The following letter was sent to Mayor Andrew Moore, Councilmember Brian O’Connor, and the Erie Town Council via council@erieco.gov, and was signed by 227 residents. Yellow Scene Magazine was asked to republish it in the interest of community transparency and public accountability. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication.

Dear Mayor and Members of the Erie Town Council,

I am writing to urge the Town Council to vote NO on the proposed sale of Erie’s municipal mineral rights. This letter is submitted on behalf of myself and the 227 Erie residents listed below, all of whom oppose this transaction.

Last week, the Council heard testimony from residents who have invested their lives in this community. The Council listened, and the sale failed on a 3–3 vote. We also know that the absent council member, Mr. Hoback, opposed the sale. The outcome reflected the will of the people who showed up, submitted comments, and remained engaged on this issue for more than two years.

One week later, the vote has been resurrected. Residents were given one business day’s notice that a re-vote would take place. Many had barely drawn a breath of relief before being asked to once again submit comments, prepare testimony, and restate a position that this Council heard clearly seven days ago.

I ask the Council to reject this sale based on the following critical points:

1. Erie’s Mineral Rights Are Not Symbolic—They Are the Town’s Strongest Tool

Under SB24-185, signed by Governor Polis on May 22, 2024, Erie’s unleased mineral interests cannot be force pooled. If Erie refuses to sell, SM Energy is legally required to avoid the Town’s unleased mineral interests. The Town’s own presentation to Council on June 2, 2026, confirmed this in plain language: “The unleased portions MUST be avoided unless leased or voluntarily pooled.”

This is the Town’s own legal assessment, presented by Town staff. Selling these rights means permanently surrendering the strongest legal tool Erie has to protect residents from drilling beneath their homes.

The claim that “drilling will happen regardless” is misleading. The Town’s minerals sit directly in the path of a significant number of planned laterals. Without these mineral rights, SM Energy cannot drill through those zones.

2. The Deal’s Value Has Been Significantly Overstated

The headline figure of $465 million includes speculative future property and sales tax revenues from undeveloped land—projections that depend on decades of assumptions, not contractual commitments from SM Energy.

The Mayor publicly acknowledged that the immediately quantifiable value is closer to $44 million. Other Town estimates place it at approximately $17 million over 20 years.

Meanwhile, retaining the mineral rights preserves Erie’s royalty interests and, critically, preserves the Town’s legal authority to prevent drilling through its mineral zones. That authority has value that cannot be reduced to a dollar figure because it protects residents’ health, safety, and property values on an ongoing basis.

3. Clear and Documented Conflict of Interest

The Town retained Alameda Mineral Advisors to negotiate this deal—a firm led by a former Civitas executive. Paying an industry insider to represent the same community that spent two years fighting Civitas creates a severe conflict of interest.

Furthermore, Alameda’s fee is contingent upon the deal closing. Its CEO is not a neutral advisor; he does not get paid unless the sale is approved.

Following the June 16 vote, Alameda’s CEO publicly stated on LinkedIn that he lobbied for a re-vote. That post was subsequently edited. Many Erie residents read the original statement and can attest to its contents.

When the person brokering a deal has a direct financial stake in the outcome and is actively lobbying elected officials after a failed vote, residents are entitled to question whose interests are being served.

4. Plugging Legacy Wells Is a Safety Obligation, Not a Bargaining Chip

The framing of plugging 17 old wells as a benefit or gift to the Town is misleading. Remediating aging and orphaned wells is a matter of basic public safety that should have been addressed long ago.

It is an industry obligation, not a concession that justifies a massive new mineral rights sale.

5. The Process Has Undermined Public Trust

Negotiating a deal of this magnitude largely in private executive sessions, retaining consultants with undisclosed industry ties, and rushing a re-vote within seven days of a failed motion have all eroded public confidence that this process is being conducted in residents’ best interests.

6. Erie Is Thriving Without This Deal

Our Town is thriving. Property values have skyrocketed. Downtown Erie has become a destination. Schools, restaurants, and local businesses have transformed this community—all without oil and gas involvement.

Erie is attractive to young professional families precisely because of what it is today. This deal puts that identity and growth trajectory at risk.

Residents have told this Council they will consider leaving if drilling proceeds beneath their homes. The economic damage from declining property values and departing families could far exceed whatever speculative benefits this transaction promises.

The community has spoken clearly and consistently. Hundreds of Erie residents submitted comments. The June 16 meeting filled the council chamber. Hundreds more have expressed opposition on social media. Letters have been sent to the Colorado Attorney General’s Office. This letter alone carries the names of 227 residents asking you to vote NO.

This level of sustained community engagement is extraordinary for a town Erie’s size, and it points in one direction.

We are not asking for anything unreasonable. We are asking our elected officials to listen to the residents they represent, protect the legal leverage the State of Colorado granted this Town, and reject a deal that primarily benefits the operator and its paid intermediary.

A NO vote is not a rejection of economic opportunity. It is a decision to protect the Town’s most valuable assets—its families.

Please vote NO on the sale of Erie’s municipal mineral rights.

Submitted by 227 Erie Residents

The post Letter to the Editor: 227 Residents Sign Letter Opposing Mineral Rights Sale appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

Dark money group funded by One Main Street spends $70,000 on HD19 Democratic primary

ERIE, CO, June 16, 2026 — An independent expenditure committee called “Blue Collar Progressives” has spent nearly $70,000 to support Jillaire McMillan in the June 30 Democratic primary for House District 19, according to itemized filings with the Colorado Secretary of State. The committee is already the subject of an open state campaign finance complaint.

The complaint (ED2026-35, filed by David Sabados, received June 5) alleges that Blue Collar Progressives registered to support state legislative candidates but is also actually running ads for county commissioner races, outside its stated purpose. It claims the committee is misleading the public and filing false documentation with the Secretary of State, under the “prohibited expenditure” and “inaccurate filing” categories.

Blue Collar Progressives registered as an independent expenditure committee on May 27, just weeks before the primary. State filings show it has raised $305,000 and already spent nearly all of it in a matter of days. [Per its filings, the committee’s funding traces to One Main Street Colorado, a group that does not disclose its donors.]

One Main Street poured roughly $800,000 into Colorado Democratic legislative primaries during the 2024 cycle, backing candidates it called “pragmatic” over grassroots progressives. The same network funds the Colorado Opportunity Caucus, which is under investigation after approving a $30,000 retreat for lawmakers and lobbyists at a Vail resort.

“Voters in HD19 deserve to know who is trying to buy this seat,” said Colton Jonjak Plahn, a Democratic candidate running against McMillan. “Voters are tired of elected officials not looking out for their best interests. I am running a grassroots campaign that takes no corporate PAC and no establishment PAC money, and believe no one should be able to buy an election.”

Independent expenditure committees are legally barred from coordinating with the campaigns they support, and Jonjak Plahn’s campaign is not alleging coordination by McMillan or her campaign. The campaign’s concern is transparency: voters are seeing tens of thousands of dollars in outside spending on this race without knowing its original source.

Jonjak Plahn is a born-and-raised Coloradan, a Stanford-trained aerospace engineer who’s running to keep HD19 focused on the people of the district, not special interests. Learn more at coltonforcolorado.com.

###

The post Letter to the Editor: Dark money group spends $70,000 on HD19 Democratic primary appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

Colorado’s Democratic and Republican Parties must be shaking in their boots from the Unity Party riding into town for the primary election. They trotted out “Four Arse* Men of the Epic Collapse” (Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse) to fire a warning shot. They ended up shooting themselves and their parties in the foot.

The Colorado Sun posted an opinion by former Governors Bill Owens and Bill Ritter, along with former U.S. Senators Tim Wirth and Hank Brown. Their “bipartisan” appeal to unaffiliated voters claimed, “The challenge is that too many voters do not believe the primary election matters. That perception is understandable — but it is wrong.” Actually, that claim is wrong! It’s merely a “partisan” ploy to keep these voters from finding the Unity Party. They know that unaffiliated voters are drifting toward the greener pastures of better solutions because they’ve been stuck in a rut of a two-party ghost town for too long. I offer better solutions. The “big hats” don’t want that drift to become a stampede.

By excluding mention of the Unity Party in their plea, they’re telling unaffiliated voters that they can vote only for Democrats and Republicans, and no one else. This partisan bias is especially rampant among news outlets in liberal Denver and northern Colorado. The Colorado Sun, KUSA, KGNU, and KUNC have also excluded the Unity Party and its candidates, Paul Noel Fiorino and Jeff Peckman, from their partisan voter guides. It’s likely that these non-profit and for-profit news outlets are violating IRS or FCC regulations to benefit especially the Democrats.

The Fort Collins Coloradoan voter guide even claimed that “Those [Unity Party] ballots can only be returned by party members”, which is a dang lie. Any of Colorado’s two million unaffiliated voters can vote a Unity Party ballot. They just need to request it from their county clerk or at the voting station. Another challenge for unaffiliated voters is easily finding accurate and complete information on county election websites that explain how they can vote a Unity Party ballot.

In contrast, news outlets in conservative Colorado Springs, such as KRDO, KOAA, KKTV, and Pikes Peak Media, have publicized the Unity Party primary. They have also invited Unity Party candidates to participate in either a non-partisan questionnaire, interview, or forum. They’re doing it legally and fairly.

The hypocrisy and partisan electioneering by liberal news media and these former major party politicians is creating the biggest stink since the Great Denver Horse Manure Crisis of 1894! It’s a “ripe” opportunity for vengeful Feds to force a showdown in Colorado’s “Not OK election corral”. An FBI posse might even charge into town and round up the entire election.

Perhaps we should all be thankful. The sun is setting for the two-party stranglehold on America. Times are changing. The powers of justice, truth, and karma have given these “Four Arse* Men” and liberal media varmints enough rope to hang themselves and the party they rode in on. [*Arse – irritating or contemptible person]

Jeff Peckman

Unity Party Candidate for Governor

The post Letter to the Editor: Did “Four Arse Men of the Epic Collapse” Hang GOP and Dems? appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

As someone who writes a column about community and belonging, I know how important it is for elected offices to represent the whole community.

I ran for the Colorado State Senate 2 years ago because I didn’t feel represented in local leadership, and I met many people in Boulder County who felt the same.

This is one of many reasons I’m supporting Jenn Kaaoush for Boulder County Treasurer and Kubs Lalchandani for CU Regent.

Most of our local elected bodies are made up of people from similar demographic groups and backgrounds. Jenn and Kubs bring the professional acumen needed for these roles and perspectives that remain underrepresented here.

Jenn grew up in a low-income, single-parent household, earned a GED, served in the military, earned a business degree, and built a career in public and private leadership. She has served in local office and helped pass a federal bill protecting wildfire survivors.

Kubs is a man of color and the son of immigrants. Raised in Boulder, he understands challenges many families here face. He cares about equity, the impact of AI on future careers, and ensuring all students feel welcome in higher education, regardless of background.

Their journeys are different, but both understand what it means to overcome obstacles, persevere, and navigate systems that don’t work equally well for everyone.

I also know them both personally and have seen their integrity, humility, grace, and commitment to ensuring all voices are heard.

Our community is strongest when we have highly qualified leadership that reflects a wider range of expertise, experiences, and perspectives.

Jenn and Kubs will bring that and more.

Jovita Schiffer, Superior

The post Letter to the Editor: Columnist Endorses Boulder Candidates appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

To the Editor:

A Colorado woman is facing felony cruelty to animals charges after allegedly throwing a neighbor’s cat named Toby into a yard with her dogs, who then chased and killed him. It’s a horrifying story, but it should also be a wake-up call for anyone who believes it’s safe to let cats outdoors.

Every time a cat is allowed to roam, there is a chance he won’t come home. They are struck by cars, attacked by dogs or wildlife, exposed to disease and parasites, and poisoned by substances like antifreeze and pesticides. Some are shut inside garages or crawl spaces. Others disappear after encountering people who dislike cats and intentionally harm them.

This isn’t about blaming the family who lost Toby. Like many people, they likely believed their neighborhood was safe. But there is no truly safe neighborhood for a cat left to fend for himself outdoors.

Cats depend on us to protect them. Keeping them indoors gives them the safety they deserve.

Sincerely,

Melissa Rae Sanger, LVT

The PETA Foundation

The post Letter to the Editor: Keeping Cats Inside appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

Amanda Gonzalez is the candidate with the experience and courage to protect Colorado’s democracy

By Boulder County Commissioner Marta Loachamin

The right to vote is the foundation of every other right we have. If people cannot freely and fairly participate in our democracy, everything else is at risk.

Voters are not choosing a Secretary of State under normal conditions. As we celebrate our nation’s 250th anniversary this summer, we find ourselves in the middle of the fight for its future.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act. Earlier this month, Tina Peters was released from prison and went straight to the studio to spout election denialism. Now, the USPS is under intense pressure to interfere in proven-safe mail ballot elections like ours.

At a time like this, we need a Secretary of State with the courage to stand up for our democracy and the experience to protect it.

Amanda Gonzalez has spent her career doing exactly that. As the only attorney running for Secretary of State, she wrote and implemented laws that expanded access to the ballot and established automatic voter registration to ensure every eligible Coloradan can participate in our democracy. As Jefferson County Clerk, she oversees elections for one of Colorado’s largest counties and has been on the front lines defending voters and election workers while strengthening public trust in our elections.

Amanda understands that protecting democracy is about more than administering an election. It means ensuring that every eligible voter can cast their ballot, every ballot is counted accurately, and every election worker can do their job without intimidation or harassment. It means standing up to misinformation that erodes public trust and responding to new threats before they undermine confidence in our elections. These responsibilities require experience, sound judgment, and a deep understanding of both election law and election administration.

Colorado has built one of the strongest election systems in the country because leaders like Amanda have never taken our democracy for granted. She’s the only candidate who has made important strides in elections and voting every single year of the last decade because she’s the only candidate who has been singularly focused on it. She has spent her career working to make voting more accessible, more secure, and more transparent. That work has made Colorado a national model for election administration and helped earn the trust of voters across the political spectrum. As attacks on our election system become more frequent and more coordinated, Colorado cannot afford to hesitate or backslide. We need a Secretary of State who understands what is at stake and has a proven record of protecting and strengthening the systems that uphold our democracy.

As a Boulder County Commissioner, I understand the responsibility that comes with serving the public. Amid the current threats to our democracy, this is not a time for on-the-job training. Colorado needs a leader who understands both the law and the practical realities of running a safe, free, and fair election.

Coloradans want a leader who is on their side. They want an experienced fighter who will not only protect our election system from interference in the 2028 presidential election but also someone with a vision for a more inclusive democracy.

Amanda doesn’t wait for problems to emerge, and she’s not satisfied with the status quo. She has the experience to anticipate challenges, respond quickly, and stay ahead of threats to our elections. That foresight and leadership are exactly what Colorado needs as attacks on our democracy continue from every direction.

This moment calls for experience. It calls for courage. Amanda Gonzalez has both.

The post Letter to the Editor: Endorsing Amanda Gonzalez To Protect Colorado’s Democracy appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

I am a resident of Erie who is not directly impacted by the Draco Pad project footprint and I have zero political aspirations. I also believe that there is a place for oil and natural gas extraction in our energy supply. That said, I stepped off the sidelines and entered into discussions with Mayor Moore and the Town Council four months ago about the potential sale of the Town of Erie mineral rights.

Myself, and other Erie resident requests for Mayor Moore and the Town Council have been straightforward:

1) Provide a forum for all Erie residents to express their concerns or their support related to the potential sale of Erie’s mineral rights. Listen to these concerns and follow-up with third-party studies that help provide answers. 

2) Allow residents of Erie to vote on whether they want these Town-owned mineral rights to be sold, held and/or used to push back against the Draco Pad. This decision has a huge financial impact on the Town of Erie and an enormous impact on residents.

3) If Erie residents choose to sell these mineral rights then run a legitimate process to sell. Issue an RFP to find a low-cost and high-quality Consultant who will run a competitive bid and solicitation process. This will ensure that Erie gets fair representation and that our Town gets top dollar. 

Mayor Moore and his loyal block of Town Council voters (Mayor Pro Tem Bell, Council Member Brian O’Connor and Council Member John Mortellaro) chose to not give residents of Erie a voice or a vote. They chose to withhold all information from Erie residents – feeding messages that this group wants residents to hear while withholding the rest in confidential sessions. Irrespective of your view, Mayor Moore has led a process that has denied you your voice and your vote.

This group also chose to hire the founder of Civitas for $4.5 million of Erie taxpayer money to represent Town of Erie residents in this sale…to SM Energy, who merged with Civitas earlier this year. Per explosive comments from Town Council Members and the Consultant during the June 2nd Town Council Study Session, it does not appear that this Consultant completed his contract. 

The Consultant’s contract required him to complete a competitive bid and solicitation process and to provide competitive offers to the Town Council for them to consider. Instead, the Consultant brought only a single offer from SM Energy / Civitas. His former company.  Rather than addressing this issue, Mayor Moore scheduled a vote for the sale of Erie’s Town-owned mineral rights to SM Energy for June 16th. 

COLORADO ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE INVOLVEMENT

On June 11th, over 120 Erie Residents sent a letter to Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser asking for State help in this situation. 

On Friday, June 12th, the Colorado Attorney General’s Office (AGO) responded that the AGO has started an official process to review our situation on behalf of Erie residents. The AGO asked me to provide them with all materials related to the Town Council issues noted above, which I sent off over the weekend. I believe others in Erie are supplying details to the Attorney General’s Office for this review as well.

The AGO noted that the official review process could take weeks – well past the June 16th scheduled vote.

Will the Erie Town Council move forward with a vote on June 16th knowing that the Colorado Attorney General’s Office is officially involved? Good question for Mayor Moore and the Town Council. Especially given all of <waves vaguely at the hot mess this group facilitated> this. 

Will Mayor Moore and this Town Council do what’s right for the Town of Erie by working with the AGO and Colorado Attorney General? To officially address all concerns from the AGO and residents prior to a vote? Goodness – I hope so. Better to start doing the right thing late rather than not at all.

Whether you are for the sale of Town-owned mineral rights or whether you are against, please show up to the Town Council meeting on June 16th  where they are set to vote. Let Mayor Moore and the Town Council know that we need a legitimate process to be completed prior to approval of any contract. That all Erie residents – irrespective of their views – should have a voice and a vote in what happens to our Town of Erie mineral rights.

Signed Erie resident,

Steve Drew

The post Letter to the Editor: Attorney General’s Office to Review Erie Residents’ Complaint appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Dear Editor,

Adams County needs more than just more growth. We need a thoughtful leader who will actually listen to our residents and will put working families first. Right now, Adams County families are facing immense affordability pressures – from rising housing costs to groceries to child care. These issues are bleeding Adams County families dry. We need leadership that understands how to transparently leverage the County Budget in a way that supports our agricultural families and helps to expand local businesses (such as affordable daycares). That leader is Tyler Quick.

Tyler was born and raised in Adams County, and he brings a powerful blend of experience, community roots, and new energy to the table. As an educator, research consultant, and dedicated union organizer, Tyler has spent his career fighting for working people. Tyler knows that government is about serving the people, and that transparent government means listening to the community.

As the June 30 primary election approaches – and with ballots landing in mailboxes – I encourage you to vote for Tyler Quick for Adams County Commissioner. Tyler brings the right approach and fresh vision our county needs.

Bev Bishop

Westminster

The post Letter to the Editor: Tyler Quick for Adams County Commissioner appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

I am proud to support Jenn Kaaoush for Boulder County Treasurer.

Jenn is qualified for this job. She has served in the military, worked in diplomacy, managed finances, worked in real estate, and served on the Superior Town Council. But my support for Jenn comes from something more important: I have seen her lead.

After the Marshall Fire, Jenn got to work. She helped fire survivors deal with insurance, cleanup, rebuilding, bureaucracy, and the exhausting financial challenges that followed the disaster. She then used that experience to help other fire-impacted communities, including Maui and California. She also traveled to Washington, D.C., to advocate for changes to the tax code so fire survivors would not be penalized for insurance proceeds needed to rebuild.

I have worked closely with Jenn on the Superior Town Council. She is prepared, tough, persistent, and serious about solving problems. Jenn is not someone who just talks about public service. She shows up, does the work, and gets results.

The Treasurer’s office requires judgment, diligence, transparency, and respect for public dollars. Jenn has those qualities.

Boulder County would be fortunate to have Jenn Kaaoush as Treasurer.

Mark Lacis

Mayor, Town of Superior

The post Letter to the Editor: Boulder County Treasurer Endorsement From Mark Lacis appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

In politics, I believe leadership should not be measured by the title you hold, but by how you show up for your community. That is why I am proud to support Anil.

Anil embodies the kind of public servant I strive to be. He does not wait for the cameras or the headlines—he is present. He shows up at marches, protests, and community gatherings because he genuinely believes in standing alongside the people of Colorado.

During his time on the Erie Town Council, Anil has been a strong advocate for LGBTQ+ rights, demonstrating the courage to stand up for equality and inclusion even when it is difficult. He understands that leadership means fighting for every member of our community and ensuring everyone feels seen, valued, and protected.

What is so refreshing about supporting Anil is his work ethic and his authenticity. He is not someone who only appears during election season. Day after day, he puts in the work, listens to residents, and fights for the people of Erie.

As someone who has dedicated my own service to showing up for the people of Boulder, I recognize that same commitment in Anil. We share the belief that public office is about service, compassion, and a willingness to stand with people in their moments of need.

Colorado needs more leaders who do the work when no one is watching. Leaders who listen. Leaders who care. Leaders who show up.

Anil is that kind of leader, and that is why I am proud to stand with him.

Junie Joseph

House District 10 Representative

Democratic House Majority Caucus Co-Chair

Secretary of the Democratic Black Caucus

Aerospace and Defense Caucus Co-Chair

Member of the House Environment & Energy Committee

Member of the House Appropriations Committee

Member of the House Finance

Junie4colorado.com

Twitter: Junie4colorado

Facebook: Junieforcolorado

The post Letter to the Editor: Junie Joseph’s Endorsement for Anil Pesaramelli appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

Hi Council, Town Attorney, and Acting Town Manager.

As a resident of Erie, I have to say there is a complete lack of transparency when the Town Council goes into executive session.
As Mayor Pro Tem Branden Bell said in last night’s meeting, the same generic statement is made every time to go into session about a property negotiation. Apparently, the law requires “the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose” of the executive session. I do not believe you are meeting this requirement by using a generic statement.

Erie Town Council, June 9th, 2026

From my research – quoted info from AI.

“For example, these notices become progressively more informative:

• Property acquisition.
• Property acquisition related to airport operations.
• Property acquisition in the Airport Park area.
• Property acquisition of a parcel adjacent to Airport Park.

The law seems to require the council to move as far down that list as it reasonably can before it would jeopardize negotiations.”

You are not doing this. AI told me to ask you this –

“The Open Meetings Law requires identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose of the executive session. Can the Town explain why identifying the general location or project associated with the property transaction would compromise the negotiation?”

There is no way I would have been able to tell from the agenda whether you were talking about the Draco purchase or the Airport purchase.  The Mayor did mention the Airport property, but this was verbal, not in the written agenda.

“What I find particularly telling is that once the motion failed, nobody in the room seemed concerned that merely saying “the airport” would destroy the negotiation. In fact, several speakers openly referenced the airport on the record. That tends to support the argument that at least some additional public description could probably have been included in the agenda notice.” 

And the courts support as much detail as possible.  “What is interesting is that Colorado courts have already pushed back against local governments that simply repeated the statutory language.

In the well-known Basalt case, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the town violated the Open Meetings Law because it provided only the broad statutory categories and failed to give meaningful detail about the subject being discussed.”

Erie Town Council, May 5, 2026

It was good to see Acting Town Manager Muth say she would work with the Town attorney on a procedure to be transparent. Hoping that means for the public.  Just because the Council member knows what the subject is, that is not sufficient; the residents should also know.

So I am hoping the Town Attorney and Acting Town Manager can implement better procedures to provide transparency in the agenda presented to the residents.

Sincerely, DeWayne Drummond

My chat with AI follows if you are interested.

Please explain to me the requirement for notification of going into executive session at a town council meeting. Our town always puts out the following statement “EXECUTIVE SESSION to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, develop a strategy for negotiations, and/or instruct negotiators, pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-6-402(4)(e); and to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property, pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-6-402(4)(a); for which a topic cannot be disclosed without compromising the purpose of the executive session.” Now my question is why can it not tell what Property they are considering? like “and to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property at the Airport park, pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-6-402(4)(a); ” IE specify where the property rather just a generic statement. Citizens do not trust the council with the generic statement

Your concern is actually at the heart of Colorado’s Open Meetings Law.

The key language in Colorado law is that before going into executive session, the council must identify:

“the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose for which the executive session is authorized.”

That phrase creates a balancing test:

1. The public is entitled to know what is being discussed.
2. The government is allowed to withhold details that would defeat the purpose of the executive session.

For property transactions

The property exception under C.R.S. § 24-6-402(4)(a) allows executive sessions for:

“The purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of any real, personal, or other property interest.”

The usual justification is that publicly identifying the property before negotiations are complete could:

• Drive up the price.
• Alert competing buyers.
• Weaken the town’s negotiating position.
• Cause speculation in surrounding properties.

So if the town is negotiating to buy a specific parcel, it may argue that naming it publicly would compromise the negotiation. That is exactly what the statute contemplates.

But can they be too vague?

Yes.

The law does not say a council can simply recite the statute and stop there.

The statute requires identification of the “particular matter” in as much detail as possible. Merely saying:

“purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real property”

without any additional description may be vulnerable to challenge if more detail could have been provided without harming negotiations.

For example, these provide progressively more information:

Very vague

• “Property matters.”

Better

• “Possible acquisition of property for future park purposes.”

Even better

• “Possible acquisition of property in the Airport Park area.”

Most specific

• “Possible acquisition of Parcel X adjacent to Airport Park.”

The question becomes: would revealing the location “Airport Park” actually compromise the negotiation?

Your Airport Park example

If the council agenda said:

“…to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of property interests in the Airport Park area…”

I think many citizens would view that as a reasonable balance between transparency and confidentiality.

The town might respond that even identifying “Airport Park” would reveal the parcel under discussion because there may be only one tract available there.

Whether that argument is convincing depends on the facts.

What Colorado courts generally look for

If challenged, a court would likely ask:

• Did the council cite the correct statutory authority?
• Did the council identify the subject matter?
• Did it provide as much detail as reasonably possible?
• Would additional detail have harmed the negotiation?

If the answer to the last question is “no,” then the notice may have been unnecessarily vague.

A practical citizen question

A fair question to ask during public comment or by email is:

“The Open Meetings Law requires identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose of the executive session. Can the Town explain why identifying the general location or project associated with the property transaction would compromise the negotiation?”

That puts the discussion squarely on the statutory standard rather than on whether citizens “trust” the council.

If you tell me which Colorado town this is (for example, Erie, Thornton, etc.) and whether the executive session language comes from the agenda or from the motion made at the meeting, I can help evaluate whether their notice is merely conservative or arguably falls short of Colorado’s transparency requirements.

Town of Erie, in the agenda for a town council meeting

For Erie specifically, I think you have a stronger argument than you might realize.

I found the exact agenda language from a January 2026 Erie Town Council special meeting, and it is essentially identical to what you quoted:

“…to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations… and to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property… for which a topic cannot be disclosed without compromising the purpose of the executive session.”

The issue is that Colorado law requires more than merely citing the statutory category. The council must identify:

“the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose” of the executive session.

What is interesting is that Colorado courts have already pushed back against local governments that simply repeated the statutory language.

In the well-known Basalt case, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the town violated the Open Meetings Law because it provided only the broad statutory categories and failed to give meaningful detail about the subject being discussed.

So the real question is not:

“Can Erie legally withhold the exact parcel number?”

The real question is:

“Has Erie provided as much information as possible without harming negotiations?”

Those are very different questions.

Could Erie identify “Airport Park”?

Possibly yes.

For example, these notices become progressively more informative:

• Property acquisition.
• Property acquisition related to airport operations.
• Property acquisition in the Airport Park area.
• Property acquisition of a parcel adjacent to Airport Park.

The law seems to require the council to move as far down that list as it reasonably can before it would jeopardize negotiations.

If saying “Airport Park area” would not reveal the specific seller or bargaining position, then citizens could reasonably argue that the public deserves that level of information.

Why councils like generic wording

From the council’s perspective, the safest legal approach is often:

“We’re discussing property and negotiations, and disclosing more would compromise the executive session.”

That avoids any risk of accidentally revealing confidential negotiations.

But it also creates exactly the trust problem you describe. Citizens hear:

“We’re talking about some property somewhere.”

and have no way to know whether it concerns:

• Airport expansion,
• open space,
• water rights,
• downtown redevelopment,
• mineral rights,
• municipal facilities,
• or something else entirely.

A question I would ask Erie

Rather than accusing them of violating the law, I would ask:

“Colorado law requires identification of the particular matter to be discussed in as much detail as possible without compromising the purpose of the executive session. Why is the Town unable to identify even the general project area, such as Airport Park, municipal airport property, water rights, or open space acquisitions?”

That is a very difficult question for a council to dismiss because it goes directly to the statutory standard.

My personal reading of the agenda language Erie has been using is that it is about as generic as a notice can be while still citing the correct statute. Whether it satisfies the “as much detail as possible” requirement would depend on the specific property matter being discussed. The Basalt court decision suggests that simply repeating statutory categories is not automatically enough.

My overall impression

After reading the transcript, I do not think the dispute was really about whether executive sessions are legal.

I think the dispute was about trust and transparency.

The mayor, staff, and Bell appear to be saying:

“The council already knew the topic. This is a normal property-negotiation executive session.”

Hoback appears to be saying:

“The public doesn’t know enough, and the council shouldn’t automatically approve executive sessions without better explanation.”

Those are both reasonable positions.

Regarding your original question

If I were advising Erie, I would suggest that the agenda could probably be more informative while still protecting negotiations.

For example:

Executive session to discuss potential airport-related property negotiations pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-6-402(4)(a) and (e).

or

Executive session regarding potential acquisition or disposition of property interests associated with airport operations.

Those descriptions tell citizens substantially more than the current boilerplate language, yet they still do not identify the parcel, seller, price, or negotiating strategy.

From a citizen’s perspective, that kind of disclosure would likely improve confidence without significantly impairing negotiations.

What I find particularly telling is that once the motion failed, nobody in the room seemed concerned that merely saying “the airport” would destroy the negotiation. In fact, several speakers openly referenced the airport on the record. That tends to support the argument that at least some additional public description could probably have been included in the agenda notice.

The post Letter to the Editor: Erie Executive Session Transparency appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

By Former Adams County Commissioner Eva Henry

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

When we talk about building a local economy that works for everyone, we often default to macro-economics—gross county product, commercial development zoning, and corporate tax bases. But for the vast majority of families living in Thornton, Westminster, and Northglenn, the true measure of our economy isn’t found in a spreadsheet at the county administration building. It is measured at the kitchen table, balanced between the cost of groceries and the staggering price of local childcare.

Adams County has always been a place defined by its grit, its deep agricultural heritage, and its working-class roots. But right now, our working families are facing an unprecedented financial squeeze. As local leaders, we must recognize that a thriving community requires more than just managing growth; it requires protecting the people who make that growth possible. True economic dignity means ensuring that our neighbors who work here can actually afford to live, raise their families, and thrive here.

That is why inclusive governance is not an abstract progressive ideal—it is an absolute economic necessity.

When we invest in county-level childcare and housing solutions, we aren’t just providing a safety net; we are building infrastructure. High-quality, affordable childcare is the ultimate workforce multiplier, allowing parents to re-enter the job market or pursue continuing education with peace of mind. Furthermore, as our region expands, our infrastructure must keep pace. We need a balanced approach to regional growth that secures critical funding for road repairs and flood mitigation while fiercely protecting our clean air, open spaces, and our vital agricultural spaces.

But infrastructure alone isn’t enough. We must tie our county’s development directly to high-quality local livelihoods. By creating 21st-century green energy and technology manufacturing union jobs, we ensure that public investments translate into sustainable, middle-class careers for our residents. We also have a responsibility to foster a collaborative, supportive environment for our local small businesses—working hand-in-hand with owners through proactive programs like Achieving Compliance Together rather than defaulting to heavy-handed, punitive fines.

To achieve this, we need a county government that is accessible, efficient, and thoroughly competent. We must actively reject the divisive national political rhetoric that stalls progress and focus squarely on local, transparent results. This month, as primary ballots arrive in mailboxes, Adams County voters have a distinct choice to make about the direction of our community.

Tyler Quick

We need a new generation of energetic, transparent leadership on the County Commission—leaders who share the lived financial realities of everyday working people. That is exactly why I am proud to stand alongside community advocates like Tyler Quick for District 4. Tyler grew up right here, went to Flynn Elementary, and understands the paycheck-to-paycheck realities facing our neighborhoods.

Let’s move past stale political habits and build an inclusive, efficient, and competent county government that ensures every single resident has a permanent seat at the table.

The post The Economic Imperative of Inclusive Governance in Adams County appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

Our initial draft discussing the House District 33 race contained regrettable errors and typos concerning Kenny Nguyen. In the interest of fairness and accurate local reporting, we are happy to publish Mr. Nguyen’s response to our criticism. Yellow Scene Magazine stands by its final endorsement decision, but we welcome the opportunity to correct the record and offer any criticized candidate a platform to share their perspective. Please note that the commentary below represents the candidate’s own beliefs and does not constitute an endorsement or reflection of our editorial board’s views.

Hello Yellow Magazine readers! I know my name may be new to some of you. I’m Representative Kenny Nguyen. On January 12th, I was appointed as Colorado’s newest lawmaker for Colorado House District 33.

I was elected by a vacancy committee to replace former Representative William Lindstedt when he, in turn, was elected to fill the seat held by the late Senator Faith Winter. I’m honored to be serving our community.

Previously I served as a Broomfield City Council Member for Ward 1 before resigning to take this role. I was also the Executive Assistant to Colorado’s 50th Lieutenant Governor Dianne Primavera, worked in the Colorado Tourism office, and most recently in the Department of Revenue. I’m an AmeriCorps Service Member Alum having served with the “I Have a Dream” Foundation at Boulder County after graduating from the University of Colorado Boulder.

I’m Colorado’s first Vietnamese American to serve in the Colorado General Assembly.

Less than three weeks into my term I supported SJR26-006 which recognizes the value that immigrants bring to Colorado and calls upon our federal partners to uphold transparency, accountability, and humane enforcement practices so that every family, regardless of their immigration status may fully participate in the communities they build and sustain.

HB26-1276, HB26-1283, and SB26-005 were bills I supported and that passed through the state legislature aimed at safeguarding constitutional rights for immigrants. HB26-1276 permits local health agencies and CDPHE to inspect facilities not operated directly by the federal government that house noncitizens detained for immigration purposes while requiring new training standards related to peace officer compliance with civil immigrant detainers to be adopted and certified by July 1, 2027. HB26-1283 prohibits an employer or their agent from demanding, confiscating, retaining or otherwise requiring an individual to surrender their government issued ID card for long periods of time and prohibits threats of sharing an individual’s ID with federal authorities. SB26-005 allows for individuals whose constitutional rights were violated by those participating in civil immigration enforcement to be liable for legal or equitable relief.

Another bill that wasn’t passed through the state legislature that I supported was SB26-176 which would have allowed for individuals whose constitutional rights were violated to sue federal, state and local officials who violated said rights which includes ICE agents.

SB26-070 Ban Government Access Historical Location Information Database (PEEPs Act)

I was proud to be a sponsor of this bipartisan bill aimed at protecting the privacy of residents. This bill addresses License Plate Readers (LPR), commonly known as FLOCK cameras because of the primary company involved. LPRs do not simply keep track of license plates; they record data on car make, vehicle colors, driver racial profiles, and geographic locations of vehicles. SB26-070 would have placed guardrails on data retention by private companies and requires a judicial warrant by law enforcement agencies (including ICE) seeking LPR data. Unfortunately this bill did not pass the senate last week, but I’m committed to addressing this issue again next year.

HB26-1001 Housing Developments on Qualifying Properties (HOME Act)
The HOME Act seeks to address affordable housing by allowing organizations with a history of building housing such as nonprofits, universities, and housing authorities to create more housing projects. Homeownership has become out of reach for too many, and rental prices continue to climb. While I am not a sponsor, The HOME act has nearly unanimous support from Democrats in both chambers. I was proud to vote to support alongside Broomfield’s Senator William Lindstadt and the majority of our caucus. We need smart, sustainable growth that helps create housing people can afford, while reining in unsustainable sprawl. Governor Polis signed this bill on March 25th.

HB26-1320 Accessible Language Statutory Ballot Title Requirements.
In Colorado, we cherish our right to direct democracy – we love ballot measures. Unfortunately, sometimes those initiatives are filled with language that can be challenging for voters to understand: double negatives, confusing tax language, and obscure terminology. I’m sponsoring this measure that will require ballot measures to provide a plain language version with clear information about the tax implications of any ballot measure. Governor Polis signed this bill on May 29th.

HB26-1335 Abortion Medication Access on College Campuses

Across the country, reproductive rights and women’s access to healthcare are under attack. As one of the younger members of the legislature and a CU graduate, I’m sponsoring this bill alongside two female legislators to ensure that college students can access medications, ideally on campus when possible. Governor Polis signed this bill on May 27th.

HB26-1318 Traffic Safety Near Schools

The safety of our streets near schools is especially important. This bill, which I am sponsoring, clarifies what is considered a school zone and makes traffic enforcement near schools easier to help protect kids. The bill passed both chambers and is now named the Liam Stewart in honor of a 7th grader that was killed while biking to school. Governor Polis signed this bill on May 29th.

HB26-1099 Protect Financial Condition of Homeowners Associations

I became a sponsor for this bill because as a new homeowner, I understand the important roles Homeowner Associations (HOAs) play but also the problems caused by management changes. This bill would create transparency and address HOA accountability. It would also codify that when an HOA changes management companies, the former company must provide the new HOA management company the property, records, and accounts and be held liable to the financial conditions of the HOA. This protects HOA members and holds management companies accountable for their transfers. Governor Polis signed this bill on April 13th.

I’m committed to serving the people of Colorado with integrity and respect, and uplifting marginalized voices in this time of division. My hope is to bridge divisions and to serve all of House District 33. Please don’t hesitate to reach out to my office with any questions or thoughts; we’re here to serve you. You can email my office at kenny.nguyen.house@coleg.gov or call us at 303-866-4667.

The post Letter to the Editor: Why My Record Matters for House District 33 appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

I hail from the left, and am not shy about it: a democratic socialist, an out trans and queer person, a union organizer, and a feminist. And I have advocated on all of those fronts for many years.

Right now, though, I am both disturbed and disappointed by some of my fellow lefties, who have become the unwitting tools of White Christian Nationalists by crossing the line into clear antisemitism. Some have even gone so far as to embrace such a misguided worldview that they’ve convinced themselves that hostility toward Jews is morally justified.

I’ve seen it on social media and heard it on the streets: people behaving in clearly abhorrent ways towards American Jews (street harassment, bullying, even openly saying that Jews deserve violence or death). And far too much of it is rooted in assigning collective blame for the worst of the Netanyahu administration’s atrocities.

Enough. Individual Jewish Americans are no more responsible for Netanyahu’s evils than individual Russian Americans are responsible for Putin’s. Bernie Sanders does not share in some sort of collective blame for the horrific abuses of violent settlers in the West Bank because he is a Jew from Brooklyn. In fact, he clearly abhors that violence – as do most American Jews, a supermajority of whom agree that under Netanyahu, Israel is committing war crimes, according to Washington Post polling (though of course everyone deserves safety, no matter their political ideology).

At the same time, “antisemitism” is being cynically co-opted and weaponized by MAGA forces to attack our civil liberties and our immigrant neighbors, something Jewish organizations have rebuked (1, 2). But as we stand in the shadow of the June 1 anniversary of the firebombing on the Pearl Street Mall, I’m talking about the real kind – the hatred and dehumanization of Jews because they are Jews.

That firebombing was one of the more horrifying acts of hate violence in our state’s history. Marking this anniversary, it is essential that we all have the courage to name and face hard truths. We must stiffen our spines against hatred because the death of Karen Diamond demands it, as does the pain of all the survivors and the broader Jewish community. We cannot and will not find the healing that is needed here until we do. But we also must do so because all of our fates, and our liberations, are bound together.

As the German saying goes, “antisemitism is the socialism of fools” — a once oft-spoken refrain purportedly repeated by Engels and Marx both. All those who said it knew a simple thing: that if they allowed themselves to be drawn into the base antisemitic trope that Jews as a people were somehow responsible for the worst evils of the world, they would be falling into a divide-and-conquer trap laid for them by those at the top.

As a unionist, I know the truth in my bones, and I’ve seen it with my eyes. The only thing that advances real justice is working people uniting together across the things that divide us: race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, etc. And the oligarchs who do not wish to see working people hold real power will always seek to exacerbate and inflame those divisions because if we are fighting each other, we can’t fight effectively against them.

This is why, for literally millennia, one of the core features of antisemitism has been the fomenting of conspiracy theories about how Jews are sinister figures who secretly control everything and create the world’s worst ills. That awful lie has a purpose: if we believe it, we turn our anger on our Jewish compatriots instead of the ones actually rigging the systems against us.

It is also one of the core lies that gave rise to the Third Reich. Now, the Christian Nationalists of today are fanning the flames of this oldie-but-definitely-not-goodie via intentionally destructive and manipulative schemes like the Heritage Foundation’s Project Esther. In that horrific endeavor, the same organization behind Project 2025 worked to redefine antisemitism to justify MAGA attacks on free speech, thus advancing the twin authoritarian aims of curtailing civil liberties and setting Jews up as the scapegoats for that erosion.

If we are fighting for collective liberation, we have to stop falling for the tricks laid for us by those who hate and oppress us all. We need all of our siblings with us to protect each other and defeat White Christian Nationalism, and that means no exceptions. It also means being brave enough to speak up and call in those who refuse to see and hold the full humanity of all people, including Jews.

On the left, we often say that none of us can be free until all of us are free. It’s past time we all fully live out that mantra – and the knowledge that it does and must include our Jewish siblings. The only true path out of this mess and towards justice is for all of us to find a way to walk side by side. If we cannot, we will unfortunately be the worst kind of fools.

Wynn Howell (they/them) is the Colorado State Director of the Working Families Party and is a leader in the labor and LGBTQ+ movements who has spent over 25 years working as a union, community, and political organizer.

The post Letter to the Editor: The Socialism of Fools appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

This letter has previously been published by the Longmont Times-Call.

I am strongly supporting Jenn Kaaoush for Boulder County Treasurer because of her outstanding character and deep commitment to the community. She proved her leadership during one of the most intense public crises Boulder County has faced: the Marshall Fire on 12/30/2021, which destroyed over 1,000 homes. In the wake of this trauma, Jenn was an essential resource for survivors navigating the overwhelming processes of financial recovery, including FEMA, SBA, insurance claims, and rebuilding challenges. Recognizing the need for long-term support, she co-founded Superior Rising. Perhaps her most critical contribution was her successful advocacy in Washington, D.C., for the extension of federal wildfire tax relief protections. This legislation ensured survivors would not be taxed on qualified recovery funds, a measure that provided essential financial aid to families like mine who had lost everything and found their insurance insufficient due to Covid-era price increases. Jenn’s commitment is what voters need to know about her candidacy. She is impressive because she understands both the complex financial systems and the crucial human side of recovery. She didn’t just discuss helping people; she actively showed up and did the work. This proven, hands-on leadership is exactly what I want for the Boulder County Treasurer’s office.

– Tucker Collins

Louisville, CO

The post Letter to the Editor: Tucker Collins Supports Jenn Kaaoush for Boulder County Treasurer appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

My name is Neal Shah. I serve on the Superior Town Council and am a former Mayor Pro Tem. I am writing in support of Jenn Kaaoush for Boulder County Treasurer.

In the weeks after the Marshall Fire, I was looking for volunteers to help lead the community’s recovery. Jenn was one of the people who stepped forward. She joined a small team that built Superior Rising into a real organization and did the hard, unglamorous work of helping families rebuild. What I did not fully appreciate at the time was that Jenn took on that work before she had even assessed how badly her own home was damaged. She was helping other families navigate their losses while still sorting through her own.

That same period, post-fire settlements were at risk of federal taxation that would have stripped a significant portion of the money families needed to rebuild. Jenn worked directly with members of Congress to help secure the only federal disaster tax bill passed in 2023, protecting hundreds of millions of dollars for Boulder County families. She also helped residents work through FEMA, SBA, insurance, and rebuilding processes that were overwhelming for many.

Her qualifications for the Treasurer’s office are substantive. Jenn is a fourth-generation Army veteran and former U.S. diplomat who led department operations in conflict zones. She has more than twenty years of managing complex financial systems, multi-million-dollar operating budgets, and teams in environments where precision and accountability are required. She currently serves on the Superior Town Council and its Finance Committee.

Jenn has already protected significant public resources for Boulder County families. I trust her to continue that work, and I ask you to support her candidacy.

Sincerely,

Neal Shah

Resident of Superior, CO

The post Letter of Support — Jenn Kaaoush for Boulder County Treasurer appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

Media Contact:

Jeff Peckman

jpeckman108@msn.com

Rampant Fraud in Colorado Election Says Gubernatorial Candidate

Jeff Peckman, a Unity Party candidate for governor, claims fraud is tarnishing Colorado’s “gold standard” elections. No one has voted yet. So, where’s the fraud?

Peckman said, “Colorado county election offices, 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations, and commercial TV and radio stations are breaking the law by engaging in partisan politics. They’re defrauding unaffiliated voters by withholding critical election information. They’re illegally excluding minor party primary candidates from interviews, forums, debates, and voter guides. That benefits the two major political parties and undermines minor parties.

Over 90% of county election offices are not explaining how to vote a Unity Party primary ballot, or even that there is a Unity Party primary. Jefferson, Boulder, and Larimer counties are exceptions. They’re properly informing voters that they must request a Unity Party ballot from the county clerk or at the Voting Center.”

Major and other minor party members may also vote for a Unity Party ballot. However, they must first change their political party affiliation or withdraw their affiliation and become unaffiliated. June 8 is the deadline for either choice.

According to Peckman, “501(c)(3) non-profits, including churches and community news outlets, are hosting forums and debates, and publicizing ‘voter guides’ that illegally exclude Unity Party candidates. The IRS states on its website FAQ page that such organizations must provide, “…an equal opportunity to participate to all political candidates seeking the same office.’

Commercial TV and radio stations are violating federal law. 47 USC 315 states: ‘If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station…”

Peckman asserts that “No legal basis exists for these various entities to exclude minor party primary candidates from official election information and these election opportunities, when major party candidates have been given such opportunities for the same office. The Colorado Public Radio voter guide has set the standard for equal and fair treatment of minor party candidates. Additionally, many county election websites and voter guides simply link to the website of the Colorado Secretary of State’s General Election FAQ page, which contains information that is incomplete, misleading, and confusing.”

Peckman added, “That’s why I filed a complaint with Secretary of State Griswold yesterday and requested an immediate remedy. All qualified voters are legally entitled to complete, accurate, and uniform election information that is not confusing. All qualified candidates are legally entitled to participate in these various election opportunities. This fraud needs to end so voters can make an informed election choice before ballots are mailed on June 8.”

####

The post Rampant Fraud in Colorado Election, Says Gubernatorial Candidate appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

There’s a pattern of the City of Boulder spending big on legal work to intimidate:

1. It’s almost a certainty that the city will spend far more than $2,800 to keep the police video secret that Yellow Scene wants. So it’s to intimidate others from trying to expose City secrets. It seems that blurring faces is the highly claimed cost. If you Google “video blurring software,” you’ll see that software that tracks a certain face or person to blur it throughout a video is easily available. Much of it is free! The city simply needs to let an employee learn how to use it. I bet the real cost of an employee using it would be hundreds, not thousands, of dollars.
2. The city’s attempt to sue Save South Boulder for legal expenses of some $46,000 failed, but they continue to sue, now over the appeal costs: https://share.google/B0RPQp1JeXEpZBYqA
3. The city is suing anti-genocide Council candidate Aaron Stone over $375, almost certainly a big money loser: https://share.google/WafjWzgh2fJ5B9fMX
4. After the sauna in North Boulder Rec Center was closed many times for a total of about two of the last 6 months of 2024, due to people pouring water on either the heater or the temperature sensor, after I suggested “Do not touch” signs to management, receiving no reply, and finally telling council I would do it myself, I put little paper signs up next to the heater and the sensor with push pins.

The first time, they stayed up for over a month with no further incidents. I was there every few days to see if they got wrinkled from the moisture people bring in from the pool. Then the signs started disappearing. I complained to management, they suspended my annual pass for 3 months, I appealed, and they took me through a quasi-judicial hearing.

At the hearing, the North Boulder Rec Center manager stated he had personally found a sign that was “scorched,” and therefore, I had endangered everyone using the sauna for months. This is impossible because the sauna never gets over about 180° while the ignition point of paper is over 400° F, with scorching occurring just before that. He said he had thrown away the evidence because they thought some employee must have done it.

So, he destroyed the main evidence and almost certainly perjured himself. The judge let the suspension stand. I didn’t understand that I needed to bring a chemistry or combustion expert, though the ignition point of different papers is easily found online.

They installed a video camera that now looks in through the window at us in the sauna. AND, they put “Do not touch” stickers on the wooden enclosure of the sensor! The stickers are made of paper, with a similar ignition temperature!

The manager told the City Manager, whom I complained to about this, that the stickers are safe since the sensor is not near the heater. But the City’s own evidence, a photo of a thermometer pointed at where my sign was near the heater, shows it’s the same temperature as the rest of the sauna.

The backstory is that they spent some $4,500 on repeated repairs in 2024, when a brand new top-of-the-line sauna heater is about $1,500! And they must have spent at least $1,500 on the video camera wiring installation software, etc., so they almost certainly spent over $6,000 when what was needed was a $0.05 “do not touch” sign. And who knows how much on taking me to trial.

A big reason the city shows such incompetence, as evidenced by the need to increase their communication specialists from 12 in 2018 to 30-something now, is that after all the lying and cheating to obstruct the online petitioning for direct democracy which I spearheaded as a member of the city’s Campaign Finance and Elections working group, I documented it thoroughly and the city replaced the City Manager, the City Attorney, the City Clerk and the City IT director in 2020 to 21.

Here is my documentation, which no news outlet has ever covered in spite of the City spending a million and counting on dysfunctional software, replacing the city’s top brass, and the 2018 vote of 71 to 29% to put online petitioning in the City Charter:

Tinyurl.com/petitionstory

—

Evan Ravitz,

48-year Boulder resident

The post Letter to the Editor: City of Boulder’s Lawfare appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices.

Submitted by Steve Drew, Erie Homeowner

March 26, 2026 

This Letter to the Editor is meant for Erie families, homeowners, business owners, and mineral rights holders. This is worth a read if you own a home in Erie or could be impacted in other ways by the expansion of fracking in Erie. 

PLEASE reach out to your Erie Council Members and Mayor Moore if you have any questions or would like to provide them with comments. They have the answers.

I am one of your Erie neighbors who happens to have over 20 years of experience in the energy space. I’m not generally politically motivated, but I was alarmed when I read a Yellow Scene Magazine article about how Mayor Moore and members of the Town Council were negotiating with Civitas, the owners of the Draco Pad. 

I dug in and, yes, what Yellow Scene reported is true. The Erie Town Council has been in active negotiations for over 6 months to:

• Annex Draco Pad and future ‘hydrocarbon production properties’ into the Town of Erie
• Sell Erie-owned mineral rights to Civitas and/or other oil and gas companies
• Pay the former Civitas COO $4.5 million to help Erie in this process

A Civitas Offer Brings Erie’s Mineral Rights Into the Spotlight

Erie Mineral Rights Deal Advances Largely Out of Public View, Raising Concerns Over Transparency and Conflicts

What the heck!  Why have Erie families not heard about this? Why have there not been any meetings or information provided by Mayor Moore and the Town Council on this? 

So we have two BIG issues today. One is the financial, health, and environmental impact that fracking expansion would have on Erie homeowners and mineral rights holders. The second is the fact that Mayor Moore and certain members of the Town Council have chosen to withhold all details from Erie families.

The good thing is that this decision has yet to be made. The bad thing for Erie families is that the Town Council stated that they will bring a binding contract to vote … but have chosen not to provide a timeline in addition to not holding meetings to solicit feedback from Erie families, and in addition to holding ALL information around these discussions in Executive Sessions out of the public view.

Why are Mayor Moore and Town Council members doing this? Great question, and it’s one that you really need to ask Mayor Moore and certain Town Council Members.

Why have Mayor Moore and certain Town Council members withheld non-confidential information from Erie families about this deal? Why have they not held informational meetings when this could have a major impact on home values and more? Another good question for this group.

Why did the Town Council hire the former Chief Operating Officer for Civitas for $4.5 million to represent Erie in negotiations with Civitas? This was the same executive who presided over Draco Pad – does he still have financial interests with Civitas or affiliates? Again … questions that only Mayor Moore and certain Town Council Members can answer. But they have chosen not to answer. 

Here are the Town Council Members who voted ‘yes’ to hire this Civitas executive for $4.5 million. Best to reach out to them for your many questions:

• Brian O’Connor, Council Member – District 3
• John Mortellaro, Council Member – District 1
• Brandon Bell, Mayor Pro Tem
• Andrew Moore, Mayor

This group of four from the Town Council has stated that they cannot provide information due to Executive Session confidentiality. That’s a process where the Town Council is allowed to keep confidential information related to things such as negotiations from the public. The issue is that the Town Council is also keeping non-confidential information from us, Erie families, as well. They have chosen not to provide their intent, plan, updates, timeline, and to not include input from Erie citizens.

They have also stated that Draco Pad is a done deal, so Erie might as well make money off of the situation. That raises many more red flags and questions. If Erie held onto these rights, could it block some of the Draco Pad fracking process and protect those homeowners? Would it allow Civitas to force-pool Erie families that own mineral rights? Would this be an expansion of future fracking, leading to more Draco Pads and more of Erie impacted?

Mayor Moore and the Town Council have not responded to these questions, citing confidentiality. Goodness, that’s a heap of red flags for any Erie citizen.

Does all of this feel a little odd? It did to me, so I spoke about this to the Town Council on March 14th, and several of our Erie neighbors spoke up on March 24th. That is the only venue that this Town Council group has provided for public input. 

We asked the Town Council to slow down and set up public meetings. To share non-confidential information about their plans and to solicit feedback from Erie homeowners, families, business interests, mineral rights holders, and more. To address our concerns.

I asked each individual Council Member to commit to holding these sessions and follow-ups before bringing any contract to a vote. We have yet to hear back.

We also asked the Town Council to end the rolling process of hiding information from Erie families through Executive Session. These Executive Sessions are not meant to be used to withhold non-confidential information from the public. To stop this process, we only need three brave Town Council members to stand up against four.

What a mess. And it’s one that is ongoing as long as Mayor Moore and the Town Council continue to patronize Erie families. “We hope to find a time.”’ and “there are certain things that we will be able to discuss in the future comments.” It’s four members of the Town Council who have chosen not to share a thing with us for over 6 months. 

Can this Town Council and the Mayor share Executive Session ‘confidential’ information? Absolutely. Mayor Moore chose to take ‘confidential’ information out of Executive Session on December 16th and to make it public to help bolster the reason to hire our $4.5 million Civitas executive. This was a selective release of Executive Session ‘confidential’ information that shows how holding information from Erie families is a choice. Not a rule or the law.

Please step in with questions directed to Brian O’Connor, John Mortellaro, Brandon Bell, and Mayor Andrew Moore. Do not accept any deflection – these are supposed to be your representatives. Feel free to get angry about this. Please be sure your voice is heard. You can email them at: council@erieco.gov

Steve Drew & Family

Erie Resident and Homeowner

Erie Town Council Meeting Analysis – Tuesday, March 24th

Steve Drew, Erie Homeowner

NOTE: The following was an attempt to sort out financials and to provide estimates of impacts based on the limited information Erie Town Council has provided to-date about this potential mineral rights sale. These figures are indicative and not meant to be a professional analysis.

The key here is that this is the type of data that the Erie Town Council has chosen to withhold from Erie families. Statements such as ‘this is not correct’ from Council Members should be interpreted as ‘we have withheld the correct information and continue to withhold that information by choice.’

Please send your questions to the Erie Town Council members who are voting to hold information from Erie families, homeowners and more. Ask for the facts if they claim that any estimates and analyses are not correct. Demand third-party, independent studies and transparency.

All comments, views and assumptions are from a business perspective and do not contain a legal opinion or guidance. Assumptions have been made from publicly available information.

What are some quick summary statements about this potential transaction and vote – from publicly available information? 

• It appears that the Town Council is conducting a process that would expand fracking and oil and gas interests throughout the Town of Erie.
• The impact of a ‘yes’ vote would be $1.2 billion in total homeowner losses and $80,000 in personal losses per homeowner.
• It appears that the Town Council has excluded this financial impact to Erie families from the potential sale of Town-owned mineral rights.
• If Erie were to hold onto mineral rights, the Town may be able to help homeowners in the footprint of the Draco Pad plan.
• There are a number of conflict concerns related to the Consultant hired by the Town Council to represent Erie in this potential sale.
• The Town Council is working with the Consultant to annex the Draco Pad and/or additional hydrocarbon producing properties into the Town of Erie. 

This plan should involve another set of studies and public meetings.

• It also appears that the Town Council may be on track to potentially vote for a binding contract to sell Town-own mineral assets prior to holding dedicated meetings with Erie homeowners, families and businesses.

What is the flow of money and value if Council Members voted ‘yes’ to sell Erie mineral rights to Civitas and/or other oil and gas interests? 

• It appears that Town Council is working on a deal where Civitas would receive mineral rights and other real estate interests. In exchange, the Town of Erie would receive payments and potential real estate interests. The former COO of Civitas, who is working as the Town Council Consultant during this process, would receive $4.5 million.

Civitas wins, the Town government wins and the former Civitas executive hired by the Town Council wins.

This potential deal would cause total losses to Erie homeowners of $1.2 billion. Per publicly available information, a ‘yes’ vote would be a personal loss of $80,000 per homeowner.

• Civitas could receive value in the range of $750,000,000 to $1 billion+ due to the transfer of Town-owned mineral rights

A study by a neutral, third-party should provide a much more accurate assessment of the value of this potential deal to Civitas.

• Town of Erie government would receive unknown financial and value compensation. Assume $500 Million based on value provided to Civitas? 

Any Town Council deal with Civitas and/or other gas and oil interest should be balanced based on the value that company receives. 

• Consultant and former COO of Civitas receives $4.5 Million paid by Town of Erie.

The contract is structured so that the Consultant gets paid irrespective of results.

• Erie homeowners and families lose $1.2 billion in home values
• 15,000 Erie homes * $800,000 average value = $12 Billion 
• 10% impact to home value based on independent studies = $1.2 Billion

Why so many assumptions?

The Town Council has both the authority and choice to discuss with Erie families all non-confidential information related to the potential sale of Town-owned mineral rights. This can be done through dedicated meetings and regular communication.

Since the start of this process in 2025, the Town Council has chosen to not set up any dedicated public meetings designed to explain the Council’s plan, intent, timelines, checks-and-balances or to solicit feedback. All of this is non-confidential information.

The Town Council has used rolling Executive Sessions since Civitas provided an offer to acquire Town of Erie mineral rights in mid-2025. These Executive Sessions have been used to shield both non-confidential information and confidential dealings from Erie families and citizens. 

• Has the Town Council hired neutral, third-party consultants who can provide more accurate assessments of value? When will the Town Council share this information?
• Has the Town Council solicitation process incorporated a wide range of interest from the top US oil and gas companies? Competitors of Civitas / SM Energy? When will the basics of this process be shared so that Erie citizens know the assets have been property valued?
• Has the Town Council conducted a full study on the impact to Erie homeowners? Business owners, families and other property owners? When will this study be shared?
• What additional information can the Town Council provide to help Erie citizens understand this potential deal better?

Any additional considerations for a $1.2 billion loss in Erie in home values?

Does the Town Council have a plan in place to compensate Erie homeowners for losses incurred due to this potential Town Council decision?

• Does the Town Council have a strategy where revenues received from this transaction are greater than projected individual home value losses? A plan in place to compensate Erie homeowners for the difference?

Would the Town of Erie, Weld County and/or Boulder County need to raise property taxes based lower property values from this Town Council decision?

• Has the Town Council calculated the net impact that these home value losses would have on the portion of Town budget based on property values? 
• What would be the impact to property values in Weld County and Boulder County budgets that may cause the Counties to raise taxes on Erie homeowners?

What can the Council do to provide an update to the public and to provide appropriate commitments?

As noted above, the Town Council has had the power to open up discussions with Erie families since mid-2025. Erie families and homeowners could use some commitments from the Council around timing, processes and transparency:

1. Would the Council commit to ending the Executive Session cycle starting this evening? 
2. Would the Council commit to holding off any potential vote on this issue until after a series of dedicated meetings to provide intent, plans, timelines, studies and the solicitation of feedback from Erie citizens?
3. Would the Council commit to bring in neutral, third-party specialists to assess the impact of this potential decision on Eire property owners?

Is there anything the Council should not do in this process?

The Council should not push to vote prior to appropriate studies, dedicated meetings, solicitation of feedback and more. 

If this rush somehow does occur, Council Members should vote ‘no’ to sell Erie mineral rights to Civitas and/or other oil and gas interests.

What value is there if Erie were to hold onto mineral rights?

It appears that there may be existing Town-owned mineral rights that may impede the current Draco Pad project. Mayor Moore spoke about Civitas providing the Town of Erie with an offer to acquire mineral rights and/or real estate interests in 2025. Around the same time, the State placed limits on the duration of Draco Pad fracking operations through October 2027. The timing of this offer indicates that Erie may hold mineral rights and/or real estate that could impede the Draco Pad footprint, cost and/or timing.

The Town of Erie hired the Consultant to review the location of all Town-owned mineral rights. By now, the Council should have a non-confidential map of all rights and what those would mean from a Town of Erie perspective.

If any of these could potentially block some of the Draco Pad fracking operations, the Town would be able to save some neighborhoods and homes from home value losses. 

• Will the Town Council share the non-confidential location of Town of Erie mineral rights and related real estate interests? 

This should help Erie property owners understand the potential impact to their homes and properties from this potential deal.

• Has the Town Council developed a study from a neutral, third-party to assess the value of Erie mineral rights to block current and future impacts to home values? Specific impacts related to the Draco Pad operations?
• Will the Town Council commit to share these results and value this impact in any potential sale decision?

Additionally, the value of Erie mineral rights will only go up over time. There is no logical reason for the Town of Erie to rush a sale at this moment when overall valuations will be higher in 2027 and beyond. 

• Will the Town Council provide studies and reasons as to why it appears that this potential sale appears to be happening today rather than a future date when values will be higher?

What is your business assessment of the Consultant contract and scope of work?

The Erie Town Council voted 4-3 during the December 16th Town Council Meeting to hire Matthew Owens of Alameda Mineral Advisors. Just 18 months prior, Matthew Owens was the Chief Operating Officer of Civitas, the owner of the Draco Pad project. 

‘Yes’ votes to hire the former Civitas executive and advance the sale of Erie mineral rights: Council Member Brian O’Connell (District 3), Council Member John Mortellaro (District 1), Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell (District 2), and Mayor Andrew Moore

Civitas provided an offer to Erie? And Erie hired the former Civitas COO to represent Erie in valuing Erie assets and negotiations with Civitas 

• Will the Town Council provide assurances that the Consultant did not have financial connections to Civitas, SM Energy and/or any affiliates at the time of signing? Ongoing or future financial or value-based connections?
• Was this Consultant required to keep all confidential information from Civitas during this process that may impact the potential deal?

Two documents were provided during that meeting. A scoping document from Alameda Mineral Advisors that indicates someone from Staff or the Town Council reached out to him first. And a contract to hire him as Consultant. 

Mr. Owens provided the Town Council with an offer to cover the valuation of Town-owned mineral rights and to be paid 7.5% of all value in any potential sale of those rights. This offer stated that he would not be paid unless there was a sale or transaction.

The contract expanded his scope to include running a solicitation process that would result in a binding bid for the Erie mineral rights. In exchange, he would be paid up to $4.5 million and he would be paid irrespective of a sale. 

• Will the Town Council provide an explanation as to how an offer to ‘work for free if no sale’ shifted to several ways in which the Consultant would get paid $4.5 million from the Town of Erie?

This includes payment upon termination of the agreement, payment for transactions in the future where the Consultant may or may not be involved, payment for a range of future real estate deals, and more.

What is going on with the Town Council’s plan to annex the Draco Pad and/or additional hydrocarbon-producing properties into the Town of Erie?

Part of the Town Council’s agreement pays the Consultant based on:

Sum of total any future ad-valorem taxes received by the Town as a result of hydrocarbon production occurring on or from the property in the Draco Plan Area that is annexed into the Town, as part of transactions or agreements negotiated by Consultant 

Per the terms of this contract, the Town Council has directed the Consultant to negotiate on Erie’s behalf the annexation of the Draco Pad and/or additional oil and gas properties. 

These negotiations are underway, and Erie families have yet to hear from the Town Council about this annexation.

• What are the Town Council’s plans and timeline related to the planned annexation of the Draco Pad property into the Town of Erie?
• What studies has the Council conducted related to the financial, reputational, and environmental impacts and/or liabilities to the Town as well as Erie citizens?
• Will the Town Council commit to dedicated meetings with Erie residents to explain the Council’s plans, timeline and to solicit feedback?

Any additional concerns around the Consultant contract and scope of work?

SOLICITATION TRANSPARENCY

I was unable to find any public postings, RFIs, and/or solicitation materials related to this process. 

• Was the solicitation of other offers run as an open and transparent process or was it run at the discretion of the Consultant?
• Will the Town Council report a complete list of companies contacted and companies engaged in this solicitation? 

SOLICITATION CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AND TAXPAYER EXPOSURE

The issue here is that any solicitation process should involve the major US oil and gas companies – all competitors to Civitas and SM Energy. There may be legal exposure to Town of Erie taxpayers if Civitas competitors were excluded from this Town Council-sponsored solicitation process. That legal exposure may be greater if the former COO of Civitas selects Civitas or an affiliate as the winning bid. 

• Has the Town Council conducted a review of this solicitation process and potential impacts on the Town of Erie taxpayers?
• Is there an agreement in place where the Consultant will take legal responsibility for how the Consultant runs the valuation, solicitation and award of a binding bid?

Any concluding comments?

Most of these issues could have been resolved through openness and transparency. Through solicitation of guidance from unbiased experts and from Erie constituents. 

My hope is that the Town Council sees this the same way and chooses to ‘hit the reset button’ on this potential sale of Erie mineral rights, the potential annexation of fracking properties, and more. Slow your roll and perform fiduciary duty for all parties involved. This is a game of $ Billions and should be treated as such.

It feels like the Town Council is on a path to make Erie: The Capitol of Colorado Fracking at the expense of what Erie families, business and homeowners love about the town. Both a financial expense to Erie citizens as well as to the future of Erie itself.

APPENDIX – DETAILS AND ASSUMPTIONS

This information was gathered from publicly available documents and Town Council meetings. This review is from a business perspective and is not a legal review.

Links for references:

• VIDEO: December 16 Council Meeting and vote to approve the former Civitas executive to represent Erie (Starts 3:02:45)
• Consulting scope of services document from Matthew Owens, former Civitas COO
• $4.5 million Consulting Agreement on behalf of Erie 

NOTE: Everything in this document is from publicly available information and is meant as an informative, business-level review. This is not legal guidance and makes no legal claims. The use of ‘Civitas’ is per Mayor Moore’s disclosure that the company made an offer to buy Erie mineral rights in 2025. Civitas merged with SM Energy in early 2026 and the company owns the Draco Pad project. 

What is a quick update on the Draco Pad and fracking impact on Erie?

Draco Pad fracking operations are moving ahead and it does not appear as if holding onto Erie mineral rights can stop this process. 

Can holding onto Erie mineral rights potentially help some Erie families?

Yes. The State of Colorado provided approvals for this project, but also provided operational timelines that need to be met by Civitas.

“…pre-production at the site — which includes drilling the wells — will be completed no later than May 13, 2028, with a reasonable attempt to finish by October 2027, to limit the impacts to nearby residents.”

Per Mayor Moore, Civitas provided Erie with an offer to acquire Town-owned mineral rights at some point in 2025. Civitas, the owner of Draco Pad, is both on a deadline and may need additional approvals from the Town of Erie to fully complete the project.

The map below can be found through basic web searches. It shows the Draco Project pad and 26 fracking lines heading west approximately 5 miles across Erie. 

What is the estimated financial impact of fracking on homeowners and families? 

NOTE: Home value losses are personal and any government revenues from the sale of Erie mineral rights should not be considered an offset. 

According to independent studies from Duke University and James and James, homeowners impacted by fracking operations lose 2% to over 25% of property value. The range depends on how close the home is to fracking operations, visual impacts and whether home buyers have other home choices nearby that are not impacted by fracking.

We can assume an average drop in homeowner value of 10% from these studies. The average Erie home value as of early 2026 is $800,000.

Erie families lose from  $16,000 to $200,000 per home from fracking impacts. On average, this is a loss of $80,000 per homeowner. 

Erie has 15,000 homes as of early 2026. If the sale of Erie mineral rights would create a fracking impact to every Erie homeowner that would be a total $1.4 Billion in lost home value. 

Is this estimate correct?

No.  It is the best we have available given publicly available information and it shows that the impact on Erie homeowners can be huge. It would be best if the Town Council hired a non-biased consultant who could provide an expert analysis and if the Town Council shared that information with Erie families.

Has the Town Council provided any studies or information on the impact that a ‘yes’ decision would have on Erie homeowners?

No. The Town Council may have conducted studies that show the impact to Erie homeowners, but has yet to share this information.

What has the Town Council shared about financial impacts?

It appears that the Town Council deal is focused on revenues for the Town of Erie. These would be government revenues rather than the personal financial impact on Erie families.

The Town Council has yet to share any information or consideration about the financial impact on Erie homeowners. 

• Will the Town Council share information from third-party studies that show the impact to Erie homeowners from a ‘yes’ vote? 
• Why is this the Town Council holding this non-confidential information from Erie families? 
• Why has the Town Council not held meetings dedicated to non-confidential information such as the Town Council’s plans, timelines, studies, results and related? 
• What are the Town Council’s plans for reimbursing homeowner losses due to this potential sale?
• Will there be enough revenues from this sale to cover those home value losses?

Would the Town of Erie, Boulder County and/or Weld County need to raise taxes if this decision causes a wide drop in Erie home values?

Unknown.  This depends on the full impact if Council Members chose to vote ‘yes’ in this potential sale. The Town of Erie plus Boulder and Weld counties, would need to evaluate the tax base impact of a potential $1.4 billion loss to Erie home values.

Once again, the Town Council should share any studies the Council has conducted related to homeowner values related to a ‘yes’ decision. This should be compared to current budget estimates and whether this might cause potential tax increases for Erie residents. 

Could the Town Council help Erie homeowners impacted by Draco Pad? 

Yes. But only if the Town Council does not sell Erie mineral rights to Civitas and/or other oil and gas companies.

In this map, the ‘green star area’ of the Draco Pad project is sheltered from the impact of the Draco Pad project. Fracking lines in this section end short of five-mile goals. On the scale of 2% losses to 25%, these Erie home values will be impacted much less than average. 

It is also an example of how the Town of Erie could use mineral rights to block some fracking lines. But only if Erie continues to hold these rights and the Town Council chooses to not sell them to Civitas and/or other oil and gas companies. 

The following is an example of how keeping Erie mineral rights could help two different neighborhoods – using Mayor Moore’s neighborhood (green star) and Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell’s neighborhood (blue star):

• Mayor Moore’s house is in the green star area. This Arapahoe Ridge region is shielded from the Draco Pad fracking impact and homeowners there may see only a small financial impact. Estimated at 2% or $16,000 loss per homeowner.
• Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell’s house is in the blue star area where the impact from fracking may be much higher. Potentially up to 20% loss to home values to this neighborhood or $160,000 loss in value per homeowner. 
• If the Town of Erie holds mineral rights that could shelter Mayor Pro Tem Bell’s neighborhood from fracking impacts, the Town could use this to reduce fracking impacts – similar to Mayor Moore’s neighborhood. A drop from 20% to 2% would result in a $144,000 difference for these families.
• This goes away if the Town of Erie mineral rights could help this neighborhood but the Town Council sells these mineral rights.

Are these estimates correct? No. This is an estimate from publicly available information and it illustrates how the Town Council could help Erie homeowners. Bring in an expert instead.

Does the Town Council have the ability to bring in experts who can provide better estimates? Whether the Town-owned mineral rights can help Erie families? Absolutely. The Town Council may have this information already but has yet to share these findings.

What could happen in a Town Council ‘yes’ vote to sell these Erie mineral rights? The Town of Erie would no longer have these rights and could not help these Erie families.

There seem to be a lot of ‘maybe’ and estimates – why is that?

The Town Council has kept non-confidential information from Erie families through a process called Executive Session. This is a choice by the Town Council that shields all discussions and information from Erie families. Irrespective of whether this information is confidential or something that should be shared. 

The Town Council has also not set any dedicated public discussions around selling Erie mineral rights. No information provided around the Council’s plans, impacts to Erie families, timeline or other. This is non-confidential information.

Why is the Town Council negotiating to annex the Draco Pad project into the Town of Erie? What is the impact on homeowners and families?

Unknown. This decision is separate from the sale of Erie mineral rights, but came to light through the December 16th consulting agreement.  The Town Council should hold a dedicated meeting to answer questions from Erie families about the plan and potential impacts to homeowners. 

Is there value to Erie homeowners if the Town were hold onto mineral rights? 

Yes. Erie mineral rights are a barrier to fracking and oil and gas if these companies need an agreement with the Town to utilize or cross these properties. A 2025 Colorado State law gives municipalities the right to deny forced pooling – the process where oil and gas companies can force a mineral rights owner into deals for hydrocarbon production. 

Erie’s mineral rights also appreciate over time as oil and gas prices rise and there are fewer options for oil and gas companies. Selling Erie mineral rights today would deny this appreciation in value.

What is the situation with the Consultant approved by the Town Council on December 16th? 

The Consultant hired by the Town Council to represent Erie interests was, until ~18 months prior, the Chief Operating Officer of Civitas. It appears that this former Civitas executive presided over the Draco project during his time there. 

The Consultant was hired for $4.5 million by the Town Council during the December 16th Town Council meeting through a 4-3 vote. ‘Yes’ votes were:

• Council Member Brian O’Connell (District 3)
• Council Member John Mortellaro (District 1)
• Mayor Pro Tem Brandon Bell (District 2)
• Mayor Andrew Moore

Was the former COO of Civtas vetted to be sure that there are no conflicts of interest? No financial interest in Civitas or affiliates?

The contract has this Consultant conduct a bid solicitation process, but nothing has been posted on the Town of Erie public solicitation site. Has the Consultant reached out to all potential bidders from the large pool of US oil and gas companies?

What are the potential impacts to Erie taxpayers if the Consultant chooses Civitas or an affiliate as the winning bid? Is this an open and fair process that protect Erie taxpayers from potential litigation from Civitas competitors?

If there is litigation from this conflict of interest, would these costs be borne by the Town of Erie or the Consultant?

The Town Council is paying this Consultant to negotiate the annexation of the Draco Pad project and/or other hydrocarbon production facilities: 

Sum of total any future ad-valorem taxes received by the Town as a result of hydrocarbon production occurring on or from the property in the Draco Plan Area that is annexed into the Town, as part of transactions or agreements negotiated by Consultant

• Is the Town of Erie able to pay Consultants based on tax revenues?
• What are the implications to Erie families beyond ‘additional revenues’ if the Town Council were to annex the Draco Pad? When will the Town Council hold a public meeting to address concerns?

Do comments similar to “We have leased mineral rights in the past so we should lease mineral rights now” reflect Erie today?

No. The decision to potentially transfer Town-owned mineral rights should reflect the reality of today rather than reference past behavior. For example the Town of Erie has a proud past of coal mining, but this does not fit with the Erie of today.

This is 2026 and the Town of Erie has changed into one of the fastest growing residential communities in the US. Our home values are well above US and Colorado averages. Our school system is the envy of Colorado and the nation. Erie’s income per resident is exceptional.

The Town of Erie is an exceptional place to live. The potential to open up Erie to additional fracking is a threat to what Erie represents today and in the future. There are direct, negative financial impacts to Erie families who have chosen Erie as a community and there would be additional negative impacts to the Town in the future.

Do comments similar to “Draco Pad is moving ahead and Erie should make money off of this situation” accurately summarize the situation?

No. This is an oversimplification that focuses on Town of Erie government revenues. It does not assess the financial impact on Erie families and homeowners.

The post Letter to the Editor: Erie Families Deserve Transparency After 4–3 Council Vote to Negotiate Sale of Erie’s Mineral Rights appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Healthcare Security for Colorado Families

Most Americans are aware that the healthcare system we have in place is not working. Having health insurance tied to employment makes life especially stressful for people with chronic medical needs. Even for those of us fortunate to have stable employment with health insurance coverage, our medical costs continue to climb as our insurance claims continue to be denied. Economic uncertainty presents other complications. Will a job loss force a person to lose coverage? Will employers scale back coverage in order to save money? The problem is that private, commercial health insurance companies must make a profit. The bigger the profit the more successful they become. To compete with the other health insurance companies, they impose high deductibles and charge unaffordable premiums. They also increase profits by denying claims and delaying care. Now, they don’t do this with every claim, but I am certain each of you knows somebody that has had a claim denied or care delayed by their insurance company unfairly.

Most other countries do better. According to the Commonwealth Fund, the US is the ONLY high-income country that does not provide guaranteed health coverage. Other countries do it, on average, for half the cost we pay in the United States, and they also produce better health outcomes. The US has the lowest life expectancy at birth, the highest death rates for avoidable or treatable conditions, the highest maternal and infant mortality, and among the highest suicide rates. All this and the US still spends far more on healthcare than any other country.

The solution could be a state-managed, publicly funded health care enterprise. Earlier this year, Colorado Senate Bill 25-045 was passed and was signed into law by the Governor. It instructs the Colorado School of Public Health to analyze options for implementing a universal healthcare payment system in Colorado. This has the potential of bringing us one step closer to greater healthcare security in Colorado.

An in-depth, independent, and scientific analysis of the implementation costs and healthcare financing is an essential next step. Unfortunately, though, Senate Bill 25-045 provided no funding to conduct the research. Instead, a growing coalition of health care advocates are working to raise more than $750,000 to support this analysis. The research has started, but the fundraising continues. The School of Public Health needs less than $300, 000 to complete the full study.

There are 21 other states working toward a health care plan owned by their state to have a publicly funded, privately delivered health care system for all of their residents. Ultimately, the United States should have a publicly run health care plan. One near-term solution is to go state-by-state until finally we have coverage for all U.S. residents. That is how Canada established their national health care plan. They started province-by-province until finally they had sufficient political will to cover everyone in their country. Could Colorado be the innovative leader on this issue?

Industry views our health as a commodity. You can buy health care if you can afford it. Colorado is often heralded as one of the healthiest places to live, work, and thrive. Yet, access to quality, affordable health care remains out of reach. Expanding access to health care via a state-managed health care enterprise is a unique opportunity to ensure healthcare for all Coloradans.

Science and data matter when making informed public policy decisions. The work of the Colorado School of Public Health is going to be essential to our future. The responsibility for educating Coloradans and gaining their support for public health research and information is critical. Your financial support for this work would be a first for Colorado, and it’s up to advocates who are working at the grassroots level to get it done.

Donate or volunteer your time. Go to our website: fixhealthcarenowcolorado.org and support this research today.

###

Mary Doran, RN

Lafayette Colorado

narodyram@gmail.com

303-717-5957

The post Letter to the Editor: Support Healthcare Security for Colorado Families Today appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Last night, in a 5–1 vote, the Longmont City Council agreed to pause all sharing of Flock data with other municipalities and personal data services, decline any expansion of its contract, and begin searching for alternatives. Councilmember Diane Crist was the lone vote in opposition.

Photo credit: Pavel Ivanoff, Bizarre Electronics

Dozens of residents spoke in support of the decision to move away from Flock’s surveillance cameras.

Flock Safety markets itself as a crime-fighting technology company, but its system is built on mass license-plate scanning and large-scale data collection. The company was recently acquired by Palantir, a defense-contracted data-mining giant known for working with ICE, law enforcement agencies, and the intelligence community. Palantir was co-founded by billionaire Peter Thiel, whose hard-right, anti-democratic political views and funding ties to extremist candidates have made the company’s growing role in domestic surveillance a point of national concern. Palantir’s tools specialize in predictive policing and large-scale surveillance systems — widely criticized for privacy violations, constitutional concerns, and disproportionate harm to communities of color.

Find the full meeting here:

Last night, Pavel Ivanov, owner of Bizarre Electronics in Longmont, shared the following speech with Council.

Good evening. Last time I was here, I mentioned my personal experience in Russia and how cameras, put in “good faith”, to track criminals and deter crime, have been used maliciously, to track political opponents, journalists, and otherwise “non welcome” citizens.

Today, I would like to expand on that.

In 2017, Russian authorities started to implement the face recognition into their already installed cameras. Today 300 THOUSAND AI cameras and 700000 “normal” ones are active across Russia, with majority installed in Moscow. That is early 2024 data.

Just like in the US, if we look at the “positive consequences”, we do see a decrease in overall crime, more efficient police work with more caught criminals.

Council, my humble opinion is: it doesn’t matter. We can not trade freedom, liberty and non-surveillance for perceived safety, when that control and surveillance can be used against anyone. It doesn’t make cities better. It doesn’t make citizens happier. And it surely doesn’t help with public’s opinion of the police.

The worst example of these cameras used against private citizens was in 2021. There were massive protests with 100 thousand people in Moscow, against president Putin and his corrupt dictatorship. It was the first big protest where people were not detained, not physically assaulted or otherwise hurt on the protest. What followed -was way worse – months and years of individual detentions, where the activists were brought in court for accusations of “fault to follow protest procedures” and similar bogus charges.

More than 180 court cases were filed within first week after the protest. At least 450 convictions during the first year after this protest.

Another media also reported that it only costs 200$ to do a complete check on anyone in Russia with this database. Adjusted for household income, it is approx 500$ here.

Council, 500$ for a complete personal profile is what WILL happen when we allow information like that to be collected, even for the good.

Russia has the same safeguards as America does. We, Russians, do have a constitution, promising freedom of speech, freedom to protest, freedom to express ourselves. Over years, that freedom has been slowly eroded away, and such technology has been monumental in this process.

Now, I wasn’t born here and some may say it doesn’t matter what I think. But its not just me. President Lincoln did say in 1883: “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

And Russia is actively destroying itself. Tools like that allowed the non efficient, fraudulently elected officials silence the critics, control the narrative and push the country into poverty and worldwide isolation. Panopticons like that are what is being created with small steps like Flock cameras, offering not only online control, but offline direct surveillance with no warrant, reason, oversight.

Council, availability of this technology is a big risk. We heard and will hear about numerous cases of abuse, and I do have a sinking feeling that it will become worse. It will not get better.

Council, I don’t think Longmont should take this risk, and I respectfully ask to cancel the contract and not extend it anymore.

Pavel  Ivanof, Bizarre Electronics

The post Letter to the Editor: Longmont Rejects Flock, Moves to Halt Data Sharing appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

The post Letter to the Editor: Boulder Needs to Wake Up Before It’s Too Late appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices

Let’s stand up for affordable housing in Louisville 

Are Louisville city leaders and developers aware of what a well-balanced, socioeconomically diverse community looks like? Do they want to inundate our town with the  super elite? Are they concerned at all about our teachers, policemen, nurses, and firefighters  who deserve to live here?  

The city of Louisville is planning to rezone large parcels from commercial to residential (Redtail Ridge and McCaslin Corridor). If this happens, developers will build thousands of new housing units. Will those new units be affordable to most people who live and work in Louisville? Highly unlikely. Case in point: the least expensive  townhouse in the new East Street Village is priced at $1.175 million. Louisville is a desirable  place to live; developers can build and sell very expensive luxury properties. Ballot measure  300 will require developers to include 30% affordable housing in these rezoned areas. 

Opponents say that developers can’t meet the 30% threshold, so they won’t build any housing  at all. Ballot question 300 doesn’t require deep affordability, just affordability for regular working  families. To qualify, you’ll have to earn 80% of the area median income. A family of four would  qualify if they earn $120,480 a year; their mortgage would be a monthly payment of  approximately $3,000. If developers can’t build homes for them, who are they building for? 

Also, let’s remember that there are plenty of opportunities to build housing in Louisville on land  that’s currently zoned residential. This measure only applies to rezoned land, not to the whole  city. 

In 2021, Louisville passed an ordinance requiring residential developments to include 12%  affordable housing. However, since this ordinance was passed, no affordable housing has been  built. Instead, developers opt to pay a fee in lieu of $9.24/sq. ft. With today’s high cost to build,  the paltry fee is great for developers but will do little to bring any affordable housing to  Louisville. 

Opponents say that Ballot Measure 300 “will likely cancel affordable housing projects in the pipeline” at the McCaslin corridor and Redtail Ridge. There are no affordable housing projects in the pipeline in these areas. 

That’s why ballot measure 300 has been presented; to ensure some affordable housing is included. Without ballot question 300, developers will be free to build only market-rate and high-profit luxury units. 

Vote Yes on 300 for a community that will help Louisville meet the housing needs of regular, hard-working families. Let’s build a future for our city that is judiciously planned for diversified housing that includes more than just the super rich. 

Janette Kotichas 

Registered Agent 

Ballot questions 300 & 301 

Louisville

The post Letter to the Editor: Let’s stand up for affordable housing appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices

Louisville Chamber of Commerce (10/22/25)

Connect. Advocate. Promote.

Why We Oppose the Ballot Measures 300/301

The Louisville Chamber stands in opposition to ballot measures 300/301 because they would have serious unintended consequences for our city’s affordability, business community, and economic vitality.

While well-intentioned, these proposals would make it harder—not easier—to build affordable housing, raise development costs, and discourage new investment in our local business community. By slowing responsible growth and adding costly new regulations, they would hurt the small businesses and service providers that depend on a vibrant, expanding local economy.

Importantly, the Chamber is not alone in this view. The entire Louisville City Council, along with AdventHealth Avista Hospital, Flatirons Habitat for Humanity, the Downtown Business Association, the Sierra Club, Thistle Community Housing, Together Colorado, and YIMBY North Metro. In addition, numerous community and business leaders have voiced strong opposition to these measures because they recognize the long-term harm they would cause to affordability and opportunity.

Louisville’s success has always come from collaboration, not mandates. We believe in policies that expand opportunity for all: creating homes people can afford, spaces where businesses can thrive, and a strong, sustainable local economy that benefits everyone.

“These measures may sound appealing on the surface, but they would hurt the small businesses that make Louisville thrive, raise costs on employers, and halt affordable housing. We stand with the City Council, AdventHealth Avista Hospital, Flatirons Habitat for Humanity, the Sierra Club, and other business and community leaders in opposing 300/301.”

— Gillian Millar, Executive Director, Louisville Chamber of Commerce

We urge residents to learn more and join us in voting “No on 300/301” to keep Louisville growing responsibly, affordably, and inclusively.

(Learn more at louisvilletogether.org)

If interested in supporting our advocacy efforts please swing by to collect flyers and yard signs from the Chamber at 901 Main Street: Tue – Thur (9:30 – 4:30)

MORE INFO:

Advocacy Brief: Chamber Position on 2025 Ballot Measures

The Louisville Chamber of Commerce opposes Ballot Measures 300/301 for the following reasons:

1. They would stall affordable housing projects.

The 30% affordability mandate is among the highest in the nation and would make most projects financially unfeasible. Instead of increasing affordable units, it risks eliminating them altogether—worsening the housing shortage and pushing families, seniors, and workers out of Louisville.

2. They would raise development costs and reduce investment.

The “Development Pays Its Own Way” proposal would dramatically increase fees on new projects. These added costs discourage both commercial and mixed-use development and shift growth to neighboring cities, making Louisville less competitive and reducing future tax revenues.

3. They create a ripple effect that hurts local businesses.

When development slows, so does demand for local services—from contractors and realtors to restaurants, retailers, and professional firms. Reduced business investment means fewer customers, less foot traffic, and lower sales tax revenue that supports essential city services.

4. They undermine years of community planning and collaboration.

The measures bypass extensive public planning work and add rigid mandates without council support or feasibility studies. Louisville already has a balanced, community-driven Comprehensive Plan designed to grow housing and business opportunity together.

5. We stand with Louisville’s leaders and community partners.

The Chamber joins the Louisville City Council, affordable housing experts, nonprofit partners, and a broad coalition of residents and employers who all oppose these measures. This shared opposition reflects a unified concern that the initiatives would do lasting harm to housing affordability, economic growth, and community balance.

The Chamber’s Position:

We respectfully urge a “No on 300/301” vote to protect affordability, business vitality, and the long-term health of our local economy. We support solutions that grow jobs, housing, and opportunity together — not ordinances that restrict development and make living here more expensive.

The post Letter to the Editor: Why We Oppose 300 and 301 appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices

I posted this in response to Shavonne’s post on Facebook and comments to me via FB messenger.

I’ll also write to the editorial board. I think their process of vetting so many candidates (84 this year) is too ambitious, and it led to mistakes and retractions for at least 2 Broomfield elections. Not true investigative reporting, but rather snap impressions and judgments. Broomfield candidates have to file by Aug. 25 to be included in the election, and then the city posts the candidates after that. In our case, one candidate withdrew shortly before the deadline. If YS continues to endorse our candidates, please investigate more thoroughly after the city posts the final candidates. The reporters’ fact-checking is lacking, and they could do a better job organizing and writing their articles.

The post Letter to the Editor: Candidate Endorsements appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Letter to the Editor

Submitted by Ben Eckert, Boulder, CO

Thoughts on Boulder Council member Mark Wallach’s condemnation of Adams and his 8/14/25 guest opinion in the Daily Camera. A condensed version of this essay was submitted multiple times to the Daily Camera. No response was ever received.

There are times when a man must stand on his principles no matter the cost. When appeasement and politeness become cowardice. For Boulder Council member Mark Wallach, that time is not when Israel drops 2,000-pound bombs on refugee camps (2000-Pound Bombs Likely Used in Al-Mawasi Strike). It’s not when children must endure an amputation without anesthesia (Gaza doctors: ‘We leave patients to scream for hours and hours’ – BBC), because Israel refused entry of medical aid.  It’s not when a Palestinian man with Down syndrome is mauled by an IDF attack dog and left to die, his decomposing body found a week later by his family (Gaza man with Down’s syndrome attacked by IDF dog and left … – BBC),  And it’s certainly not when a starving five-year-old child, after hiking 12 km barefoot, kisses the hand of a former American Green Beret thanking him for the scraps of food he found on the ground, only to be shot in the head moments later by the IDF (GHF whistleblower says boy killed by Israel just after he collected aid).

No, Mark’s moment of courage is to condemn the only council member who has spoken out against these atrocities. He and the rest of the council, with the exception of Adams, insist it’s inappropriate to take a stand on these “nuanced” international affairs. They claim this is antisemitic. I would love to inquire what it is about Jewish identity that necessitates unconditional support for Israeli war crimes?  This assumption sounds more like antisemitism to me. (Straight Talk on the Charge of Jewish Disloyalty – ADL)

Mark and his colleagues objected to comparing the Holocaust with the European colonial conquest of the Americas which resulted in the near total extermination of the indigenous population, particularly in what is now the USA and Canada. Their objection claims this comparison diminishes the suffering of both. He equated Adams’ actions to a white member using the N-word. The arrogance of whitesplaining racism to a Black woman is startling, but if comparing genocides is so offensive, why accuse her only of antisemitism and not also of racism against Indigenous Americans?

The answer seems clear: he was offended that a Black woman dared compare the suffering of Indigenous Americans to white Europeans. This is not isolated—it reflects a larger phenomenon known as Holocaust exceptionalism, the belief that the Holocaust is uniquely egregious and incomparable, and that antisemitism is a uniquely heinous form of discrimination. But the Holocaust, like every genocide, is unique in its own way, and antisemitism is not inherently more egregious than other forms of racism.

Outside of a political Zionist framework, among scholars this debate has largely been settled.  Infact to be a genocide scholar is to compare genocides. All genocides occur in unique political contexts, but genocide is a process” (Genocide Is a Process, Not an Event” by Sheri P. Rosenberg) not a spontaneous random event.  There are commonality in this process, and if we are at all concerned with preventing genocides, it is crucial to understand them.  This is how scholars have been able to warn about the possibility of genocide in the Gaza Strip since at least 2009 (https://web.archive.org/web/20240118234838/https://www.countercurrents.org/boyle281209.htm). History may not repeat but it does rhyme.  Please dont take my word for it:

“There are important links between colonial genocide and the Holocaust, as well as meaningful conceptual gains to be made by thinking of the Holocaust in terms of comparative genocide.”
—Dan Stone, The Holocaust and its Historiography in The Historiography of Genocide (Palgrave Macmillan, 2008)

“To what lengths Jewish historians, educators, and politicians go to remind us over and over of the difference between the destruction of the Jews of Europe and all other types of disasters, misfortunes, and mass murders. Biafra was only hunger; Cambodia was only civil war; the destruction of the Kurds was not systematic; death in the Gulag lacked national identification marks.”
—Adi Ophir, Professor Emeritus, Tel Aviv University

“Having internalized certain views of the enemy—the Bolsheviks as Untermenschen; Hamas as human animals—and of the wider population as less than human and undeserving of rights, soldiers observing or perpetrating atrocities tend to ascribe them not to their own military, or to themselves, but to the enemy.”
—Omer Bartov, John P. Birkelund Distinguished Professor of European History, Brown University, and former IDF soldier

Mark calls it absurd to suggest race played a role in his alignment with 7 of his colleagues to condemn the lone black voice.  If so, will he also condemn the “antisemitism” of these Jewish Israeli scholars that also compare the Holocaust to other genocides, including Israels genocide in Gaza? I wont hold my breath because what’s truly absurd is pretending this has nothing to do with race and white supremacy.  I believe Mark when he says its nothing personal against Adams as a black woman, but he fails to understand that racism  is more than individual prejudice.  White supramacy is a system. 

Antisemitism today in America is real and on the rise, but it is not systemic in the way anti-Black racism, anti-Latino racism, and Islamophobia is.   Antisemitism used to be systemic, it was the Nuremberg Laws, it was Kristallnadt.  It was pogroms and systemic violence. However in 2025 America Jews, at least those of European descent, enjoy white privilege. (Congress is now 3 times more Jewish than the United States as a … 2020 Pew Study | Jewish Together) Today antisemitism is individual interpersonal prejudice—slurs, harassment, or occasional violence—which is unacceptable and should be opposed but it is not  the systemic oppression faced daily by communities of color. 

A hallmark of a supremacist system is elevating the feelings of those in the privileged group over the lives of those who are not. For Mark and his colleagues, Jewish feelings—at least those Jews they agree with—outweigh other Americans rights and worse Palestinian lives. That is racism and white/Jewish supremacy. 

Mark justifies his actions by citing a “traumatized Jewish community.” Yet Jews are not a monolith. An ever increasing amount of Jews are horrified by Israel’s actions. (One-third of Jewish-American teens say they ‘sympathise’ with)  Jews make up a disproportionate amount of those demanding an end to Israels actions. (Jewish activists arrested during Gaza war protest in US Congress) Many Jews understand all to well that by weaponizing  antisemitism to silence dissent and making Jews the only protected minority, as the anti “woke” and anti DEI Trump administration is doing (Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Takes Forceful and), then you are effectively making them the face of power.  The rise of antisemitism is not just from Israels actions, its also from politicians who are privileging Jewish feelings above the rights of others.  How does Mark and council not understand this?

Many constituents of the councils are equally traumatized, having spent 23 months watching atrocities against defenseless children. When asked to take a stand, Mark’s response is, “we can’t solve this, and we weren’t elected for our opinions on this.”  Does he expect to solve antisemitism with this condemnation and who was asking him to solve the Israel/Palestine conflict?  This is just cowardice. The council speaks on matters they weren’t specifically elected for and can not solve all the time. One such example is to condemn the one member who had the moral clarity to speak out against a genocide. 

I think Mark and his colleagues have their priorities backwards.  Mark says they saw Antisemitism and they called foul and that is leadership.  Allow me to just slightly tweek Marks own words to show him and all but one of his colleagues what leadership actually is.  

There is a line where genocide is real, that line has long since been crossed.  It is not a failure of leadership to say this out loud, its precisely what leadship is because there are those rare times when principle requires one to speak up in opposition to conduct that is simply wrong.  This is one of those occasions, and that is…. what Adams alone did.

  Forgive me for the lack of empathy I feel towards our political elites’ frustration that constituents are demanding moral clarity on what they think is just another war iin another hemisphere, but there is a reason the Gaza genocide is the moral litmus test of our time. (“This is not just about Gaza — it is about the future of international)

The suffering that has been inflicted upon 2.3 million Palestinians, half of whom are children, using American supplied weapons, is one of the worst atrocities in modern history.  Children are intentionally being starved to death by the largest recipient of American foreign aid. (New testimonies reveal Israel’s starvation of Palestinians in Gaza is)  A near consensus among genocide scholars, experts in international humanitarian law, human rights organizations globally, in America, and in Israel has been reached (Leading genocide scholars organization says Israel is committing).  Israel is committing a genocide in the Gaza strip.  Genocide is the crime of crimes.  Nothing can justify it.  Even if Israels egregious racist depictions of Palestinians were true, and that all the atrocity propaganda about beheaded babies and mass rape and human sheilds was acurate, (Kibbutz Be’eri on New York Times Sexual Assault Story – The Intercept Israel’s use of human shields in Gaza is widespread, sources say Joe Biden Keeps Repeating His False Claim That He Saw Pictures) It still does not justify genocide.  Not even another genocide justifys a genocide.  This is not complicated and the fact we all cant agree on at least this is incredibly disheartening.  

Anything other than unconditional opposition to this crime is wholly unacceptable and morally reprehensible.  Denying the Gaza genocide is equally as deplorable as holocaust denial, and perhaps worse because this one is ongoing!   All the attempts at victim blaming and justifying this crime is akin to holding Jewish partisans during the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising responsible for the Nazi liquidation of the Ghetto.  It is Akin to holding the indigenous Americans responsible for their own destruction thanks to their victory at the Battle of Little Bighorn. It is to believe Nat Turner was responsible for all the deaths that occurred during his rebellion..  

Numerous experts of international law have stated South Africa’s case at the ICJ is the strongest case for genocide in the courts history (Expert calls South Africa’s ICJ case against Israel ‘strongest … Is Israel committing genocide in Gaza? We asked 5 legal and).  Israel proudly told the world exactly what they intended to do in Gaza, and then they did it (A Registry of Israeli Genocidal Statements on Gaza – Al-Haq). Hundreds and hundreds of genocidal statements from the highest levels of the Israeli government, military, media and civil society, right on down the hierarchy in the government and the military.  Rank and file members of the IDF openly  filming war crime after war crime and sharing it with pride on social media. 23 months of daily atrocities broadcast globally in real time. (Why are Israeli soldiers sharing snuff videos from their genocide in)

No crime in human history has been so thoroughly documented in real time by both its victims and perpetrators (Amnesty: Why we called Gaza ‘the most documented genocide in). Truly the first and god willing the only livestreamed genocide.Its often said that this conflict is too complicated to understand.  This is an excuse. This conflict is only complicated in that there is a lot of history that has occurred, but one does not need to know any of it. There is the occupier and the occupied, the oppressor and the oppressed (The Gaza Strip | The humanitarian impact of 15 years of blockade), those who perpetuate genocide and victims to genocide.  I understand the resistance to such a simple black and white understanding, but there is not two sides to genocide. The Palestinians are not perfect victims, a trait they share with all victims to genocide, including the Jews of Europe, but this does not mean they are not victims (Stern Gang | Jewish Resistance, Irgun & Terrorism – Britannica). The Nazis also spoke of “security concerns” which we all recognize justifies none of their crimes (Nazi Propaganda | Holocaust Encyclopedia).  Its no different when Israel does it.  There is no more excuses to not know.  There is no more ways to justify this.  Anyone still unable to unequivocally and unconditionally condemn Israels genocide in Gaza is a racist morally reprehensible monster or is willfully blind.  We must not accept either especially from our elected leaders.

Id like to believe we are better than this.  I once did, perhaps foolishly, but I believed there were certain lessons our species had finally figured out.  That despite the flaws of the international system I thought it would stop this. We have failed the people of Palestine.  Our failure is evident by the disarticulated eviscerated remains of the tens of thousands buried under Trumps future “riviera” and in the emaciated bodies or missing limbs of small children. (U.S.-run ‘Gaza Riviera’: Post-war redevelopment plan sees … – CNBC)  Never again must mean never again for all and never again is indeed now.  Israel is telling the world the west bank is next (Far-right Israeli Minister Calls for West Bank Annexation).  Will we act this time? 

Free Palestine! Inshalla! 

The post Letter to the Editor: Response to Mark Wallach Op-Ed appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices

I attended the Erie Town Council meeting on 8/26, and I just watched the video replay of last night—and wow, do I have some observations to share.

I watched Andrew Moore and Brandon Bell and their tag team of disrespect towards Councilwoman Baer. Their words and actions were shameful, reprehensible, and—to use a buzzword that will hopefully get your knickers twisted—deplorable. It is quite clear that neither one of them has any respect for her, not because of her positions, but purely because of her gender. The two of them should be ashamed. I understand that in order to feel shame, one must have the capacity to think of someone other than themselves, and it is abundantly clear that the two of them need a lot of help in that arena.

Now, I’m sure that both of them (and likely others) think that I’m overreacting and will vigorously defend themselves and exclaim, “What do you mean, I treat women equally and fairly!” My gut tells me that if we were to ask the women in their lives, they would have different thoughts. If this is how they treat an elected councilwoman in public while being recorded, I can only imagine how they treat women when nobody is watching. We also saw how the Mayor’s wife attempted to bully two Erie residents after the meeting in June, so I have a pretty good idea of what passes for respect in the Moore household.

I could go on at length about the double talk and double standards regarding the flag policy, but it is evident that neither of them sees this as an issue of inclusion. They see it as an opportunity to disguise their prejudices as policy. Between Bell’s grandstanding and Andrew’s condescension toward Councilwoman Baer, Councilman Pesaramelli, and even the town clerk—whom he chastised for not calling on members in the order that he prefers—I don’t know which of them deserves more scorn. We absolutely don’t see eye to eye on what defines inclusion and equality, but here’s what I heard last night in summary: by offering inclusion and equality to protected classes, we are somehow making things unequal for the classes that require no protection. In other words, showing support to anything other than straight, white males somehow chips away at the bedrock of toxic male fragility—and that’s bad, somehow.

Brian O’Connor thinks the military deserves more recognition, and he made some weird argument about people with disabilities not feeling included. Brandon brought up anti-Semitism and flying the Israeli flag, shedding crocodile tears for the poor Israelis who are murdering Palestinians and how traumatizing it must be for that group of people carrying out and supporting genocide in Gaza. Talk about picking the wrong example. I guess somewhere between attending a MAGA rally last year and today, Tantrum Bell must have forgotten that there’s a thin line between today’s MAGA Republican and the actual Nazis who have been marching and chanting “Jews will not replace us” with increasing frequency all across our country—and that thin line is often seen under a red hat.

I shared in comment that Erie is not a MAGA stronghold and made mention of Project 2025. I am proud that my comments really got Andrew and Brandon worked up and vehemently denying their association or support of that movement. It reminded me of that saying, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Brandon attended a MAGA rally last year and bragged about it on social media. Andrew stated last night that he left the Republican Party in 2017, yet he sent out a robotext during the campaign saying Erie didn’t have conservative representation in the mayoral election. He said he leans left on many issues but that he agrees with “fiscal conservative” ideals, while somehow ignoring that he spent seventy thousand dollars of town money to fulfill some selfish need for the community to affirm his biases in the comprehensive survey. That is not fiscally conservative at all.

This is where a good letter to the editor would add a call to action, a request for decency, a path toward a solution. Well, that only works when you’re dealing with individuals who actually seek a solution. The two of them don’t seek solutions; they instead choose to live in the problem—both real and imagined—and for that I truly feel bad for them, and for Erie as a whole.

Sincerely,
Skylar Weitzel
20-year Erie resident

Erie Town Councilperson Brandon Bell replies to resident Skylar Weitzel as well as all council members.

The post Letter to the Editor: Erie Town Council 8/26/25: Erie Deserves Better Than Toxic Male Fragility appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices

Date: Wed, Aug 27, 2025 at 3:15?PM
Subject: Request for Respect, Inclusion, and Action
To: <council@erieco.gov>
CC: <hr@erieco.gov>, <ddei@erieco.gov>

Dear Mayor Moore and Council Members,

After watching the recording of your meeting in full today, I came away deeply troubled by what I saw. I have lived in Erie for six years and served on the Home Rule Commission because I believe in the strength of this community and its ability to lead with fairness and vision. What I witnessed instead was a pattern of disregard for both process and people that does not reflect the inclusive values our town should embody.

The exchange involving Council Member Emily Baer (1:43:35) was especially concerning. To be honest, it made me nauseous. Her motion being blatantly dismissed and her voice minimized on Women’s Equality Day of all days was truly abhorrent. Rules of order are meant to guide discussion, not to silence elected representatives. I am asking the Council to commit to a higher standard of respect in deliberations, and to consider using a facilitator or neutral mediator so that important conversations do not devolve into power struggles behind closed doors.

I was also disappointed by the way the flag policy was handled. (43:44)  The choice to limit discussion to one option and to dismiss the possibility of recognizing groups through a local proclamation violated the opportunity for meaningful compromise. Erie should be a place where diverse communities, including LGBTQ+ residents, feel supported and represented. Ignoring alternative approaches sends the opposite message.

Councilmember Anil Pesaramelli exiting Erie Town Council meeting, August 26, 2025

Councilmember Emily Baer exiting Erie Town Council meeting, August 26, 2025

Finally, I want to be direct with those who voted against inclusion. Words about caring for “all people” in Erie lose their authenticity when they are not matched with action. As a resident, I ask you to show commitment through concrete steps: for example, allocating part of the (Erie) Chamber’s funding to initiatives that attract diverse business owners to Erie, or ensuring the EEDC incorporates equity and representation in its work. These are actionable ways to move beyond statements and demonstrate real support for marginalized communities.

I care deeply about Erie and its future. I hope each of you will take these concerns seriously and use your positions to strengthen, not weaken, our culture of respect, inclusion, and accountability.

Sincerely,

Chelsea C.
Erie, CO
Former Home Rule Commissioner

The post Letter to the Editor: Request for Respect, Inclusion, and Action: Town of Erie Council Meeting appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine. As with all Letters to the Editor, the views expressed are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the publication. We value providing space for community voices

Dear Editor,

Recently, Denver Mayor Mike Johnston has supported Denver International Airport’s (DIA) director, Jeffrey Kruse’s idea of putting Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) at DIA to make the airport energy more self-sufficient. To my mind, this reads as a ridiculous notion  that would not only set the stage for potential disaster in the event of a crash but would also make it a tempting target for terrorists, among other things.

Consequently, I made the following post on Facebook to encourage people to raise their voices in opposition to the same way they did when Gov. Polis proposed his ridiculous bridge project. We have seen that when we stand together and raise our voices, we can make a difference, and I hope others will raise their voices to oppose this ill-conceived idea when we have much better, safer, and less costly solutions right in front of us

Most of the responses to that post were positive and supportive however, a question posed by one person who responded really stood out to me :

‘What are you afraid of? Nuclear power is nothing to be afraid of.’

My response pointed out that natural gas isn’t particularly harmful when used to generate energy, but the process of extracting natural gas in the first place is harmful enough to outweigh the benefits of how much cleaner it might burn.

Photo from ELG21 from Pixabay

Any clue what the environmental harms are from the extraction and processing of the ores? Any idea when we “might” have an actual clue what to do with the spent waste? Any idea how extraordinarily expensive it is compared to any and every other source of energy? There’s that before we even get to the point where, if we were to start spreading SMRs all over the country, we would be creating hundreds, if not thousands, of potential targets for domestic or foreign terrorists looking to either make a dirty bomb or turn an SMR into a dirty bomb right where it sits.

Then there is the simple fact that if you actually follow the science (and the economics) on wind and  solar, or the considerable advances in battery technology being rolled out quite successfully, there are better alternatives.

California, with the 4th largest economy in the world, is currently producing 40% of its energy using solar. During the daytime, they overproduce energy and can store that excess energy for nighttime usage. Likewise, Texas, rather than going nuclear, has invested more in solar, wind, and batteries than any other state in the country. If even Texas and California are on the same page, nuclear fans should take notice.

I’m not as much afraid of nuclear power as all the harms surrounding it, its expense, and the fact that there is little chance that we can even roll it out  fast enough.

It should be pretty obvious to anyone who takes the time to look at the science and the actual physical evidence growing all around us that solar and wind power, in conjunction with the latest battery developments, is the way forward in the short term, with an eye towards perhaps “clean/green) hydrogen power as part of the mix in the longer term.

Sincerely,

Ron Booth
Westminster, CO

The post Letter to the Editor: Denver Deserves Safer and Cheaper Energy Than Nuclear Reactors appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

The post Letter to the Editor: Reckoning With the Real ‘Unspeakable’ Violence Against Jews appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine and included the entire Town of Erie council and town staff. 

To the Editor:

As Erie reviews its community survey results, I’m concerned the Town is headed toward rewriting our Transportation Mobility Plan (TMP) in response to short-term frustrations — especially to justify the County Line Road extension, a project that isn’t even in the current plan.

It appears a majority on the Board — including Mayor Moore and several trustees facing re-election — are preparing to modify the TMP to prioritize traffic relief over safety, fiscal responsibility, and access for all. The timing raises legitimate questions: is this about mobility, or about crafting a campaign win in the 2026 Council elections?

The County Line Road extension has not gone through the vetting or prioritization outlined in the TMP. It lacks a clear connection to the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Advancing it now — before any cost-benefit analysis, safety review, or multimodal impact assessment — is premature at best, and reckless at worst.

We should also be honest about the survey itself. It captures resident frustration, but it doesn’t educate respondents about tradeoffs, long-term maintenance costs, or proven traffic solutions. Using it to justify major capital projects risks turning genuine feedback into political cover for questionable decisions.

We’ve been here before. Towns across the U.S. have spent decades chasing “congestion relief” through lane expansions, only to end up with faster traffic, more dangerous roads, and bigger budgets they can’t sustain. Erie doesn’t need to repeat that pattern — especially when our current TMP offers a smarter, safer path forward.

Instead of rewriting policy to fit politics, the Town should hold a public study session on key transportation principles: induced demand, lifecycle costs, and design strategies that actually work. We should pause new TMP amendments until staff can fully evaluate their impacts. And we should invite a broader range of voices — including multimodal advocates — into the conversation about our streets.

Let’s not confuse motion with progress. Erie deserves transportation policy grounded in data, not election-year urgency.

Sincerely,

Matthew Logan

Erie Colorado Safe Streets Advocates

Erie, CO

The post Letter to the Editor: Don’t Rewrite Erie’s Mobility Plan for Politics appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

This letter was sent to Yellow Scene Magazine and included the entire Town of Erie council and town staff. 

My feelings:

I understand some of you may want to delay this for more legal review, but let’s be honest: this is a simple update. All it takes is adding a line that says if the Town issues a proclamation, the corresponding flag can be flown. That’s clear, practical, and consistent with how proclamations work.

Delaying this sends only one message: that our LGBTQIA+ neighbors—and frankly anyone who values diversity, equity, and inclusion—are not really welcome here. Whether that’s your intention or not, that is the impact.

We’ve all heard the mayor talk about inclusion. We’ve seen the council pass a Pride Month proclamation. Now I’m asking you to back that up with action. Don’t hide behind process or legal delay when what’s needed is courage.

Show that Erie’s commitment to inclusion, diversity, and equity actually means something.

Let’s make this simple change now. Actions speak louder than words.

DeWayne Drummons, Erie Resident

Town of Erie Mayor Andrew Moore and wife, Jance Moore, Erie Pride 2025

The post Letter to the Editor; Erie Pride Flag appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

My name is Skylar Weitzel and I have lived in Erie since 2004.  I didn’t know a lot about Erie’s mining or O&G history when I moved here, probably because I was too distracted by the amazing view of the front range and all the open space.  I remember seeing O&G equipment out in the middle of the open spaces on my way out to I-25, conveniently overlooking them and quickly forgetting about them after they were beyond my rearview mirror when I went back into town from the highway.

Photo: Erie Protectors

In the years since I became an Erie resident, those open spaces east of where we’re tonight have been developed with houses to the point that you can’t even see the O&G equipment from Erie Parkway anymore because homes and families with children mostly surround them.  New families with their young children play outside in the yard, running through the sprinklers in the summer, while many of them have no idea what type of potential health dangers lurk just below the surface and under their basements.

In the last week, there have been multiple town notifications for oil and gas spills in Erie. 5 wells are leaking crude oil and other contaminants into the soil. All of these recent spills are from wells that are owned and operated by Civitas, the same company that is trying to drill the longest horizontal wells under thousands of Erie residents.  As if the size of the project and length of the proposed drilling weren’t enough, they will be attempting to do this while navigating the literal subterranean minefield and the graveyard of capped and/or abandoned wells that were left to spill and leak into the soil by their previous owner before those assets were sold and resold to different O&G companies like mortgage portfolios before the housing crash in 2008.

We are in the middle of a drought in Colorado, and we don’t know how long that drought will last, but I can’t see any logical rationale for allowing the use of nearly a billion gallons of water for this project, which will then be rendered useless due to the chemicals that the fracking will permanently contaminate for residential or even agricultural use.

Photo: Erie Protectors

The Draco pad is a future environmental disaster that can still be avoided if the ECMC does the right thing and puts a stop to the catastrophe before it ever begins.  I will finish with one last thought: imagine if we had all grown up using wind, solar, and other alternative sources of energy, and someone tried to convince us that burning fossil fuels was the newest, dirtiest, and best way to power our electric grid, how crazy would that sound to us?

To get involved in oil and gas operations in Erie, reach out to Erie Protectors: https://erieprotectors.com/

The post Letter to the Editor: Draco Pad appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Dear Editor,

As the longtime owners of Crystal Springs Brewing, with locations in the Colorado Technical Center and downtown Louisville, we’ve seen firsthand how decisions by governing bodies can hurt small businesses.  We love being a part of this community, and believe it is important that we have city council representatives who help and support our residents in tandem with the needs of our local business community.  Small businesses are a large part of what makes Louisville such a wonderful place to live and visit.

That’s why we’re supporting Joshua Sroge for Louisville’s Ward I election. Mr. Sroge is an accomplished business and community leader who has lived in Louisville for over 20 years. He founded a financial and accounting firm and is currently the chief financial officer at the HBAR Foundation, which includes a $100 million clean energy and sustainability fund. He also spent seven years on EFAA’s board, including serving as the board chair.  As a longtime Louisville resident and business owner, he has the experience to be an excellent council member.

Mr. Sroge is running with a dream to create a thriving Louisville that supports all its citizens and business owners. He has a well-documented record of supporting economic development opportunities along with residential needs and desires.  He is acutely aware that home and business owners strongly support efforts to make Louisville environmentally responsible while realizing it takes time and common sense to achieve these goals.

Please vote Joshua Sroge for a vibrant and thriving Louisville.

Tom and Kristy Horst
Crystal Springs Brewing Company
657 S Taylor Ave, Unit E
Louisville, CO 80302

The post Letter to the Editor: Vote Joshua Sroge For a Vibrant and Thriving Louisville appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

screenshot, CyclErie’s mural, a cycling shop in Downtown Erie

Letter to the Editor, 

Election time can be a really stressful and frustrating time of year for people. There is so much information and discourse that it is sometimes difficult to make a decision on who to believe and what to vote for. Thursday, October 17, 2024, I sat in the gymnasium at Vista Ridge Academy at the Town of Erie Candidate Forum hosted by the League of Women Voters, listening to the potential future leaders of the Town of Erie discussing pertinent issues in the upcoming election. 

The desire to make sure our Town thrives is what inspired me to join the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC), a group of Erie citizens who were brought together to advise and give input and suggestions throughout the process of creating the new Comprehensive Plan.

While working on the PAC, we heard often and frequently that what the people of Erie (myself included) love most is the small-town feel. That is what makes it such a desirable place to live, and it has driven our growth. Half the people in Erie now in love with that small-town feel wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for the growth set in motion approximately 20-25 years ago. It was a Comprehensive Plan that promoted growth intended for a much smaller town with aspirations to be a desirable place to live. That plan was beyond successful. But with the new population came new problems: Inadequate infrastructure, insufficient services, skyrocketing housing costs, and this continued desire to still feel like a small town despite our population outpacing the towns around us. 

What I learned from being on the PAC, was that this Erie bedroom community could not sustain the growth model that was decided on before most of us even lived here. 

Bedroom communities offer a quiet life, lots of green space, and great parks and schools… but how is this typically sustained? Bedroom communities rely primarily on residential taxes to maintain services, infrastructure, and low-density housing. What does Erie do when the money generated from residential taxes can no longer sustain the growth created by an old, outdated plan that no longer fits? 

Just this month, the current Town Council in Erie, in a 4-2 vote to pass, finally approved the brand new Comprehensive Plan for our town. This plan was set in motion approximately two and a half years ago, driven by the desire to maintain a small-town feel in Erie, control the sprawling growth encouraged by the old Comprehensive Plan, and not overburden the residents. For two and a half years, groups of contractors, town employees, elected officials, volunteers, & survey respondents all contributed to this new plan to make our way of life in Erie sustainable. In this process, we learned from experts that a model where a town maintains low taxes, high services, and low density does not exist. It is impossible. To maintain our small-town feel, we needed to get creative. The Comprehensive Plan was the culmination of two and a half years of work and thousands of person-hours, all centered around maintaining our small-town feel despite the growth that was set in motion two-plus decades ago. 

As someone who worked on the comprehensive plan by volunteering my time on the PAC and meeting with Town Planners to understand the process, my frustrations arose as I witnessed a former Mayor running for reelection, Andrew Moore, making false claims that the new Comprehensive Plan was rushed. I was not surprised, but again, disappointed that Andrew Sawusch and Brandon Bell voted against approving the Comprehensive Plan, claiming there wasn’t enough involvement from the public. As part of the public, I was able to participate intimately in the development of this plan along with the rest of the PAC, and I know copious community engagement opportunities were offered. Their objections felt like a ploy to sow divisiveness and spread disinformation in our town, a town these candidates claim to want to bring together. None of these men chose to be at these meetings, be involved in this extensive process, and in the eleventh hour were calling it shady. Are these the men that we want to lead our town? The ones who ignore the process and then complain about the results? The ones who divide us with scare tactics and misinformation?

At the candidate forum, my frustration grew.

• In general, I heard candidates Andrew Moore, John Mortellaro, Andrew Sawusch, Brandon Bell, Dan Maloit, and Brian O’Connor discuss repealing/changing the newly approved Comprehensive Plan, a plan that was developed to maintain our small-town feel and increase revenue without burdening current residents while turning around and saying how important it was to maintain a small-town feel. 
• Moore, Mortellaro, Sawusch, Bell, Maloit, and O’Connor talked about decreasing taxes but did not offer a plan for how the town will collect revenue to maintain our essential services and amenities (like parks). 
• Moore, Mortellaro, Sawusch, Bell, Maloit, and O’Connor expressed how oil and gas isn’t an issue in Erie, leaning on Colorado Senate Bill 181, saying Oil and Gas operations aren’t happening in our backyards. 

It felt as if these six candidates were all reading from the same script. 

I then heard candidate Dan Maloit talking about having more snow plows (increasing services), only to turn around and talk about firing Town employees and mocking their jobs. 

With all of that, I thought to myself, these are the types of men who make people dislike politics. This rhetoric is what drives communities apart. 

(Please note that Travis Pinz was not at the forum and did not submit an opening statement. In trying to find information on his plans for Erie, my biggest takeaway is that his beliefs and goals for the town seem to align with candidates Moore, Mortellaro, Sawusch, Bell, Maloit, and O’Connor). 

At the end of the forum, I approached Candidate Andrew Moore to discuss his plans. I had addressed him several times on social media with no response regarding the misconception that a town can maintain low taxes, high services, and low density. 

When I asked about services such as maintenance and infrastructure, he mocked fellow candidate Dan Maloit about his plow plan. When I discussed taxes and how he will pay for the services to maintain the small-town feel in Erie, and if he plans on lowering taxes, he diverted the conversation, talking about how he isn’t going to lower taxes (after stating during the forum that we need to lower mills, aka taxes).  

I asked about different housing options to support our community, and he simply stated, “So I’m guessing you’re looking for affordable housing.” 

To try and get a clear answer, I asked about stances that his “slate,” Andrew Sawusch, Brandon Bell, John Mortellaro, Dan Maloit, Travis Pinz, and Brian O’Connor, were taking, and I was told that he doesn’t have a slate. This confused me because his election signs are always paired with the same six other candidates, and those candidates, including Mr. Moore, held a Meet and Greet together on Wednesday, October 16. It felt very disingenuous and dismissive. 

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

He then went on to discuss how Erie is not and will never be a community that will use bicycles and buses and that we just need to expand roads (which I know is another piece of misinformation and a fallacy as it is proven that widening roads does not reduce traffic, but instead makes it worse due to “induced demand”.) 

I then also asked why it didn’t seem like he answered the question on oil and gas. Mr. Moore told me that I needed to check his website. 

I felt like I left the conversation without a single question answered due to Mr. Moore’s question-dodging. I asked myself why he wouldn’t just answer the questions and tell the truth. As frustrated as I felt during the forum, my conversation with Mr. Moore is what pushed me to write this letter. I was finally exhausted from all the manipulation.

But even with all the manipulation, misinformation, and frustration, I did feel hope during the candidate forum. There was a group of candidates that spoke intelligently and passionately about the important issues in the Town of Erie. 

• I heard Justin Brooks talk about making sure Erie maintains its sense of community and that there is affordable housing for our seniors and workforce. 
• Emily Baer discussed how we were going to support our most vulnerable citizens and protect the interests of Erie citizens by showing up at the table where oil and gas decisions are being made. 
• Dan Hoback was passionate in developing mixed-use areas of Erie that would increase our tax base and provide much-needed different types of housing that would contribute to and enhance Erie’s small-town feel. 
• Anil Pesaramelli supported Smart and sustainable growth. 
• Ben Hemphill focused on multimodal transportation and financial sustainability. 

All these ideas were echoed within this group of candidates with a sincere focus on how we will maintain the small-town feel Erie is known for. 

(Please note that Richard Garcia was not at the forum due to a family obligation, but he did submit an opening statement stating how he is going to contribute to making Erie more inclusive by supporting affordable housing, citing that the majority of people working in Erie cannot afford to live here and stating how he will support programs and services to meet the needs of our residents. Based on his literature, his beliefs and goals for the town seem to align with candidates Brooks, Baer, Hoback, Pesaramelli, and Hemphill.) 

I also talked with Candidate Justin Brooks, the current mayor, after the forum. This conversation stood in stark contrast to the one I had with the other mayoral candidate. When I asked Mr. Brooks about his plans for taxes, he described himself as fiscally responsible and conservative, citing that as a resident of Erie, he also feels the pinch on his wallet. 

He explained that in his two years as mayor, the town has been able to increase its commercial tax base, which has allowed our town to become less reliant on residential taxes. He expressed that if he is elected again, he will continue to grow Erie’s commercial tax base to continue supporting all the services and infrastructure residents need, enjoy, and want more of. 

Additionally, he expressed the need for different types of housing, as these new business employees will need a place they can afford to live within the Town of Erie, as well as more affordable housing options for the current employees and older persons within the town who can’t afford to live here. 

Mr. Brooks’ passion and pride for the town of Erie was evident in this brief conversation. He was very attuned to the needs and desires of the residents in maintaining the small-town feel and being responsible in how we grow and how we use our money. 

He took the time to really hear me answer my questions, and to me, that showcased his dedication to the residents of Erie.  

Mayor Brooks was right when he said during the forum that it is essential that as we continue to grow responsibly, we need to maintain that small-town quality by being kind to each other, hosting and joining in on community-building events, and not planting disinformation and fear to win elections. 

I love Erie. I love the small-town feel and the sense of community here. I want a Mayor and Council members with the strength and dedication to stand up for what’s right for our town: locally, regionally, and on a state and national scale. 

This November, I will be voting for the candidates that embody those qualities and bring us together with innovative and thoughtful decision-making, not the ones trying to scare me to vote for them. 

-Lindsey Terranova

Erie, Colorado 

The post Letter to the Editor; Erie Elections 2024 appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Dear Editor,

Erie is the fastest-growing town in Colorado, and we’re on pace to more than double in the next 20 years. To ensure that we’re staying ahead of the new workers, seniors, and families moving here, it’s important that we’re fixing and building the roads and vital infrastructure that will safely enable this new growth. 

This is why I’m voting to re-elect Justin Brooks for Erie’s mayor. Under his leadership, we are benefiting from more than $100 million in new infrastructure improvements, including roads and drainage. Erie’s families are protected from Forever Chemicals and PFAs through a new water treatment facility. Sales tax revenues have increased by more than 30% in the last two years, and more than 80 new businesses and hundreds of jobs have come to town in that time. And, open space and parks have increased by 15% (up to 1500 acres). 

Justin’s priorities include growing our local economy, diversifying our housing, bringing a grocery store to central Erie, and supporting the Boulder-Erie Regional Trail (BERT). This is leadership that works for Erie, and he’s earned my support. 

Sincerely, 

Bill Rigler

Erie, Colorado

The post Letter to the Editor: Re-Elect Justin Brooks appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

By: Kenneth Flowe

As a 10-year-plus resident of Boulder, I have looked on at local politics and have been impressed. The Boulder County Democratic Party (BCDP) has operated like a well-oiled progressive machine. It values diversity, encourages participation and cultivates candidates. A community member with a command of the issues and a passion for progressive ideals can find a home in the BCDP.

When Edie Hooten left office, the BCDP tapped Junie Joseph to take her position. She was a first-term member of the City Council with a reputation for diving right in. She has represented the City of Boulder both within the state and nationally. Always available for town hall meetings and coffee with constituents, Junie conducted herself as the type of representative that Boulder longed for: well-educated, hardworking and accessible.

Junie was chosen during the Dem Party vacancy because she was a competent public policy practitioner with a proven track record of valuing Democratic ideals and a passion for getting the job done. This worked out fantastic. In her new position as a state representative for District 10, Junie enacted progressive legislation such as HB23-1120 Eviction Protections for Residential Tenants, and HB23-1027: Parent And Child Family Time, and HB23-1280: expanding access, quality and fairness in the justice system, just to name a few.

Representative Joseph did an outstanding job. Typically, freshman legislators have an abysmal success rate when it comes to getting legislation introduced and turned into law. But not Junie Joseph. Of the 20 or 21 bills she sponsored in the State Assembly, 19 have been signed into law. Each bill is more progressive than the next. Proving, in fact, that she was ready, willing, and able to take on the job of State Representative. It turns out the BCDP had made a great choice when they encouraged her to pursue the seat. So, what happened, what changed?

Rep. Junie Joseph

It has become apparent, to my understanding, that the Boulder County Democratic Party has decided to run a different candidate for the 2024 election. It may not have been explicitly stated, but it has been made apparent through party leadership’s endorsement of Joseph’s opponent. But endorsements are only one indicator of the lack of support given to Junie. During the Labor Day Parade, her opponent was positioned snugly tight with the BOCO Dem Banner, while Representative Joseph, the incumbent, was relegated to the back.

So, it is clear to me that rather than nurturing the diversity and inclusion that we strive for in Boulder County and empowering a legislator who brought millions of dollars in tax incentives designed to decarbonize the state of Colorado, the BCDP Leadership has been silent with regard to how they see Junie’s contributions to the Democratic cause.

This whole thing smacks of hypocrisy. On one hand, Democrats proudly tout the banner of diversity and then when an opportunity exists to support a highly competent and effective African-American woman, efforts to undercut her progress are made. With Democrats like this, who needs Republicans? It serves as a reminder that you can only get so far if you are not from a certain demographic, or connected with a certain group of friends. I wonder what measures Junie has or has not supported that have been “off brand” for the BOCO Dems.

When Republicans ask why African-Americans toss their support for Democrats in return for zero support when it is really needed, I tend to tell them that the Democrats stand for diversity, stand for equality, stand for inclusion, but most of all stand by their words.

Boulder Democrats can and should do better than this. We have a responsibility to place action behind our rhetoric. We aspire to broaden the tent for participants of various backgrounds, and in Junie Joseph, we have done so. In the process, there has been no compromise with regard to competence, stick-to-it-ness or progressive policy. All of her actions as a representative have been right “on brand” with the stated goals and values of the Boulder County Democratic Party, so why change candidates now? I, for one, call on the BCDP leadership to issue a full-throated endorsement of Junie Joseph for the House of Representatives of District 10.

The post BOCO Dems Could Do Better | Community Corner appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

Letter to the Editor, by Evan Ravitz

Boulder City Council has been working as one of 3 cities with the National Civic League on the “Better Public Meetings Project.”  (See the attached document), which just came in from the city “hotline” email list from Council members Matt Benjamin and Tara Winer. In the Executive Summary, it says:

In brief, our recommendations include:

Replacing the open public comment segment at council meetings with an open deliberative process and rotate council meetings among different locations in Boulder

Upgrading the city’s digital engagement capacity in one or both of two ways:

• Use a texting-enabled engagement process to encourage, facilitate, and aggregate small-group deliberation before, during, and after council meetings AND/OR change the way the city does surveys: avoid ‘survey fatigue’ and create a more continuous, flexible, trust-building public opinion capacity by creating a large, standing survey panel
• Establishing engagement opportunities that inform and are informed by the annual council retreat, including more intensive efforts such as a Citizen’s Assembly on a particularly critical priority
• Upgrading the community infrastructure for engagement by creating supports for productive dialogue on timely issues in a range of settings
• Upgrading the skills for engagement by training council members and other Boulder engagement leaders to use those supports

Further on, it says:

1. The new deliberative segments at council meetings should use the following format:
2. Participants are sorted randomly into groups of 4-8 as they arrive
3. Council members and staff join groups (no more than one council member per group in order to comply with open meetings law)
4. Topics are determined beforehand and included in all descriptions/promotion of the meeting

a. Topics can include more general questions as well as items on the agenda

12

b. However, quasi-judicial items cannot be included in this segment – public comment on

those items must continue to be conducted pursuant to Chapters 1-3, Quasi-Judicial

Hearings, B.R.C. 1981.

c. “Potential future council agenda items” should always be listed on the agenda

D. Each group has a facilitator, trained beforehand (in addition to city staff, these could be

Community Connectors or other Boulder engagement leaders, see below), whose job is to:

a. Help the group set ground rules

b. Ensure that everyone has a chance to speak

c. Help manage the time

d. Introduce any discussion questions that have been provided

e. Help the group decide who will report out from their conversation OR help the group use the digital reporting process (see below)

E. The group discusses other topics first, then potential future Council agenda items in the last part of the discussion

F. Results of the small groups are shared, and entered in the public record, in one of two ways:

a. Reporter from each group summarizes the discussion OR

b. Participants give their comments/answers via live polling, and results are displayed on a big screen

c. As part of the live polling or through a question on the Engagement Scorecard, participants vote on which potential future agenda items should be prioritized/recommended for the council

G. At the end of the hour, the mayor thanks participants for their time and ideas and explains that council members will use the results in their deliberations and consider the potential agenda items for future meetings. According to the charter, the mayor can also request that staff follow up with questions that emerged during the session, and ask members of the public to give a one-minute clarification.

H. For particularly important and challenging issues, the Council can consider using more intensive deliberative discussions, including:

a. Study Sessions with opportunities for public participation (allowable upon the recommendation of the Chair, as per rules of procedure)

b. Special Sessions, upon the recommendation of the Chair (allowable upon the recommendation of the Chair, as per rules of procedure)

I was there in 2017 when the Council, after a public hearing with unanimous testimony against it, unanimously voted to reduce Open Comment from 3 minutes to 2 minutes.

A year or so ago, I learned from the websites or calls to City Managers’ offices of all Colorado cities larger than Boulder that their Open Comment periods were:

Denver: 3 minutes each

Colo. Spgs: 3 

Aurora: 3

Ft. Collins: 3

Lakewood: 3

Thornton: 3

Arvada: 3

Westminster: 5

Pueblo: 5

Greeley: 3

Boulder: 2

Breaking us up into small groups and pre-determining the agendas are classic manipulations. I am no expert and haven’t examined the rest of the Project, but I want people to know ASAP what is planned. The important things in government, as in life, don’t fit into anyone’s, let alone politicians’ pre-determined plans and processes. Thus, most government bodies, like the council and their boards and commissions, have Open Comment periods. Please let your networks know about this…

At the end of the hotline is an invitation:

We hope community members join the City of Boulder and our National Civic League partners for a ‘Public Meetings & Community Priorities’ engagement session focusing on the 2024 NCL Center for Democracy Innovation Better Public Meetings report for the city and diving deeper into findings from the city’s 2023 Community Survey.                      

Wednesday, February 21, 5:30-7:30 pm                    

Open Space & Mountain Parks – at 2520 55th Street, Boulder 80301

Light refreshments provided

Please RSVP to hanschenr@bouldercolorado.gov

 —

Evan Ravitz, Guide, Photographer, Writer, Editor

Founder, Strengthen Direct Democracy

We won the 1st ONLINE petitioning for direct democracy:

petitions.bouldercolorado.gov

The post Boulder Council wants to eliminate Open Comment entirely -it’s already the shortest (2 min.) of all large Colo. cities, which are otherwise 3 or 5 minutes appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.

The latest violence from Kansas City reminded me of the words from Wayne LaPierre, former CEO of the NRA, that the solution to a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.

The bloodied sidewalks of Kansas City’s Union Station stand as a rebuttal to LaPierre’s argument. In Kansas City, a permit is required for open-carry, but no permit is required for concealed carry.  If the Responsible Gun Owner was present at the parade, their presence did not deter the shooters, and apparently did not stop it before two dozen or more had been shot.

This Valentine’s Day massacre is not to be confused with the mass shooting at Stoneman Douglas High six years ago, or the mass shooting at Northern Illinois University sixteen years ago that killed five people. The murders of seven mob members in Chicago in 1929, the original Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre, seems quaint now, and few remember it. Mass shootings are so common that days of the year are not specific enough to commemorate them.

The suggestion that more guns is the answer to gun violence prompts another question: is this the best we can do, as Americans? We are the only country that experiences mass shootings on a daily basis (over 600 last year!)  To suggest more guns as the answer is to say that we must go to work, to church, to public celebrations, expecting carnage. The horror of realizing those pops are not fireworks, the screams, the stampeding crowds blind panicked sprint for cover, this is all to be taken for granted. The only hope is to become a gun owner yourself, and go out into the world ready to use it.

As I’ve written before, in the name of freedom, we have all become conscripts in a war. Is this the free society I have heard so much about?

The post So Much For Good Guys With Guns appeared first on Yellow Scene Magazine.