Cherry Creek projects should make access to area easier, not more challenging
“Area has strong momentum, but challenges are mounting,” May 18 news story
As a Cherry Creek resident, I appreciate the story about new construction and growth in the area. We will have some beautiful new buildings and more neighbors. However, I am concerned about the impact of these projects on traffic around University Boulevard and Steele Street, adjacent to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Avenues, as well as at the Cherry Creek Shopping Center. Neither the city and county of Denver nor the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) has plans to expand these popular driving routes.
The solution shared by reporter Aldo Svaldi is that the Colorado Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit project “should eventually make it easier to reach the area via transit.”
This raises questions, considering that the mall and many Cherry Creek North businesses are at least a half-mile away from bus stops on Colorado Blvd. Are people going to commit to a mile round-trip of walking — plus two bus rides — to visit Cherry Creek for a meal, shopping, or hotel stay? Will they walk (or bike/scooter) between Cherry Creek and bus stops on Colorado Boulevard in their commutes to work? In all kinds of weather? If CDOT moves forward with Bus Rapid Transit, I hope it does so with these travelers’ needs in mind. Furthermore, I hope it recognizes and supports Cherry Creek’s importance to the local economy.
Robin Pittman, Denver
Editor’s note: Pittman is president of the Cherry Creek East Association.
We need home hardening, not logging to combat wildfire risks
Re: “Oppose logging not just to protect our forests, but because it’s ineffective,” May 10 commentary
As an organic farmer living deep in Colorado’s forests, I applaud Josh Schlossberg for exposing the gap between status-driven storytelling and actual science on wildfire mitigation.
Around my home, “thinning” has meant lost shade, giant slash piles, destroyed windbreaks, shattered wildlife habitat, and the destruction of rare native plants, all while leaving us more vulnerable. By opening the canopy, these projects heat up the forest floor, spiking temperatures and evaporating the moisture that once cooled the understory and held humidity in place. Wind now races unchecked through the opened canopies, drying everything out faster and exactly as studies warn. Far from safer, we’re in greater danger than before.
High-intensity fires, the ones that burn down homes, are driven by extreme climate, drought, and wind, not fuel loads. As Schlossberg notes, even the Forest Service admits treatments are only effective in moderate to low-intensity fires that firefighters already handle. Yet our legislature , the one approach backed by consensus science for protecting structures.
These projects are a net loss: degraded soil and forest health, habitat destruction for threatened species, exploding invasive weeds, and more herbicide spraying. They generate grants and contracts while making long-term risks worse for those of us who live here and the wildlife that belongs here.
Thank you, Josh, for demanding science and substance over story and status. Colorado needs real protection: home hardening first, not expensive, counterproductive industrial logging dressed up as stewardship.
Deanna Meyer, Sedalia
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.
