Aurora wants the veteran’s land for a reservoir — there must be a better solution
Re: “Vet found stability building home; now city wants land,” May 3 news story, and “Denver Water to drain Antero Reservoir,” April 21 news story
Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman can’t feel good that his city is about to ruin the life of Josh Kimbrough, who suffered brain injuries and trauma during his Army deployment. But he now needs to step up and change the narrative.
To help heal, Josh needs peace of mind, and he’s found it on the land he purchased in South Park, where he’s built a cabin for his family of four. But Aurora needs water, and has targeted his land for a large new reservoir. The city initially had another site, but believed this one is better because it will have one, not three, dams and be easier to operate.
Not good enough, Mr. Mayor. Better to incur a little more financial pain and spread it among all your water customers than stay the course and focus immeasurable physical pain and mental anguish on an injured veteran you would normally step up to protect.
Jeffrey Stroh, Denver
Aurora proposes flooding a large area of South Park for its planned Wild Horse Reservoir, while Denver Water drains Antero Reservoir because it does not have enough water in its system to keep it full during this drought.
Take a look at a map of South Park. The planned Wild Horse Reservoir is within spitting distance of Antero. The irony is delicious while also sad. I know Denver and Aurora have different water agencies, rights and responsibilities. Couldn’t something be negotiated so that yet another parcel of wonderful Colorado landscape is not inundated with water that might soon not be flowing if this drought continues?
I am not an expert on water law and the like, nor am I a fan of AI. But it couldn’t hurt Denver and Aurora to just ask their respective AIs: “Isn’t there an alternative to more dams and flooding in South Park?” Just ask for alternatives, please.
Martin Linnet, Golden
So let me get this straight. Aurora Water wants to spend $1 billion to create a new large, shallow reservoir — just a few miles as the crow flies — from Antero Reservoir, another large, shallow reservoir that is about to be drained, to avoid the massive evaporation that occurs with large, shallow reservoirs. This proposal seems laughable and lacking anything resembling science or research.
Wouldn’t it be more effective if Aurora eliminated all of the thirsty grasses and lawn areas that are merely ornamental? We need parks and similar shared recreation areas with grass, but I’ve seen plenty of subdivisions with lush grassy areas (like those between streets and sidewalks) that serve only an aesthetic purpose.
Randy Thompson, Salida
Did the Supreme Court decision gut the Voting Rights Act?
Re: “SCOTUS just neutered the Voting Rights Act,” May 3 commentary
Americans don’t like gerrymandering. Period. Irrespective of whether it’s a racial or political rationale.
Sunday’s opinion piece from Noah Feldman on the Supreme Court’s recent decision regarding Louisiana v. Callais, while predictably liberal, is surprisingly loud and histrionic given his usual pragmatism. While he probably didn’t write the headline, the decision hardly “neuters” the Voters Rights Act from 1965. Nor does it “gut” it, as Chuck Schumer babbled after the 2013 SCOTUS ruling on Shelby County v. Holder. Feldman claims the ruling serves to “eliminate Black Democratic members of Congress.” It does no such thing.
Since Shelby, both houses of Congress, mirroring the rest of society, have become far more racially mixed, with about versus only 45 in the 2011-13.
The VRA was neither neutered nor gutted. Nor were Black members “eliminated.” Rather, Black representation ballooned.
The recent decision merely reaffirms and restates that carving up districts based on race is illegal. Jim Crow died a too slow death, but most assuredly remains deceased today.
Employing the “the sky is falling” strategy when making an argument doesn’t make it more credible. It merely signals resignation.
Jon Pitt, Golden
I read with great interest Noah Feldman’s column in the Perspective section. He echoed every point I have been thinking about this with this new 6-3 conservative Supreme Court.
First, they started with overturning Roe vs. Wade after all three new justices agreed during their confirmation hearings that it was settled law. Then they gutted the Voting Rights Act, which was one of the cornerstones of our democracy.
We are returning to the Jim Crow era in this country as the rest of the democracies around the world continue moving forward, and we continue moving backward.
Shame on the Supreme Court. It is no wonder their approval ratings are at an all-time low.
It is a sad day for our country and one more step towards Christian Nationalism. Hungary sent the world a message, but apparently our country wasn’t listening.
David Shaw, Highlands Ranch
CHSAA needs to address youth sports loophole
Re: “CHSAA cracks down on high school recruiting,” May 3 editorial
I have coached youth football for 25 seasons and have witnessed multiple high school coaches directly ask middle school-aged players to “come play for them.” When I step in to protect my player, I’m often asked: “Why do you care?” My response is that it’s the student who usually pays the price for recruiting violations.
I agree that these two rule modifications are a good first step. But the middle school issue isn’t so cut and dry. When teams age out of youth football (8th grade), it’s the parents who start the conversation about which school their son should attend. They weigh factors like team success, playing time, the possibility of making varsity, the position they are likely to play, and whether the school will prepare them for college football.
As I understand the rules, an incoming freshman is not subject to “athletically motivated transfers.” High school coaches are aware of this and do what they can to try to influence students to attend their school. They do this through camps and by being involved in youth sports, either directly or by hiring youth coaches as assistants.
In the winter after his 8th-grade season, my nephew was invited to play for a “Colorado All-Star” team in a tournament where coaches from four different high schools were on staff. I witnessed two of them tell my nephew to come to their school, saying, “I have a spot for you.”
It used to be that high school coaches were prohibited from coaching youth sports. CHSAA should close this loophole by either reinstating the youth sports prohibition or acknowledging that they are OK with it.
Larry A Gombos, Littleton
Insurance companies could serve us better by cutting advertising
Every year, the top insurance companies spend billions on advertising and marketing. For example, , Progressive spent nearly $3.5B, State Farm $1.11B, Geico nearly $1.4B, and Allstate $1.87B. Thatap nearly $7.8 billion, not counting Liberty Mutual, USAA, Farmers, American Family, Nationwide, Travelers and others?
With global warming, devastating fires are burning up our forests, farmlands, the plains, and even parts of cities. In December 2021, the devastated Boulder County, laying waste to more than 6,000 acres and incinerating more than 1,000 homes and seven commercial buildings at a projected cost of $1 billion, making it Colorado’s most destructive fire in terms of property loss.
If the insurance companies used just 1% to buy firefighting aircraft instead of making millionaire celebrities even richer, how many planes could be bought to protect our homes? How many homes could have been saved, thus saving the insurance company millions? More planes in the air, less destruction, and the insurance companies save money. They could then pass the savings on to you.
Imagine seeing a plane flying over to save you and your loved one’s property with the logo of the insurance company on the side. Would you switch to that company? I would!
Randy Moyle, Westminster
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
