes and cost/benefit appear favorable and if indeed proves to be, should be expanded. 

To the extent the STAR program helps confront and end encampments by triage of care from social workers, clinicians, and police, when necessary, I am supportive. To the extent it just gives water and socks to enable a continuation of bad life decisions, it is definitely not a compelling allocation of budget. 

Economic Vision for Denver: A vibrant internationally recognized mecca that functions effectively and equally for all of its diverse inhabitants. A safe clean smart oasis that benefited from fresh strong competent leadership’s fiscal optimization which in turn generated social awareness and a greener city, with the flywheel of these attributes continuing to compound for the city and the region.

Cost of Living: I would applaud them for their foresight and being budget conscious. Their next step needs to be figuring out how to live within their means, or ideally below, so that they can build savings and equity, to be more resilient to adverse economic trends.

Downtown Recovery: As stated above, the root cause is encampments which make our streets dangerous and filthy, these needy citizens must be removed and sheltered. It is a vivid tale of two cities, upper downtown and lower downtown. Our upper downtown has a high concentration of office space, compounded by the fact that majority of the tenants are car commuters, whereas lower downtown has a mix of office, residential, retail and entertainment, along with a transit hub. We need to support redevelopment of upper downtown to have a winning mix of real estate types and uses. Surface parking lots that are poorly maintained and not landscaped, strike me as upper downtown’s smile that is missing a few teeth.

(D) Trinidad Rodriguez – TOO EXTREME

Life Experience and Leadership: My experience is fundamentally intertwined in how I view the needs of our community, especially given that I’ve been exposed to so many places and moments in this place. 

Homelessness is a particularly personal issue for me. In addition to my single mom and me experiencing housing insecurity when I was growing up, my godfather struggled with addiction and was unhoused. All I remember thinking was “I hope there is someone who can protect him from himself and others.”

Top 3 Issues: Homelessness, Crime, Affordability

Homelessness: I support many of Mayor Hancock’s approaches to homelessness, including the urban camping ban. As Mayor, I will continue sweeps to protect health and safety. I’ll also continue the city’s support of the ecosystem of human service and housing providers providing services and housing options. What I will add to the Mayor’s approach is concrete action toward addressing mental health and substance misuse abuse disorders where access to adequate treatment is currently extremely limited. 

One of my first acts as Mayor will be to institute a state of emergency response to manage the unhoused crisis in Denver with specific disruptive and transformational proposals to address the crisis. Under my state of local emergency proposal, the city will identify a location and build a temporary field treatment center employing similar strategies to what Denver developed to prepare for COVID surges. Teams will be deployed with qualified mental health clinicians to admit persons who are a danger to themselves and/or others either voluntarily or involuntarily. 

We will work with Denver’s Legislative delegation to adopt laws that enable involuntary holds to be used in Colorado to support the completion of the standard of care for mental health and substance addiction disorders necessary to meet a high ethical burden. And to enforce this, I will expand the STAR program to be both proactive and responsive. 

Cities to Learn From: There are a number of other major metropolitan cities committing to voluntary and involuntary commitment of treatment-resistant folks living unhoused: San Francisco, New York, and Los Angeles. As I mentioned previously, this is the right approach and Denver should commit as well. 

Harm Reduction and Safe Injection Sites:  I do not support these sites, there are more effective alternatives to make a meaningful difference.

Policing and STAR: I support the STAR program, in fact I hope to expand it. Rebuilding trust between our law enforcement community and the Denver community at-large is essential for the success of our city. Our officers need to be doing the job they are trained to do, not more. I also support making STAR more proactive than its current state of responsiveness to help address the homeless crisis on our streets as I previously laid out in my plan.

Economic Vision for Denver: My economic vision is tied to my vision overall is to build a city where every Denverite, regardless of the neighborhood they’re in, can achieve their version of success. This vision is rooted in equity and fairness to achieve affordability and can be summarized with this equation:

Household Income – Expenses = Control of the Future + Stability of Families.

My economic plans are designed to implement this vision by working to boost income by creating and expanding our city’s educational assets to invest in our people’s knowledge and skills while equally accelerating and expanding our efforts to mitigate household expense pressures on the largest line items including housing, food, utilities, and transportation.

Cost of Living: I would say it’s unacceptable. The cost of living has skyrocketed in Denver, and wages aren’t keeping up. I will accelerate the creation of the total housing supply and its diversity, particularly housing stock to meet the needs of the workforce and lowest-income families. Having served on the board of Denver Housing Authority for over 11 years, I helped lead the organization through its first affordable housing bond backed by the city of Denver to speed up the delivery of 5,000 units in Sun Valley, Westridge, and other neighborhoods, and open new opportunities in permanent supportive housing land banking. Denver should innovate this approach to support this development amidst today’s market realities. My involvement on the Blueprint Denver Task Force for three years and my knowledge of capital and development markets have positioned me to catalyze private sector momentum in the supply of so-called missing middle housing types that can be priced to be affordable to moderate-income households. These can be built in medium and medium-low density along high-frequency transit corridors and nodes becoming a large-scale opportunity for our city. Denver also needs to cut red tape and accelerate the permitting process, which involves investing in logistics plans and accountability, which can be through independent contracting and/or resource alignment.

Downtown Recovery:  I will prioritize implementing my plans to reverse escalating crime and spiraling homelessness happening downtown. I believe doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results must be avoided.

I aim to convert surplus commercial buildings to vertical mixed-use communities that will add greenhouses, artistic spaces, housing, and office spaces to liven our community. I also want to develop our mobility system to maximize downtown’s full potential as the region’s mass transit hub working with RTD to deliver convenient and efficient alternatives to single occupancy cars.

I have committed to bringing city and county of Denver employees back to the offices, and I see more activation Downtown as a key to making working in offices a worthwhile choice for workers. I’ll be working with many partners to produce weekday Ciclovias, mass wellness activity events including shared streets, and other unique opportunities. As Mayor, I’ll actively push for collaboration between the public and private sectors and community to bring their unique contributions to the table to ensure our Downtown is a success.

Less Prominent Candidates

These candidates are dragging behind in both polling and funding. We don’t foresee these candidates having a strong showing in the election.

(D) Kwame Spearman – TOO EXTREME

Life Experience and Leadership: My parents instilled in me the value of public service, my father worked for the city, and my mother was an educator who rose to be an assistant superintendent of Denver Public Schools. As a proud graduate of Denver Public Schools, I know firsthand the transformative power of a quality education and have always been committed to giving back to my community. 

My parents also instilled the values of public service, a driving force in my life. As a Denver native, I have seen this city change and grow throughout my life – and it’s made me fully recognize what a crossroads our city is now at.

As a business owner and CEO, I understand the importance of making tough decisions and identifying new opportunities. My experience turning around the Tattered Cover has given me firsthand knowledge of what it takes to manage a successful enterprise and how to grapple with making tough choices when they are necessary and need to be made. We must be realistic about the issues our city faces and make some pragmatic decisions.

Top 3 Issues: Neighborhoods, Public Safety & Homelessness, and Housing Affordability

Homelessness: Though I commend Mayor Hancock for his work to address homelessness in Denver, I believe that we need to take a step back and take a much more strategic approach to solve this complex issue. 

We need to approach homelessness in Denver as a segmented problem, where different populations need different solutions. And we must face the tragic reality that rampant drug abuse is fueling a chronic issue of camping in public spaces. To start with, the camping ban must be enforced, along with our other existing laws.

As mayor, I will accelerate better segmentation and more individualized services for those who need and want them, with a streamlined system to access services such as mental health, addiction, housing, and workforce support. I also believe in expanding the STAR program to improve responses to mental health crises. We can expand on Mayor Hancock’s amazing efforts by creating more units and assigning STAR units in specific neighborhoods across Denver. This will help to provide necessary care to those in need while also addressing the root causes of crime.

We also must coordinate our efforts, launching an audit of current programs so we understand what is working, and reinvesting it. And cease spending on ineffective programs. 

Though I believe in enforcing the camping ban, I also believe that we need to take a compassionate approach to address the many causes of homelessness. 

Cities to Learn From: I’ve looked at cities across the country to see how they are addressing homelessness and there are both promising practices Denver can learn from as well as cautionary tales. Cities like San Francisco have struggled to address the homelessness crisis, and I fear Denver is headed in that direction. An example of a city taking a better approach to homelessness is New York City. The city provides shelter for anyone who needs it, while also enforcing a stricter approach to public camping and using tools like involuntary holds when absolutely necessary for those dealing with mental health crises.  Another example is Salt Lake City, which has had some success working with the state on housing first.

Denver can learn from New York City and Salt Lake City’s approaches, but I also think we need to be mindful of the fact that Denver is very different than both of these cities, and that the solutions that work in the context of New York or Salt Lake City might need to modified to work in Denver, or might not work at all. We need to take a better approach that is more innovative and data-driven to find out what works in Denver. Our current approach is not.

Harm Reduction and Safe Injection Sites: At this point in time, I don’t believe safe injection sites are an appropriate solution for Denver. We need to consider the legality of this in the United States, which has previously prevented Denver from moving forward with this proposal. But even then, I believe that this is not the right way to address the problems Denver faces over the long run.

Policing and STAR: I am committed to ensuring that our communities feel safe and secure. To address the increase in crime that we’ve seen, I believe that we need a clear plan that includes both restructuring the Denver Police Department and expanding our successful STAR program.

To restructure the Denver Police Department, I plan to incorporate policing into my overall Neighborhood Plan, so that police officers specialize in certain neighborhoods and become an active part of the community. This will allow for better relationships to be formed between law enforcement and residents, which can decrease crime and negativity towards the police. I believe that neighborhood policing is the best approach for addressing community safety, and I’m committed to making it a reality in Denver.

Additionally, I believe that expanding our STAR program is an essential component of addressing community safety. This successful program has already shown results, and we must build on that success by dramatically increasing its scope. By assigning STAR units to specific neighborhoods across Denver, we can improve response times and ensure that those in need receive the help they require.

Economic Vision for Denver: As a small business owner, I know that local businesses and workers power Denver’s economy. As the next Mayor, I am committed to building an economy that works for everyone, which starts with supporting, hiring, and building locally.

I have firsthand experience with the challenges that businesses and entrepreneurs face, having saved an independent bookstore, the Tattered Cover, during the height of the pandemic. To help ignite Denver’s economic renewal, I will work to remove barriers that stand in the way of local businesses. There are a number of important policy proposals that I will implement as mayor to power our local economy: 

Creating a city fund for seed and emergency capital for locally owned businesses. This capital will be provided with low interest rates and mandatory timelines for efficient deployment. And it will help foster businesses aligned with our Denver neighborhoods.

Seeking to influence large Denver-based organizations to become “anchor institutions” via leadership and partnership incentives. Anchor institutions will pledge to source goods, workers, and IT from Denver neighborhoods.

Elevating the city’s infrastructure to provide worker training for marginalized and student communities, and incentives for local businesses to employ these workers.  

Using sales tax dollars to emulate the federal government’s Employee Retention Credit program, which gave tax dollars back to businesses that kept their employees on payroll during the pandemic. 

This policy will allow companies to continue increasing minimum wages to their employees, while also lowering their effective labor rates.

Cost of Living: The biggest thing the Mayor can do to impact the overall affordability in Denver is to work on housing affordability. There’s not much a mayor can do about inflation, but as mayor, I can do things to make housing more affordable for people in Denver. My policies include the Vienna Plan, which is a strategy for the creation of affordable housing units. Additionally, I want to streamline the permitting process so that more housing units can be built in a shorter amount of time. This will help to increase the supply of affordable housing and drive down prices.

Denver has grown an incredible amount since I was a kid, and with that has come some growing pains. But there are many exciting opportunities for how we can address this issue. For example, there is still a large amount of unused and underutilized land in Denver, much of it owned by the city.

I will conduct a full audit to see how this land can best be put to use to build affordable housing.

Downtown Recovery: As the CEO of a business with multiple downtown locations, I am particularly aware of the challenges that the pandemic has presented to Denver’s downtown. But now that the pandemic is behind us, we are still seeing downtown being far less active than it was before. The biggest blocker for downtown getting back to where it was is public safety and homelessness. The next mayor has to address these problems and they can no longer be ignored. It’s especially urgent because we are finding ourselves in a vicious cycle where retail shops closing only makes these problems worse.

My focus as mayor will be on improving public safety and addressing homelessness in a compassionate yet effective manner. This means increasing the number of police officers and homeless outreach workers on the streets, creating safe spaces for people experiencing homelessness to access services, and enforcing the camping ban to ensure that our public spaces are clean and accessible to all.

As part of my Neighborhood Plan, I will direct the Police Department to implement more neighborhood policing, where police officers will be assigned to neighborhoods and implement policing policies aligned with the diverse needs of Denver’s many neighborhoods.

(D) Aurelio Martinez –  RADIO SILENT

(D) Robert Treta – RADIO SILENT

(D) Terrance Roberts – PENDING RESPONSE

The post 2023 Denver Mayoral Election Guide appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Technology and social media have allowed people to be more connected than ever. With the click of a button, an American teenager can laugh at a TikTok created by a German teenager. Yet, America is seeing record levels of loneliness. Where are these feelings of isolation coming from, and how can we solve them? For explanations, policymakers should turn away from the virtual and towards the physical. Recent research suggests that Urban Planning practices are quite literally dividing people. If urban planners build cities unsuited for socialization, then it is not shocking the inhabitants of these cities are lonely. Unfortunately, this is the exact position of contemporary cities. American cities nurture loneliness by hyper-focusing on cars to the detriment of alternative transportation and neglecting the creation of quality public spaces.

Policymakers should prioritize addressing loneliness because it harms mental and physical health. Humans are social creatures, so when they feel that even among others, they are alone, there are consequences. Studies tie loneliness to “various psychiatric disorders like depression, alcohol abuse, child abuse, sleep problems, personality disorders, and Alzheimer’s disease” (Mushtaq, et al.). Lonely people are less resilient to hardship and are at higher risk for mental disorders. Loneliness also deteriorates physical health. It is associated with “diabetes, autoimmune disorders like rheumatoid arthritis, lupus and cardiovascular diseases like coronary heart disease, hypertension (HTN), obesity, physiological aging, cancer, poor hearing and poor health” Mushtaq, et al.). Current research rejects the idea that loneliness is just a feeling; it is a dangerous condition with severe implications for one’s mental and physical health.

Policymakers should be alarmed by loneliness’s increasing prevalence. Research from the Survey Center on American Life finds that the amount of friends people have has “declined considerably over the past several decades” (Cox). Another study finds that more than a quarter of Americans report feeling lonely (Statista). More and more research paints a picture of a growing portion of socially isolated people. The steady increase in loneliness suggests that factors one may expect to indirectly mitigate the problem, such as population growth or technological advancements, can not tackle the issue. Policymakers should also discard any notion that current levels of loneliness are innate societal ills that cannot be addressed. In studies comparing international rates of happiness and loneliness, the United States is regularly outperformed by its European and Asian peers (Krekel & Nevel; Statista). If policymakers want to see a decline in social isolation, a structured and proactive approach is necessary.

American cities nurture loneliness by hyper-focusing on cars to the detriment of alternative transportation and neglecting the creation of quality public spaces.

When people imagine the major problem affecting them every day, urban planning is not the first thing that comes to mind. Politicians and voters alike seem united in disinterest in the field. In the aftermath of the passing of the massive infrastructure bill (the Infrastructure Investment, and Jobs Act), a survey found that “76” of likely voters were unaware it passed (Astrow & Kessler). With so many issues affecting citizens, it may seem reasonable that the concerns of city planners get little air time. While this may be an understandable misconception, it is nevertheless a misconception. The United States Census Bureau estimates that “80.7%” of Americans live in urban areas. For that 80%, a vital determiner of their wellness will be the city around them; thus, cities must be well-designed. This paper contends that current urban planning paradigms create cities that are breeding grounds for loneliness. If policymakers want to see a decline in social isolation, they must quickly gain an interest in the opinions and criticisms of urban planners.  

Current American urban planning discourages walking because cities are built to suit cars rather than humans. Americans were enthusiastic early adopters of cars. By 1929, “one American in five owned a car, compared to one out of every 37 English and one out of every 40 French car owners” (Mintz & McNeil). Automobiles swiftly went from a part of cities to the central force connecting them as cities swapped sidewalks and walkways for highways and parking lots, and urban areas became more and more car-centric. Although the busy wide interstates typical of urban America are practical for automobile usage, they often make traveling impossible for pedestrians. American sidewalks are narrow, sparse, and located in areas where cars fly by at high speeds. A survey of 709 retired Americans found that most stated they would never cross a busy street with heavy traffic (Carp). Pedestrians’ fears are not unfounded; compared to peer countries, the United States suffers from dramatically higher rates of deaths for pedestrians and bikers. Per kilometer, American pedestrian fatality rates are “5–10 times higher,” and biker fatalities are “4–7 times higher” (Buehler & Pucher). The American people are justifiably scared to walk across their own streets where sidewalks play second fiddle to highways.

Current American urban planning discourages walking because cities are built to suit cars rather than humans.

Many urban areas essentially require cars for traveling, which contributes to social isolation by diminishing the amount that people leave their homes. The Environmental Systems Research Institute estimates that while only 20% of Americans are a 10-minute walk from a grocery store, 92% of the population is a 10-minute drive (Herries). For most people, cars are a necessity for travel, so barriers to driving become barriers for all traveling. Imagine a person who is a 30-minute drive away from any family; gas prices become an obstacle to attending get-togethers and parties. Imagine a person who is a 30-minute drive away from any family; gas prices become an obstacle to attending get-togethers and parties. Environments where family and friends are a 30-minute drive away, rather than a short stroll, are not conducive to social interaction. City-dwellers are more reliant on cars and thus less likely to be within walking distance of friends and more likely to be affected by barriers to socialization. Predictably, polling finds that those in urban areas interact with their neighbors less than those in rural and suburban areas (Pew Research). When it costs money to leave your house and socialize, people socialize less. 

Another way car-centric cities harm their citizens is by placing a burden on parents. Cities that do not allow for travel by walking or biking require parents to essentially chauffeur their children. Researchers have found that urban sprawl in cities hinders the development of a child’s “social and motor development” and “puts a heavy strain on the parents” (Hüttenmoser, 403). Until 16, minors must rely on their parents and friends to take them to parties, playdates, and parks, hubs of socialization. Busy parents who lack time or parents who struggle to afford time may be less willing to drive their children to places; these parents risk an undersocialized kid that only interacts with peers at school. When children are all but stuck in their houses for the first decade and a half of their life, it is predictable that they feel lonely.

When children are all but stuck in their houses for the first decade and a half of their life, it is predictable that they feel lonely.

As an alternative to car-centric cities, America should strive to create walkable cities because they promote interconnectedness. A recent study on walkable cities found they “promote a sense of local identity” and were “strongly associated with better well-being and less loneliness” (Yu, Ruby, et al). Non-car means of transportation allow for interactions between individuals, which builds community. On a highway, other people become dehumanized into simple obstacles to a destination. By contrast, every person you encounter when walking is an opportunity for a conversation or interaction. The only time two drivers may interact is during a display of road rage, while fellow pedestrians may engage in small talk, meet each other’s pets, and more. Research suggests that similar logic can be applied to the benefits of biking; people are happier when they travel by bike rather than a car (Morris & Guerra). Walkability in cities enables methods of transportation that allow interaction between and increase the sense of community.

America’s cities need to be re-designed to prioritize the people that live there rather than cars. Current norms make walking not just unappealing but often dangerous for pedestrians. Moreover, high levels of urban sprawl mean that places of interest often require an automobile to reach. Cities that put driving over other alternative transportation place extra barriers on socializing. For many people, the choice to visit and family does not just come down to time but also: access to a car, gas money, and willingness to drive. Parents must weigh all these issues and more any time their child wants to play at the park. Much of combating loneliness comes from the small interactions people have. Walkable cities make it easier for people to travel to gatherings to have those social interactions. Furthermore, walking itself creates an opportunity for connections to form during travel. Thus, policy makers should take action to shift American urban design away from its current overreliance on cars.

Current norms make walking not just unappealing but often dangerous for pedestrians.

Thus far, this paper has discussed how American urban planning limits people’s ability to travel in ways that increase isolation. However, this is only one piece of the puzzle. It is meaningless if people can walk anywhere if there is nowhere to go. This is where public spaces come into play. Public spaces are “any variety of physical settings, from sidewalks to outdoor cafés to urban plazas” (Németh, 2464). Public spaces are places for people to gather; thus, they are hubs of social activity. Cities that aim to combat loneliness and promote community must have quality public spaces for people to mingle. However, “U.S. cities lack adequate access to parks and open space near their home” (Sherer, 8). Policymakers must address issues with public spaces, so cities can support the social needs of their citizens.

One way American cities can move to improve their public spaces is by increasing Green Spaces. Greenspace “is an umbrella term used to describe either maintained or unmaintained environmental areas” (Barton & Rogerton). Spending time in nature is tied to improvements in mental and physical health (Jimenez, et al.). Urban areas do not have as much wildlife as cities, but the people there still have the same need for nature. This is where green spaces come in. Recent research finds “there is good evidence of a positive relationship between levels of neighborhood greenspace and mental health and well-being,” (Barton & Rogerton). Greenspaces provide a place for city dwellers to get the benefits associated with natural environments.

Another way American cities can improve public spaces is by making them practical places to gather. Cities may have public spaces; however, those spaces may be dysfunctional. They may lack places to sit, have inconvenient entrances, or be in car-dominated areas that are dangerous for pedestrians (as discussed previously). Manhattan is an example of how poor practices can render public spaces useless. Decades of property owners “placing spikes on ledges, removing benches […], and constructing illegal fences to keep out the public” has left the city with “early 40 acres of uninviting bonus space” (Németh, 2474). If public spaces are uninviting, citizens will not use them. Wellmade public spaces, by contrast, help people feel “happier, comfortable, more secure” (Berg, et al.). Urban planners should seek to create new spaces and re-evaluate existing areas; A well-placed umbrella or table could be the difference between a good or bad public area.

If public spaces are uninviting, citizens will not use them.

Another way American cities can improve public spaces is by ensuring they are aesthetically pleasing. It may seem shallow to suggest that the prettiness of public spaces should be evaluated, but there is good reason to value that aspect. A study conducted in 2015 contends that the “aesthetics of the environment may have quantifiable consequences for our wellbeing” (Moat, et al.). They find “that inhabitants of more scenic environments report better health, across urban, suburban and rural areas” (Moat, et al.). Since public spaces are meant to attract people’s attention, it is logical they should be appealing to look at. Furthermore, citizens have to look at their public spaces often, so it goes without saying they will feel better if those areas are pretty. 

American cities need more and better public spaces because they facilitate connectedness and mental well-being. Public spaces provide areas for people to meet and gather, so they are a powerful weapon to fight loneliness in cities. Current public spaces have a lot of room for improvement. They should include nature through greenspaces, incentivize gathering, and be aesthetic. Americans should conceptualize their homes not just as houses but also as the broader city. Thus, they should expect cities to be more than just paths to houses and stores; they must include parks, walkways, and gardens. Fighting loneliness means providing places for people to take their friends and family; ergo, policymakers should investigate the condition of existing public spaces and look to create more.

Some may argue that this paper overstates the role of urban planning in loneliness. There are admittedly many factors contributing to the epidemic of loneliness; problems this big never have one cause. However, most first-world nations deal with similar issues: social media, political polarization, and worldwide increases in depression, yet these countries are not all fairing the same. Is it any coincidence that in rankings of happiest cities, countries with walkable cities and dominant biking cultures like Norway, Sweden, & Denmark dominate (Krekel & Nevel)? Consider why people make so many friends in college and then struggle socially after graduation. It is because colleges have a robust infrastructure. People live close to each other, walk to travel, and have common spaces designed to encourage interactions. One need not have to look abroad to see examples of the principles of good urban design promoting community: simply look at a local university. While it’s true many things are contributing to loneliness, urban planning’s role is evident through both direct association in research and casual observation.

Policymakers should prioritize addressing loneliness because it harms mental and physical health.

In discussions of loneliness and modern society, attention often shifts to the virtual. Many fixate on the role of technology and social media. While pondering tech’s role in loneliness is worthwhile, people should also be encouraged to think more literally. Not everyone uses Instagram, but everyone engages with their city’s infrastructure. As long as the structure of cities discourages socialization, people will continue to be alone. Cities are not merely economic hubs; they are where people live. They should not prioritize cars to the detriment of their citizens. Pedestrians should not be terrified to cross the street, nor should people be locked to travel by automobile. Cities should contain aesthetically pleasing places for people to hang out. Loneliness is not just a feeling; it is a condition that threatens the health of millions of Americans. If policymakers want to combat it, they must work with urban planners to design American cities made for people.

Works Cited:

• Barton, Jo, and Mike Rogerson. “The Importance of Greenspace for Mental Health.” BJPsych International, vol. 14, no. 4, Nov. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1192/s2056474000002051. PubMed Central.
• Buehler, Ralph, and John Pucher. “The Growing Gap in Pedestrian and Cyclist Fatality Rates between the United States and the United Kingdom, Germany, Denmark, and the Netherlands, 1990–2018.” Taylor & Francis Online, Transport Reviews, 7 Oct. 2020, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01441647.2020.1823521?journalCode=ttrv20. Accessed 9 Nov. 2022.
• Bureau, US Census. “Urban Areas Facts.” Census.Gov, 8 Oct. 2021, https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/geography/guidance/geo-areas/urban-rural/ua-facts.html. Accessed 19 Nov. 2022.
• Carp, Frances. “Walking as a Means of Transportation for Retired People1.” The Gerontologist, vol. 11, no. 2_Part_1, July 1971, pp. 104–11, https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/11.2_Part_1.104. Academic Oxford.
• Cox, Daniel. “The State of American Friendship: Change, Challenges, and Loss.” The Survey Center on American Life, American Enterprise Institute, 8 June 2021, https://www.americansurveycenter.org/research/the-state-of-american-friendship-change-challenges-and-loss/. Accessed 9 Nov. 2022.
• Herries, Jim. “Measure and Map Access to Grocery Stores.” Esri, 26 Apr. 2021, https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/9658b5befb944256bb587bc9b268a09a. Accessed 9 Nov. 2022.
• Hüttenmoser, Marco. “Children and Their Living Surroundings: Empirical Investigations into the Significance of Living Surroundings for the Everyday Life and Development of Children.” Children’s Environments, vol. 12, no. 4, Dec. 1995, pp. 403–13, https://doi.org/10.2307/41514991. JSTOR.
• Jimenez, Marcia, et al. “Associations between Nature Exposure and Health: A Review of the Evidence.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 18, no. 9, Apr. 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18094790. PubMed Central.
• Mintz, and McNeil. “The Consumer Economy and Mass Entertainment.” Digital History, 2018, https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=2&psid=3396. Accessed 19 Nov. 2022.
• Mitchell, Travis. “How Urban, Suburban and Rural Residents Interact with Their Neighbors.” Pew Research Center, 22 May 2018, https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/05/22/how-urban-suburban-and-rural-residents-interact-with-their-neighbors/. Accessed 9 Nov. 2022.
• Morris, Eric, and Erick Guerra. “Mood and Mode: Does How We Travel Affect How We Feel?” Transportation, vol. 42, no. 1, Apr. 2014, pp. 25–43, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-014-9521-x. Springer Link.
• Mushtaq, Raheel, et al. “Relationship Between Loneliness, Psychiatric Disorders and Physical Health? A Review on the Psychological Aspects of Loneliness.” Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research \, vol. 8, no. 9, Sept. 2014, https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2014/10077.4828. PubMed Central.
• Németh, Jeremy. “Defining a Public: The Management of Privately Owned Public Space.” Urban Studies, vol. 46, no. 11, Oct. 2009, pp. 2463–90, https://doi.org/10.2307/43198485. JSTOR.
• Neve, Jan-Emmanuel, and Christian Krekel. “Cities and Happiness: A Global Ranking and Analysis.” The World Happiness Report, Mar. 2020, https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/cities-and-happiness-a-global-ranking-and-analysis/. Accessed 9 Nov. 2022.
• Seresinhe, Chanuki Illushka, et al. “Quantifying the Impact of Scenic Environments on Health.” Scientific Reports, vol. 5, no. 16899, Nov. 2015, p. 16899, https://doi.org/10.1038/srep16899. PubMed Central.
• Sherer, Paul. “The Benefits of Parks: Why America Needs More City Parks and Open Space.” Eastshorepark.Org, The Trust for Public Land -, 2006, http://www.eastshorepark.org/benefits_of_parks%20tpl.pdf. Accessed 9 Nov. 2022.
• Statista. “Loneliness among Adults Worldwide by Country 2021.” Statista, Feb. 2021, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1222815/loneliness-among-adults-by-country/. Accessed 19 Nov. 2022.
• Weijs-Perrée, Minou, et al. “Analyzing the Relationships between Citizens’ Emotions and Their Momentary Satisfaction in Urban Public Spaces.” Sustainability, vol. 12, no. 19, Sept. 2020, https://doi.org/10.3390/su12197921. MDPI.
• Yu, Ruby, et al. “Associations between Perceived Neighborhood Walkability and Walking Time, Wellbeing, and Loneliness in Community-Dwelling Older Chinese People in Hong Kong.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 14, no. 10, Oct. 2017, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14101199. PubMed Central.

The post People Live in Cities: An Analysis of Urban Planning’s Role in Loneliness appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.