Plan could have negative impact on 2 historic districts
Re: “Larimer Square makes list of endangered historic places,” June 26 news story
I was dismayed to learn of the Larimer Square proposal to build high rise buildings within the boundaries of the Larimer Square historic district. This proposal violates the regulations of the Larimer Square historic district, disregards the intent of those who voted for the historic district, and lays to waste the economic benefits the owners received from local and federal level governments to preserve this historically important area. Furthermore, the proposal will have a negative impact on the contiguous LoDo historic district.
Most importantly, this plan destroys the integrity of the historic district. There is a reason why historic districts nationwide have the strictest controls of all the different types of historic designation. The buildings were so designated because they have historic meaning as a group, as opposed to individually. You take away one building and it starts to break apart. Putting these tall new buildings within the historic district is the ultimate destruction of the way these historic buildings work as a group.
Hopefully, the owners will come to understand how deeply Denver cares about its roots. By working together with people with a stake in preserving Denver, the owners should be able to come up with a workable new plan that will preserve the integrity of the historic while making the economics more palatable. When the owners bought Larimer Square, they knew full well what they were getting in terms of maintenance and restrictions. To decry a lack of money for maintenance now appears disingenuous.
Lisa Purdy, Denver
Lisa Purdy led the effort to create the Lower Downtown historic district in 1988.
Renting may be bad advice for young workers
Re: “For young adults, renting long-term not a bad option, June 19 story
I ran businesses in new and resale home marketing for forty years before retiring, and I have advised clients and all my children to buy the first home you can afford as early as you can. Those that did kept up with inflation and moved up over the years successfully into very suitable homes for their families.
The Harvard professor suggested renting, “setting aside the savings renting saves for a larger home in a better location.” This, in most markets, is based on grossly false assumptions. If you have the money for a down payment — with the low interest rates today — mortgage payments are as low as rent. And mortgage interest is deductible from taxes. So there is little or no money saved by renting. The interest rates we have enjoyed are on the rise and are projected to go much higher.
Your first home seldom meets future demands. But it is consistently the best investment in your future.
David L. King, Erie
Jon Caldara’s smug smackdown of unaffiliated voters
Re: “Who’s steering our primaries now?” June 24 Jon Caldara column
Creepy! Smug Jon Caldara thinks he and other Republicans can disrupt the Colorado Democratic primary after registering “unaffiliated,” then selecting the candidate most likely to lose in the general election. Boasting about his political astuteness, he seems still to be hoping to be voted most likely to make it with the prom queen.
Connie Platt, Longmont
In his Sunday column Jon Caldara, in a condescending way, makes his point that prior to the passage of propositions 107 and 108 the unaffiliated voter had little influence in an election. Our two member household has one person that is party affiliated and one that is unaffiliated.
On multiple occasions in elections prior to propositions 107 or 108 door to door party volunteers asked specifically to speak with the unaffiliated person to get their thoughts on issues. To me that sounds like the unaffiliated have much greater influence in shaping policy than does the affiliated voter.
Ardel Brink, Centennial
Rep. Ken Buck should decry charges against protester
Re: “ACLU to defend woman charged with writing message in chalk,” June 26 news story
As if our political and legal system could not get any crazier, we now find a woman arrested for writing her views in chalk on a sidewalk! Yes, this happened outside the office of Congressman Ken Buck in Castle Rock. Shauna Johnson faces second-degree criminal tampering charges, a class 2 misdemeanor, and the possibility of 12 months in jail and a $1,000 fine after expressing her views, in chalk, to Ken Buck regarding President Trump’s policy of separating kids from their parents at our U.S./Mexico border crossings. And the most outrageous statement in the article is that the district director for Congressman Buck supported the administration’s zero tolerance policy and called media reports about child detention centers fake news! I confirmed with Buck’s office that district director Robin Coran made these statements to The Denver Post. Later I spoke to Buck’s media relations director, Kyle Huwa , who would not say whether the Congressman agreed with his staff member’s statements. The ACLU will attempt to get the case thrown out as “overzealous prosecution.” Calls to Rep. Buck might help to get this case thrown out as his office appears to be supporting this egregious legal attack on a citizen’s freedom of speech.
Ralph Roberts, Littleton
Right to refuse service OK for some, apparently.
It is disturbing to see so many letter writers try to draw a false equivalence between Sarah Sanders and Jack Phillips, the baker.
Jack Phillips did not refuse service in the way several letter writers allege. He offered to make the gay couple another cake. What he refused to do was to use his artistic talents to create an image of a gay couple on the cake.
In contrast, Sarah Sanders was thrown out and refused service completely. A fair comparison would be if Sarah had asked The Red Hen to make a cake (or other dish) with MAGA (Make America Great Again) on the top. If The Red Hen had refused to do that, I wonder if the letter writers would be as upset with them as they apparently are with Jack Phillips.
Ken Wolff, Littleton
Over the weekend, Sarah Sanders, the White House spokesperson, was asked to leave a restaurant ostensibly because the owner didn’t share the same views as her and the Trump administration over policy.
So, apparently itap OK to refuse service to someone with whom they disagree about policy, but not OK to refuse service to someone for other policy differences as it pertains to say… a wedding cake.
In the end, we need to debate, not debase, and harassment and the promotion of harassment is never OK.
David Young, Lakewood
Better saved, than sorry
Re: “Colleague cracks Sen. McCaskill’s rib with Heimlich maneuver,” June 26 news brief
In both the headline and first sentence, you lead with the fact that Sen. Joe Manchin broke the rib of Sen. Claire McCaskill while doing the Heimlich maneuver. Many bemoan the focus on negative news these days, and this small item is the perfect example of getting it wrong. I think saving someone from choking is the main point, and the broken rib an unfortunate side issue. Still to be mentioned, but certainly not as the focus. Whatap next “Search team gives man rope burns … while saving him from drowning,” or maybe “Firefighter stains wood in historic house … while dousing the fire?”
David Janik, Denver
Celebrating the Broadmoor
Re: “Resort, rich in history, is one of Colorado’s jewels,” June 24 story
A big thank you to The Denver Post and Mim Swartz for the Broadmoor birthday article. My husband and I grew up in Colorado Springs and were gifted by Mr. Penrose with trips to the zoo, ice skating, rodeos, and jobs at the hotel during our college years. It brought back wonderful memories.
Mary Metcalf, Aurora
Border war of words
Re: “Crying is the same in any language,” June 23 commentary
Mexico’s likely next president, (Andrés Manuel López Obrador) believes crossing our border is a Latino human right. Professor Oscar Casares believes we must hear and respond to the cries of foreign national children at our border.
The cost for U.S taxpayers to care for a foreign nationals is $ 135 billion “annually,” or $8,000 per person crying or not. Our children will receive the bulk of the insane IOU for this politically motivated chaos. Our veterans who protected our homeland and way of life continue to face uncertainty on quality health care due to our unprecedented national deficits and debt. My weeping is deservedly for them.
Invading our country is not a human right. It is irresponsible and beyond comprehension to believe the American taxpayer should open our southern border for up to 630 million foreign nationals. America benefits immeasurably from Latino populations who sacrificed immeasurably to gain citizenship the right way. My weeping is in appreciation of them.
Forrest Monroe, Lone Tree
