Valor Christian’s former head football coach is the canary in the coal mine for Colorado high school sports.

Bret McGatlin, pushed out after 32 months with a winning record, issued a strong statement read to concerned parents at a February meeting with school leaders. The statement decries the gladiator culture in high school sports.

“At the heart of the issue is a leadership style characterized by a culture of fear, comparison, and uncertainty. Coaches have felt unsupported and undervalued, leading to an environment where fear and anxiety replace passion and purpose. I can say without hesitation that I would not have resigned if not for this leadership dynamic,” McGatlin wrote, as reported by The Denver Post’s Kyle Newman on Sunday.

Valor Christian athletics faces turmoil, discontent in wake of football coach’s resignation

/*! This file is auto-generated */!function(d,l){“use strict”;l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&”undefined”!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!/[^a-zA-Z0-9]/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll(‘iframe[data-secret=”‘+t.secret+'”]’),o=l.querySelectorAll(‘blockquote[data-secret=”‘+t.secret+'”]’),c=new RegExp(“^https?:$”,”i”),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display="none";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute("style"),"height"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):"link"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute("src")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener("message",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener("DOMContentLoaded",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll("iframe.wp-embedded-content"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute("data-secret"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+="#?secret="+t,e.setAttribute("data-secret",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:"ready",secret:t},"*")},!1)))}(window,document);

We want Colorado to have world-class athletics departments for our students. Programs should push youth to excel not only in sport but in life. Programs should help students perform at their highest potential in the classroom and on the field. We say yes to 5 a.m. weight lifting sessions and two-a-day practices. Yes, build programs with rich traditions of team dinners and booster support. Leave behind the screaming and belittling behaviors that breed unsafe environments for students.

Whether it’s elite private schools using tuition waivers to recruit the best players in the state or our outstanding public schools competing head to head on the same field, one thing Coloradans cannot tolerate is toxic environments that do more harm than good to student athletes.

Parents and coaches from Valor, many of whom spoke with Newman only on the condition of anonymity, are right to speak out if they feel something is broken at Valor.

We do not pretend to know how to walk the line between sports excellence and extremism, but we also know that many high school coaches, athletic directors, and school leaders maintain the right balance. And the critical thing to remember is that young teenagers would benefit more from a program that erred on the side of not pushing hard enough than one that pushes too hard.

Statistically, few Coloradans go on to play college sports, about 6% of all high school athletes, and even fewer do so with scholarships. According to statistics from the National Federation of State High School Associations (NFHS), only 2% of high school student-athletes receive college scholarships for their freshman year. Division I and II schools provide about $2.7 billion in athletics scholarships annually to 150,000 students. While another 180,000 students play for Division III schools without scholarships.

Beyond that only a handful of athletes – 2% of college athletes — go on to play a professional sport.

High school sports exist to serve the remaining 94% of students who will not play in college. Losing sight of that is what leads to toxic programs that are filled with drama and dissatisfaction. While adults quibble and argue over how to improve the program to win a few more games and a few more championships, it is the students who suffer.

Valor’s assistant coach Darren Krein, who also resigned recently, compared his experience as a coach in the National Football League to his time working at Valor.

“In the 20-plus years I’ve been a player and coach in the NFL — and it’s a rough situation there. … I’ve never been treated as bad in the NFL as I was treated here,” he said. Krein made the statement to parents in the community meeting and did not talk to The Post for the Sunday story.

The benefits of high school sports are immeasurable. Students get many of those benefits whether they are from a tiny school on the eastern plains competing to defeat a local rival in volleyball or vying for the 6A football state title under the bright lights at Canvas Stadium.

No student benefits from parents who blame coaches and staff for hard losses, or worse, who scream and yell at coaches like spoiled children on the sidelines. Unfortunately, we are not shocked by reports of such behavior from Valor parents, and all schools and club sports programs need to look at how to help parents and athletes adopt a healthier relationship with competition.

High school athletic departments do not become poison pits overnight or all on their own. Blame can be spread through school and district culture, and to state leaders. The solution will take years of reform, and we think it must start at the top with the Colorado High School Activities Association doubling down on its mission of creating a “positive and equitable environment” for all students in this state.

Colorado students deserve better than what Valor and other high schools lost to the gladiator ethos are serving up at the moment.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

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.

Once again, the Rockies are making the wrong personnel decisions

Re: “Bud Black fired,” May 12 news story

When Bryce Harper called the Rockies a “loser … organization” two years ago, he hit it on the head. With one-quarter of the season over, they are on pace to lose 130 games this year in what will likely be a record-breaking year for futility.

More frustrating is what ownership chooses to do about it: Fire a hitting coach a month ago, then, Sunday, fire manager Bud Black and bench coach Mike Redmond. These three guys had nothing to do with assembling the AAA-caliber team that takes the field dressed as a major league team.

That distinction belongs to one person and only one person, Bill Schmidt. Since 2007 he has been in charge of scouting and since 2021 he has been the general manager responsible for assembling a competitive team. Bud Black can’t make hitters hit or pitchers throw better. He has to do his best with the hand he is dealt. That hand is controlled by Schmidt and Schmidt alone.

All teams deal with injuries and the presumed depth in an organization means replacements should be able to step up. Not for the Rockies though as the caliber of their players up and down the organization is as poor as it gets. Who selected, drafted and traded for these players? Bill Schmidt. But since he’s part of the old boys’ network with the owners, his utter ineptitude gets a pass, year after year.

Every Rockies fan should boycott home games unless Schmidt is fired. Or ownership should do the right thing and lower ticket prices to prices paid at AAA parks around the country.

J.Y. Kang, Denver

OK, Bud Black and Mike Redmond were fired.

Now, how about selling the team to Stan Kroenke (who won a Stanley Cup with the Avalanche and an NBA title with the Nuggets) and hiring Theo Epstein as GM (who won World Series titles with the Chicago Cubs and the Boston Red Sox)?

Mike Filion, Lakewood

No lie: Trump administration, Pentagon removing library books

Re: “Rhetoric about Trump is over-the-top lies,” May 10 letter to the editor, and “Pentagon directs military to pull some library books,” May 10 news story

The letter writer attacks Hashim Coates for writing that Trump is a “white nationalist” whose administration is “determined to erase our history (and) silence our voices.” The letter writer claims that statement is part of a smear campaign of “inflammatory rhetoric and lies” against Trump.

Really? In the same paper, there is a report that Trump’s defense secretary has ordered the entire military to remove and review all library books that address “diversity, anti-racism or gender issues.” The Civil War was an anti-racism campaign.

To strip libraries of anti-racist books is a clear attempt to erase history and silence voices. If anyone is lying, it is those who deny book banning or claim it is not an attempt to erase history.

Ray Harlan, Denver 

Re: May 10 “Today in History”

It was interesting to see the above report on the Trump administration to rid all library books that address diversity, anti-racism or gender issues by May 21 at military academies. This, in the same paper on the  “Day in History” when in 1933 book burnings were held in Germany targeting authors whose ideologies were in conflict with Nazism.  When will all Americans see what’s occurring in our country?

Marcia Murphy, Centennial

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

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.

Unless revoked or substantially reduced from the newly negotiated 30% for 90 days, President Donald Trump’s China tariff will still wipe out the investments made in our small family business and kill our manufacturing plant, here in Boise. When I talk to my friends and neighbors about the continuing uncertainty, I hear similar expressions of frustration about the impact of tariffs on American businesses.

For decades, my husband has specialized in producing high-quality health products, from protein or energy powders to supplements with vitamins and custom ingredients. We sold our products in the United States, but as the market became saturated, we exported to Poland, Brazil, Thailand and Australia. Margins were tight, but we paid above-average wages to the four employees we depend on.

A few weeks ago, a Chinese company requested products from us that it was unable to make. Despite the trade war, many Chinese consumers prefer American foods and supplements because they view them as superior in quality. But Trump’s ever-changing tariffs killed the idea — 145% tariff coming in, 125% tariff when exported.

That wiped out the profit we needed and seemed certain to put us out of business.

Agriculture in Idaho now faces similar problems of survival, especially because of tariff uncertainty. Economist Brett Wilder of the University of Idaho told Boise State Public Radio: “We’re in this window where people are deciding what crops they’re going to plant. People have to make that decision right now and live with that decision through the rest of the year, even if something changes next week.”

Idaho ranks third in the United States in dairy production and grows two-thirds of sweet corn seed worldwide, along with potatoes, wheat — 50% of which is exported — onions, food trout and barley. USDA data reported by the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation show that from 2016 to 2019, Idaho’s agricultural exports grew each year.

But in 2018, Trump added tariffs for China, and China reduced its purchases of American soybeans, corn, and pork, mostly grown in the Midwest. Many farmers lost their land, while others received some of the $23 billion in subsidies that the first Trump administration doled out, courtesy of taxpayers like you and me.

But ask any farmer, and they’ll tell you they’d rather grow food than take welfare.

It’s been hard to keep track of which tariffs are on and which are off, but Trump has eased many tariffs from most countries, including Mexico and Canada, for 90 days. Yet he initially increased tariffs on most Chinese products, causing China to retaliate. Negotiations resulted in both countries reducing their escallation tariffs to 30% and 10% respectively. But business with China won’t be rational again until the trade war ends.

Even though Mexico and Canada receive the greatest share of Idaho’s farm products, in 2022 China accounted for 8% of Idaho’s agricultural exports, or $231.2 million. Our biggest ag export to China is whey from Idaho’s dairy farms. These new tariffs will hurt.

“The Farm Bureau supports the goals of security and ensuring fair trade, but farmers and rural communities often bear the brunt of tariffs and tariff retaliation,” said Sean Ellis, spokesman for the Idaho Farm Bureau Federation. “We’re hopeful President Trump can limit trade disruptions, and at the very least, make sure farmers who are already operating on thin margins aren’t caught in the crosshairs.”

President Trump has offered varying justifications for imposing tariffs on some 90 countries around the world, now “paused,” but his basic explanation is that they will “bring manufacturing back home.” That will take time. Meanwhile, the world economy has become less stable, and predictions are for much higher prices here at home. I am afraid that from cars to appliances, we will all be shocked at how much more everything will cost.

Meanwhile, I’ve been calling and writing my Idaho members of Congress: Senators Jim Risch and Mike Crapo, and Congressman Mike Simpson, all Republicans.  I ask them to stand up for my family, other Idaho families, and our farmers.

As for my family, without our Idaho-based manufacturing company, three generations of my family will be scrambling to keep our homes. It’s a blow, and it’s no joke to say that many businesspeople are feeling what I can only call “tariffied.”

Crista V. Worthy is a contributor to Writers on the Range, writersontherange.org, an independent nonprofit dedicated to spurring lively conversation about the West. She writes in Idaho.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

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.

This week, the US Supreme Court announced the passing of Justice David Souter, who served on the Court from 1990 to 2009, where he wrote landmark opinions on a wide range of issues, including the separation of church and state, campaign finance reform, abortion rights, and pleading standards in civil cases. I had the good fortune of serving as his law clerk from 2006 to 2007, at the height of his powers.

Justice Souter embodied the highest ideals of civil service. Appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990 by President George H.W. Bush, he immediately established himself as one of the leading voices on the Court.  He was an independent thinker not afraid to make decisions that defied the expectations of the political party that appointed him, especially as the values of his party changed around him over the years.  A self-described “common law” judge, he placed special emphasis on the facts of the case, perhaps because he was the only member of the Rehnquist Court who had previously served as a trial judge.

Despite almost always being the smartest in any room, Souter was invariably the most humble. He treated his law clerks as if they were his law partners, always welcoming them to challenge his thinking. He knew the names and personal backgrounds of every employee of the Court, right down to the guards and elevator operators. On most weekends, he came into the office, dressed in a three-piece suit, and as he strode toward his chambers, he greeted each staffer and asked about their various family members by name.

More than any of his peers, Justice Souter avoided the spotlight and disliked the Washington, D.C., scene, preferring to return to his beloved New Hampshire. When he stepped down from the Court at age 69 in 2009, he did something virtually unprecedented: he went on to hear cases for more than a decade in the federal court of appeals in Boston, meaning his opinions were subject to the review of his former colleagues. Souter just loved being a judge, and for him, it was never about seeking the limelight.

To say Justice Souter was a throwback would be an understatement. He drafted opinions in longhand, without the use of a computer or cell phone. When he needed to be reached for a vote during the summer months, federal agents put a Post-it note on his front door in New Hampshire reminding him to dial in. I once summoned the courage to ask him whether he might one day consider using email. He replied that he might — depending on “the rising cost of postage stamps.”

Justice Souter’s impeccable integrity and his conception of public service also stood out. At a time when it was not uncommon for his peers to travel across Europe during the summers to give paid lectures, cultivating their growing reputations as pop culture celebrities, Justice Souter took the opposite approach, always keeping a low profile and refusing to spend taxpayer money on anything he didn’t need to. He routinely wrote a check to the U.S. Treasury to repay American taxpayers for the portion of the Poland Spring water that he estimated he had consumed for personal purposes during his after-work jogging outings.

Souter never took himself too seriously. In the Grokster case, he wrote for the majority on the topic of intellectual property in the context of file sharing. He asked his law clerks to recommend an artist he could reference in his opinion. The artist we chose encapsulated our view of the boss: Modest Mouse.

As modest as a mouse but as strong and intellectually self-confident as a lion, we will never forget the example of civil service that he set.

Bryan Leach, CEO of Ibotta headquartered in Denver, served as a law clerk to Justice Souter during the October Term 2006.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

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.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit to end “sanctuary laws” in Colorado and Denver begins with a lie that undermines every other argument in the overwrought complaint.

“At the end of last year, the nation was shocked by images and videos of members of Tren de Aragua seizing control of apartment complexes in Aurora, Colorado,” wrote Yaakov M. Roth, acting assistant attorney general for the DOJ’s Civil Division. “It is the direct byproduct of the sanctuary policies pushed by the State of Colorado.”

Coloradans know better than to believe that revisionist history, and the case Roth is referencing is the perfect example of how law enforcement in this state partnered successfully with federal officials to catch the criminals in the video. Two were in custody days after police were called to the scene of the fatal shooting.

Sanctuary policies did not hinder the successful apprehension of five of the six men shown brandishing weapons outside an Edge of Lowry apartment and the “sanctuary” policies do not prevent or even slow good law enforcement work.

Rather the laws keep local law enforcement from doing work that would only distract from catching criminals — checking for citizenship, visas, and work permits. President Donald Trump and the Department of Justice are trying to tear down sanctuary policies so they can use local law enforcement to conduct mass deportations — the rounding up of millions of residents whose only crime is immigration related.

Roth is clearly confused about the important distinction between dangerous criminals and hard-working neighbors, but that’s no surprise. Roth was recruited from what Bloomberg Law called a “Trump-aligned” law firm, and Trump ran for office this year, promising to deport 11 million people.

Tren de Aragua got a foothold in Aurora, not because of Colorado’s policies, but because of a refugee crisis in Venezuela that has caused an estimated 8 million people to flee the country in search of food, medicine and safety from gang violence. And yes, some gang members used the exodus to sneak into America.

Now, Trump and the Department of Justice are using the refugee crisis and subsequent illegal immigration influx as a pretext to deport anyone and everyone without legal status. It’s a goal they cannot achieve without police, deputies and troopers helping in the roundup.

Colorado law and specifically Denver Municipal Code Sections 28-250 to 253 will keep law enforcement from tearing communities asunder at the behest of the president.

Denver’s ordinance prevents the city from using funds or resources to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration laws but it also includes key provisions to make sure that police and deputies are working hand in hand with all federal agents to catch criminals. The city code is abundantly clear: it does not prohibit criminal investigation collaboration but only work relating to “alleged violations of the civil provisions of federal immigration laws.”

Denver police can assist federal officials targeting violent gang members operating a chop shop, but they can not go door to door in an apartment complex asking people to show their papers without a warrant for someone specific.

Denver Police can and should work with ICE to apprehend Tren de Aragua gang members but shouldn’t ask people they pull over for broken taillights for proof of citizenship.

One section of the law prohibits federal immigration officials from entering secure areas of the city or county jail or other city-owned property without a warrant. We’ve addressed this portion of the law in a previous editorial, and think revision is necessary to allow ICE officials into facilities to detain people who have deportation orders or a court-ordered detainer.

None of these provisions would have prevented Denver law enforcement from pursuing the criminals in the Edge of Lowry complex, and Colorado law certainly didn’t delay Aurora’s good police work. Two days after the shooting, Aurora Police had already apprehended two of the six suspects on investigation of first-degree burglary and menacing with a firearm. Federal immigration officials in New York City used Aurora’s arrest warrants and investigation to arrest three more of suspects. Leaving only one suspect unaccounted for.

As Aurora Police Chief Todd Chamberlain told The Denver Post as it pursued the criminals: “Like most major cities, Aurora deals with crime issues and it deals with gang activity … But we are not by any means overwhelmed by that issue, we are not by any means overtaken by Venezuelan gangs, TdA or any other gang.”

The lawsuit from the Department of Justice is not about Tren de Aragua gang members or the terrifying crimes they have committed. The lawsuit is about apprehending parents and grandparents, construction workers and Dreamers, homeowners and renters, students and fruit pickers.

Trump is looking to fulfill his campaign promise. He should quit obfuscating his intent and be honest that sanctuary policies are standing in the way of a massive police state needed to round up millions. Reports indicate that Trump is increasingly frustrated. His efforts at mass deportation have been hampered at every turn by judges who bravely uphold due process in the face of personal attacks. We are inspired by the legal advocates and neighbors who inform immigrants of their rights even as ICE rolls into a neighborhood with armored cars.

Trump won the election, but just because millions of Americans support his call for mass deportation doesn’t make the president’s plans morally right. This lawsuit is one step in his effort to steamroll America’s legal system and Colorado laws.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

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.

Colorado’s clinics and hospitals are already feeling the strain of losing half a million patients from the post-COVID Medicaid wind-down, and now Congress is threatening to slash and burn the nation’s safety-net health insurance.

We’ve been down this road before, about a dozen times since Obamacare first became law in 2010. The Affordable Care Act dramatically increased the number of people who would qualify for Medicaid health insurance, which is funded by a combination of state and federal dollars. That expansion was expensive, but it helped reduce uncompensated care costs that were stressing the private health care and insurance systems.

Remember when Sen. John McCain saved the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion with a dramatic thumbs-down vote on the Senate floor that rejected President Donald Trump’s attempt at a skinny repeal? Well, McCain isn’t in the Senate anymore, and now Republicans are trying (again) to roll back the Medicaid expansion.

That is bad news for all Coloradans, not just those on the Medicaid bubble who are making more than the bottom threshold for Medicaid (about 35% of the federal poverty level) but less than the expansion threshold (138% of the federal poverty level).

Those already living on the bubble would likely lose their insurance immediately if Congress were to dramatically slash funding to states for Medicaid programs. And the program also wouldn’t be available to those who suffer a job loss in the future. Medicaid isn’t just for those who find themselves in chronic poverty. Our health care system is so broken that private insurance is cost-prohibitive for most Americans unless their employer is picking up much of the tab, and incentives on the Obamacare exchanges rarely are enough to fill the gap. Job loss is stressful. Add in the cost of intermediary health insurance, and savings, if they exist, can get depleted rapidly. Going uninsured is an unacceptable risk for most, as a single hospital stay could cost tens of thousands of dollars.

The popular refrain from supporters of ending the expansion is that able-bodied, single individuals shouldn’t be eligible for government-funded health care. But the KFF (formerly the Kaiser Family Foundation) found that data from the Census Bureau shows that only 8% of single people aren’t working, and we’re pretty certain that traumatic injuries, cancer, and liver failure aren’t solely reserved for people with children and spouses.

For reference, 138% of the federal poverty level is about $21,000 for individuals and $36,000 for families. Annual premiums on the exchange vary widely by county but can range from $1,700 a year to $3,756 a year for someone who is single.

Republicans who are backing the Heritage Foundation’s plans in Project 2025 to reduce the federal government’s coverage of the Medicaid expansion need to know that their decision will cost lives and life savings.

Colorado could be particularly hard hit. Gov. Jared Polis told The Denver Post that the result would be some combination of a reduction in the number of people covered, a reduction in coverage, and a reduction in reimbursement rates to doctors and hospitals.

The state covered the relatively small amount needed for the expansion population by creating the bipartisan Hospital Provider Fee, landmark legislation that assessed a fee on hospital stays to cover the cost of expansion to the state. That fee could, in theory, be increased to cover some of the funding lost from a Republican drawdown, but political support for further taxation on hospital stays is unlikely to emerge, especially given that hospitals are not transparent about the fee.

Republicans are not wrong to attempt to tackle this issue. Medicaid is a hungry federal program that gobbles up a huge share of our out-of-control federal budget. Reducing the federal portion of the expansion from 90% to 50% could save the federal government $1.9 trillion over 10 years, according to a KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation) analysis from 2025.

Those savings will be illusory.

The impact to hospitals and clinics would be dire, and states would be forced to step in with their own funding. Unlike the federal government, Colorado can’t go into debt to cover a shortfall, which is a blessing of fiscal responsibility but a curse when overnight federal funding is getting slashed left and right.

The KFF also estimates that 20 million people across America would lose Medicaid coverage and that a majority of those enrollees would be unable to get alternative coverage. Because in America, we don’t deny people suffering acute emergencies urgent care because they cannot pay, uncompensated care would soar, hospitals could fail, or more likely, states will pick up the costs one way or the other. Solving the federal budget crisis by passing it off to states is taking money from one pocket to put it in another. Our taxes are still our money, no matter the level of government.

Is there another way to save $1.9 trillion in Medicaid spending in the next decade? Maybe, but it’ll take a lot more work and nuanced policy analysis than this slash-and-burn effort that hides the damage being done by Congress, instead handing the knife to states to do Congress’s dirty work.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

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.

For 25 years, Denverites have waited and wondered what would become of the old Gates Rubber factory at the intersection of Broadway and Interstate 25 south of downtown. Beautiful but badly contaminated solid brick buildings were torn down with the promise of remediation and redevelopment that never materialized.

Millions were spent on the cleanup of the soil, only for the debt to act as an albatross around the properties’ neck, tied to the metropolitan district on the land. A bridge was built to connect South Broadway to Santa Fe, but isn’t open for use.

Now redevelopment of the 40-acre site is within grasp, with a promising economic model. But the catch is that the city must invest millions more into a project that has already been promised millions in tax incentives.

A team of investors wants to build a stadium on the land for their newly acquired National Women’s Soccer League franchise. The stadium and surrounding mixed-use development would bring the promise that the abandoned brownfield will finally become green – green with a soccer pitch, a new city park, and with customers bringing cold-hard cash to the neighborhood.

We understand the reluctance to let the city invest in another stadium project. Less than 25 years after taxpayers built the Denver Broncos a new stadium, there is already talk of demolishing the fully paid-off investment. However, with turbulent economic times ahead for the city, state and nation, we don’t see another investor stepping up to build up the vacant Gates’ land anytime soon.

Denver Mayor Mike Johnston was right to jump at the opportunity to help bring this new franchise to the city, making sure that Colorado’s first stadium for professional female athletes opens right in the heart of Denver. And after some very healthy skepticism, the City Council seems ready to support the proposal.

Johnston is pledging to use $42.5 million to buy the land at the old Gates site and allow the investors to build a stadium on the land rent-free, along with some combination of housing development, commercial real estate, and other entertainment venues. The money would come from non-general fund sources. Technically, the city would use capital improvement fund dollars, but that money would be backfilled by interest earned on the 2017 bond package.

“We want to own and control long-term the land for the stadium as public land,” Johnston said. The design of the stadium will also allow people to enjoy concerts from the public park adjacent to the open end of the field, giving a public feeling to the private venue.

The city plans to spend $27.5 million on infrastructure for the project as well, which will come from existing funding for capital projects.

The developer will also benefit from an existing tax increment financing deal. Likely for the next 17 years, the developers on the land will pay no property taxes for the stadium or any of the mixed-use buildings, and the deal also includes a break on sales taxes. There is no estimated value of those tax breaks because the plans for the development have not been finalized, but Johnston said it will be a negotiation with the Denver Urban Renewal Authority.

Finally, the developers will also be able to levy sales taxes and an additional property tax on the property using the existing metropolitan district. That district is already deeply in debt from the demolition and remediation work completed, and Johnston said any tax benefits would first have to pay down the debt before they could benefit the developer.

This is a complex deal layering private and public dollars on top of years of complex financing and remediation work. But that does not mean it won’t ultimately be a good deal for the city of Denver, especially the South Broadway community of small business owners, homeowners and renters.

The City and County of Denver’s Finance Department conducted an economic study and estimates that even with all of the tax breaks, the project will generate increased sales taxes within the community and that the overall economic impact of the stadium and the team with 24 home games a year could top $2.2 billion and create 1,100 jobs.

And the icing on the cake, of course, would be giving more women from around the world the opportunity to make a good career out of professional sports. For far too long, that career path has been available only to men, and this stadium will only further gild the golden pathway being laid in this nation for women at the top of their sports.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

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.

We all know the saying — if a deal seems too good to be true, it is.

Christophe Attard scored a Denver home worth at least $300,000 in a 2021 foreclosure auction for a mere $23,524. To his credit, Attard has allowed the family he bought the home out from under to continue to live there as long as they made the payments to the mortgage that still used the house as collateral.

This was not actually a foreclosure. Monica Villela and her ex-husband Gilardo Gonzalez Jr. had made their mortgage payments and had even paid their homeowners association dues.

But the aggressive HOA in charge of their Green Valley Ranch neighborhood used fines, late penalties, interest and attorney’s fees to push the family out of the home that they had purchased in 2005 for $164,000.

Denver Post reporter Noelle Phillips has documented the abuse of the Green Valley Ranch HOA in northeast Denver, where people have lost homes over oil stains on driveways, broken blinds, and having a rug on a back patio.

The Master Homeowners Association filed 50 foreclosures in 2021 alone. And while they were among the worst offenders, across the state, HOAs take hundreds of houses every year, often over petty infractions and hefty late penalties and attorney fees.

The situation uncovered by The Post was so dire that state lawmakers responded with changes — limiting the amount of fines and attorney fees that can be collected. Most HOAs got the memo, and the number of foreclosures has decreased; Green Valley Ranch HOAs filed none in recent years. But other HOAs are still initiating foreclosures.

As we wrote in 2024, state law must change further so that HOA liens are secondary and cannot be used to initiate a foreclosure process. Leins should also not be used for fines, but only for unpaid HOA dues. Small claims court is the appropriate venue for an HOA to collect fines for overgrown weeds and broken windows.

For families like Villela’s, the damage had already been done.

Her situation, however, is unique because they purchased their home under an affordability easement owned by the City and County of Denver.

A judge ruled just last week that the house was illegally sold to Attard’s investment company — Welcome to Realty LLC 401K PSP — because the company exceeded income limits, and also the city’s housing ordinance prohibits homes from being owned by investors.

Given the situation, we advise Attard to sell the home back to Monica Villela and her ex-husband Gilardo Gonzalez Jr. for the offered price of $30,000, which was raised by a group of people who support Villela’s effort to keep her house. Attard should not be surprised. The deal was simply too good to be true.

And we’d also advise HOAs and investors to take note of this ruling.

While past foreclosure auction sales will likely stand judicial challenge unless there are affordability easements on the property, this case should give everyone involved in these deals pause. It’s unethical to foreclose a home over unsightly or inconvenient violations of covenants, and the ethics of snapping up these deals at auction are questionable as well.

No one has evidence that HOAs have been conspiring with investors, but now that residents know their rights and have learned to protest this abuse, investigations for collusion and equity theft are certain to follow.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

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.

Updated 9:40 a.m. April 26, 2025: This story has been updated to correct the figure in the headline.

Colorado lawmakers have passed an end to Colorado’s two-tier justice system. Now, Gov. Jared Polis just needs to sign House Bill 1147.

The Denver Post’s reporters highlighted the injustice of allowing municipal courts to carry much harsher sentences for non-violent, petty crimes than state courts in a series of stories last year.

The Post found that not only were people spending months in jail for minor retail thefts that would have resulted in only a few days sentences in state courts, but that indigent or poor defendants weren’t guaranteed access to an attorney in municipal court, resulting in longer sentences without any representation.

House Bill 1147 would prohibit municipal courts from having harsher minimum sentences than state courts, thus reducing the temptation for law enforcement and prosecutors to funnel cases to municipal courts to get harsher sentences without facing tough legal counsel.

Of 468 theft and trespassing convictions reviewed by The Denver Post, defendants going through courts in Colorado’s 10 largest cities served an average of five times more jail time than those in state courts. Some may argue that the difference is only a matter of days. After all, these sentences are less than a full year under Colorado law. But a day or two in jail can matter to a defendant trying to get out to care for children or to return to work, get a dog out of an animal shelter, or even just hoping to salvage some of their possessions that were left behind in a homeless camp or shelter.

Polis has an opportunity to reinforce the more lenient state sentencing laws that were passed in 2021. Nonviolent crimes should have repercussions, but we’re not convinced the deterrent of longer jail stays is nearly as effective as letting someone get on with their lives, and hopefully get back on track.

Polis was right in 2020 when he asked the Colorado Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice to go through the criminal code to update sentencing guidelines, calling for them to be “rational, just and consistent so that the punishment fits the conduct.”

We hope he heeds those words and considers that without House Bill 1147 our sentencing is neither consistent nor just. While the Colorado Supreme Court is considering the legality of the disparities between state and city courts, lawmakers have addressed the issue head-on.

There is no need to wait for the courts to rule. Already, state law caps the length of sentences for ordinance violations at 364 days. That cap doesn’t infringe on cities’ ability to govern themselves any more than bringing sentencing in line with the state’s maximum penalties would.

Our justice system cannot be arbitrary if Americans are to maintain faith in the courts. The circumstances of every crime are different, and judges are provided with a broad latitude in sentencing, weighing someone’s risk to society, their remorse, and whether they are repeat offenders.

However, judges have also always had guardrails placed on their sentencing. We can find no valid reason for municipal judges and state court judges to have different guardrails when considering the same crime with the same extenuating or aggravating details and facts.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

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.

Tucker Carlson will no longer be on Fox News. The announcement Monday that Carlson and Fox had parted ways came after Fox had agreed to pay out three quarters of a billion dollars to Dominion in a defamation lawsuit that rested heavily on Carlson’s on-air reporting about election fraud coupled with his off-air text messages indicating he thought it all was a hoax.

To mark this moment, I’ve pulled some of the best Tucker Carlson cartoons from over the years because sometimes a drawing is worth a thousand words.

Megan Schrader is the editor of The Denver Post’s opinion pages.

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

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.