Is DOTI overwhelmed, understaffed, or what?
Where art thou, city services? Last November, my first Tuesday street sweeping was skipped in the Congress Park neighborhood. I reported this via 311 and was told that the service would not be rescheduled and that my street would be prioritized “next time.” I spoke with my city councilmember’s office (District 10), which confirmed that they received the same information.
The next time my address was scheduled for street sweeping — the first Tuesday in April — service was skipped. I reported this to 311 and District 10 and was informed that due to “limited equipment availability,” the service would not be made up, but that my street would be prioritized “next time.”
My recycling pickup was also skipped in April. One of the Solid Waste service truck drivers told me that due to a lack of personnel, my route doesn’t have an assigned driver. Whoever finishes their scheduled route first tries to get to my street by the end of the day.
My May street sweeping was just missed again. No doubt I will be a priority “next time.”
Why is this happening? Poor allocation of city resources? Layoffs? Does Denver’s Department of Transportation and Infrastructure control too many city services for it to execute its duties efficiently?
Clearly, citizens have no recourse. What are we supposed to do? We pay our property taxes every year and expect certain contracted services in return. Maybe itap time to skip a few payments. We can make it a priority “next time.”
Stephanie Subramanian, Denver
The Constitution gives the government power to regulate arms
Re: “On gun-control legislation, it should be all about the Constitution,” May 6 letter to the editor
The reader who reminded legislators that the right to bear arms is about the Constitution is correct — but only partially. It is about all of the Constitution. The very same clause calls for a well-regulated militia. Beyond that, the original Constitution gives Congress the power to organize and arm militias, and assigns the government a clear role in regulating them.
Gordon Johnson, Denver
Let’s get the name of the Democratic Party correct
Every time I read a letter in The Denver Post that uses the term “Democrat Party,” I know immediately it was written by a Donald Trump supporter. The proper name is the Democratic Party. It is always called the “Democrat Party” as a pejorative. It was never called the “Democrat” Party until the advent of Trump and his ilk. Perhaps we should start calling the Republican Party the Trump Party. In the current political climate, it would at least have the virtue of accuracy.
Martin M. Berliner, Greenwood Village
Money’s undue influence in how we are governed
To me, it seems pathetic that we read more about how much money a candidate raises than how they plan to govern. Each election cycle makes it more obvious that we are an oligarchy. We need shorter campaign seasons, and we need corporations and dark money out of politics.
Nancy Litwack-Strong, Lakewood
Rubio offers a reasoned response regarding an unreasonable foe
Re: “Iran: Effort to guide vessels paused,” May 6 news story
Marco Rubio attended a press conference Tuesday and, for the first time by any member of the current cabinet, articulately and clearly laid out the status of the Iran conflict. He answered questions succinctly and didn’t insult the questioner. He addressed the situation and alternatives that exist now, not the fumbling missteps that got us here, so that is what I will address.
Iran is governed by religious fanatics, who for at least four decades have declared death to the “Great Satan.” That’s us, the USA. So, you tell me, what would Iran do, immediately, with nuclear weapons — to our allies, and to any of us it could reach? That is a no-brainer. So the reality is, we must end that threat now.
It is no longer a political dilemma — we can deal with that at the polls — but we have no choice but to prevent Iran’s potential for developing nuclear weapons now, no matter how haphazardly it began. And it must be done with the approval and guidance of Congress.
David King, Erie
$1 billion? It is time we voters correct our mistakes
Re: “Trump ballroom: GOP wants $1B for security funding,” May 6 news story
Wednesday morning’s Denver Post front page carried the story that Republicans in the U.S. Senate have inserted $1 billion for security enhancements to the proposed White House East Wing ballroom into the bill to fund immigration reform, with the intent to rush this package through Congress this month!
Have they gone completely insane? We elected these guys and gals, but it is obvious that we made a mistake.
Think about it: If you had $1 million in your bank account, and you recruited each of your neighbors who had similar resources, it would take 1,000 of you in your city to come up with that much cash.
Think how many schools you could build, how many children you could feed or how many Colorado families you could provide with health care for that amount.
As GOP voters, we elected these people. It is obvious we made a mistake. Now we must elect each of them out of office.
Where are Mitt Romney, Mike Pence and Liz Cheney when you need them?
Rich Crawford, Arvada
Regulation of age discrimination should start with lawmakers
Re: “AI ended my career, but it doesn’t have to be this way,” May 3 commentary
The opinion piece perfectly illustrates the rampant lack of understanding of AI within our legislature and the potential harms to Colorado’s standing as a tech- and business-friendly environment.
The AI that the author and Derek Mobley encountered did exactly what the companies that employed the AI wanted it to do – screen out older and likely more expensive applicants in favor of younger and cheaper resources. This is not the fault of the AI tool – it did what it was trained to do.
Attempting to “regulate AI” to prevent this result is a fool’s errand, a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.
I experienced the same situation as they did, except it was 30 years ago, long before the availability of AI. Lawmakers need to be focused on tightening up the rules around age and other forms of discrimination and the companies that want that result. The natural effect would then be to tune the resources companies use, whether AI or human, to avoid discrimination. But trying to use uninformed legislative lawyers to design software will only result in more employment for more lawyers and more tech businesses leaving the state.
John Fechenbach, Highlands Ranch
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.
