EDITOR’S COLUMN

LOCAL VOICES LOCAL

Support 300

Arapahoe County already has ve commissioners, which means they would not be impacted by the bill. However, Arapahoe County operates without a lot of in-commission ghting, has good discussion and debate and is a great example of why a ve-member board can be a lot more functional.

When it comes to party lines, I would like a better balance of Republicans and Democrats on the Arapahoe board, given there is currently only one Republican, but that’s not a huge complaint.

Thelma Grimes

In Douglas County, the current commissioners are great evidence of why a three-member boards is not good in representing a county with 360,000 people and growing. e argument against the bill is that it “creates more government,” not less. I get not wanting more government, but is having two more commissioners added to a currently dysfunctional board a bad thing?

I have never been a fan of the all-yes boards. I like my elected boards to have a balance of voices and opinions. If all members of a council, commission or school board have the same thoughts, beliefs and ideals — you will get a lot of rubber-stamp voting without thoughtful discussion and debate.

Local city and town councils, with fewer residents than all of Douglas County, currently have more elected ofcials looking out for their best interests.

In Douglas County, residents currently have George Teal and Abe Laydon deciding where and how money is spent. ey are making decisions on zoning, land use and water. If Commissioner Lora omas does have an opposing view or opinion — it doesn’t seem to matter as the two men on the board have clearly formed an alliance. is alliance means if one supports a project — the other will get in line to do the same. ese are schoolyard games that should never been the norm on a local, elected board. is alliance has cost taxpayers plenty of money in approving investigations against omas that have yielded nothing more than tens of thousands of dollars in wasted taxpayer dollars.

At the very least, two more commissioners being asked to approve another frivolous investigation might ask questions and vote against it.

With two more commissioners, decisions might still end the same way, but I bet there is more discussion, fewer alliances and probably a healthier representation of what residents in Douglas County deserve.

What I love about Rep. Marshall introducing the bill, House Bill 23-1180, is that he can’t be bullied. He is at the state level and the two-member majority can’t just quash it. Do I think the bill will pass? It’s early and hard to say. e argument of having more government oversight could win out in halting it in its tracks. However, I do hope our elected o cials at the state level give it true thought and consideration.

If it is passed in the 2023 session, counties that would be a ected by the bill are Je erson, Larimer, Douglas, Boulder, Pueblo and Mesa, all of which are counties with three commissioners.

elma Grimes is the south metro editor for Colorado Community Media.

LINDA SHAPLEY Publisher lshapley@coloradocommunitymedia.com

MICHAEL DE YOANNA Editor-in-Chief michael@coloradocommunitymedia.com

Englewood, CO 80110

Phone: 303-566-4100

Web: LittletonIndependent.net

SouthPlatteIndependent.net

To subscribe call 303-566-4100 ecently, State Rep. Bob Marshall did exactly what he said he was going to do when he ran for o ce — he introduced a bill that would require large counties to expand from three- to ve-member boards of commissioners. If the bill is approved, that would mean Douglas County will go from three to ve commissioners.Support Ballot Measure 300. Every citizen that wants to have a democracy should support this measure because the city government does not want to listen to its citizens. e city is so afraid of this they want to pass Resolution 10-2023. It is a resolution to tell you to not even consider the ballot measure. Even though, by the time you see this council may have passed it, we all should write council to tell them it was wrong to even put forth such a resolution. I wrote the city council the following about this resolution and their disdain for the voter’s voice; it is not about the ballot measure but exempli es the council’s stance in opposition to your (you the citizen and voter’s) voice and directly shows why you should vote yes for the ballot measure.

To pass Resolution 10-2023 opposing Ballot Measure 300 is to refute all the principles of democracy as written in both the State and Federal Constitutions. e resolution is the council body saying: rst, that the City Council has no respect for the voice of “We e People.” Second, that council does not believe in the right of the citizens to disagree with the City Council. And third, that you the City Council disavows and repudiates the right of citizens to petition even as guaranteed in old city charter, ARTICLE VI. INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM. It says, “Any proposed ordinance may be submitted to the Council by a petition signed by registered electors of the City equal in number to the percentage hereinafter required.” e petition that resulted in Ballot Measure 300 met those requirements and was written with the city Attorneys guidance to assure it met the law and the Charter’s intent, and the with assistance of the city Clerk to make sure it was written in a way that could easily become part of the City Charter and Code. In short, the Littleton City Council’s stance against this petition is a claim that the City Council should rule with absolute, autocratic authority. Any member of the City Council that votes to approve this resolution should be completely ashamed of themselves and understand that they are making a claim of dictatorial-like power! is is as un-American as it gets.

For the sake of our democracy, every voter should speak out against the resolution and vote for the ballot measure.

Michael Goldberg Littleton

Look under the legalese

Artful use of language is something most enjoy. It makes us smile, and we each have our favorites. But some aspects of the language arts are less endearing.

Most nd the lengthy “whereas” statements found in o cial government documents less than enjoyable reading. Sometimes this actually informs, but it can also hide things and mislead.

Littleton City Council’s February 7 Resolution No. 10 illustrates. It urges a “no” vote on Ballot Question 300. Voters should take a careful look — both at what is there and for what is missing.

ERIN ADDENBROOKE Marketing Consultant eaddenbrooke@coloradocommunitymedia.com

AUDREY BROOKS Business Manager abrooks@coloradocommunitymedia.com

One does not have to be a fan of courtroom drama to appreciate verbal skills used to craft this resolution. Even Raymond Burr would crack a wry smile. And few would want to argue the resolution’s factuality. What’s not there, however, is another story all voters should know.

Legalese (de ned by Cambridge as legal language “di cult for ordinary people to understand”) in the resolution’s fth “Whereas” states: “the City of Littleton already conforms to State Law in requiring at least 5%, as referenced in C.R.S § 31-11-104, of the registered electors to advance petitions and initiatives.” is statement artfully avoids the impetus for Question 300. Of course, as a Home Rule Municipality — a rmed by the resolution’s fourth “Whereas” — Littleton “has the right and authority to govern its own elections and signature requirements.” But greater candor would have revealed that, for years, the city has actually imposed “greater” requirements than the “at least 5%” of registered voters required by State Law.

Indeed, for referendum petitions, the city requirement is twice the state minimum, 10%. And for initiative petitions, it requires three times the state minimum, 15%. Now it appears the city has grown even more fearful that voters might call its undesirable decisions into question (i.e., referenda) and push it to take neglected actions residents want done (i.e., initiatives).

But why? Why would the City of Littleton be so afraid of having residents make their voices heard? Not a few residents perceive they are being inadequately represented by o cials’ heads lopsidedly turned more to outside interests than to caring for Littleton’s existing character, its neighborhoods, and its quality of life as well as curtailing high-density development and its adverse impacts.

Amazingly, that powerful block, emplaced and supported by outsider interests, is now telling residents how to vote. Don’t be misled. Vote “yes” on Question 300.

John Marchetti Littleton

Housing and diversity

Kudos to Colorado Community Media for a piece of ne local journalism with “ e Long Way Home” series examining Colorado’s housing crisis. e January 26 articles detailing racial inequities in Denver’s suburban communities like the Littleton area, where I live, provide important insight — and highlight the need for all of us to redouble e orts for social change.

As the series illustrates, Littleton and surrounding towns didn’t become lily-white by accident. Government policies assured racial and economic segregation via redlining, racially restrictive covenants, and large-lot zoning. Today, Denver metro is highly racially segregated, ranks 13th among the most highly economically segregated urban areas, and 40th among U.S. large metro areas for upward mobility of below-median-income families.

SEE LETTERS, P21

THELMA GRIMES South Metro Editor tgrimes@coloradocommunitymedia.com

NINA JOSS Community Editor njoss@coloradocommunitymedia.com

ERIN FRANKS Production Manager efranks@coloradocommunitymedia.com

Columnists & Guest Commentaries

Columnist opinions are not necessarily those of the Independent. We welcome letters to the editor. Please include your full name, address and the best number to reach you by telephone.

Email letters to letters@coloradocommunitymedia.com

Deadline Wed. for the following week’s paper.

Littleton

(ISSN 1058-7837)(USPS 315-780) A

“I know we (voted to put the measure on the ballot) kind of against our desire,” Schlachter said at the Feb. 7 meeting. “And I just wanted the citizens to realize that this isn’t coming from the city, isn’t coming from city council… I just didn’t want any confusion that the council is supportive of this.”

Valdes said passing the resolution did not seem fair without giving the petition’s sponsors a chance to publicly share why they think voters should support the measure.

“I’m having trouble with this one, that we as a council are putting opposition out there, while we’re not allowing the supporters of this particular thing to come forward to tell us why citizens should vote for it,” he said.

Several councilmembers responded that they felt citizens had many chances throughout the process to share their opinions.

“We’ve had a number of folks come up tonight and speak regarding this issue,” District 3 Councilmember Stephen Barr said. “We’ve had a number of folks email and call us individually as councilmembers regarding this issue... I don’t think anyone has been arrested or thrown in the gallows for voicing that opinion.”

During the public comment portion of the meeting, several citizens spoke against the resolution.

“Before you vote on (the resolution) tonight, I would ask that you carefully consider the consequences of this action against your constituents and also the rami cations of your future political careers,” said resident Lynn Christensen.

John Marchetti, a citizen who was part of the group that started the petition, said it did not “seem morally correct” for council “to comment negatively on issues which were initiated by the public and which, by implication, re ect on council performance.”

“Why is the city council so deadset against the citizens’ desire to be heard?” he asked.

Several comments on the agenda item in the meeting packet online also opposed the resolution, saying that “council clearly does not want

About Letters To The Editor

Colorado Community Media welcomes letters to the editor. Please note the following rules: to hear what the voters think about any given issue” and that to pass the resolution would be “to refute all the principles of democracy.”

• Email your letter to letters@coloradocommunitymedia.com. Do not send via postal mail. Put the words “letter to the editor” in the email subject line.

• Submit your letter by 5 p.m. on Wednesday in order to have it considered for publication in the following week’s newspaper.

• Letters must be no longer than 400 words.

• Letters should be exclusively submitted to Colorado Community Media and should not submitted to other outlets or previously posted on websites or social media. Submitted letters become the property of CCM and should not be republished elsewhere.

• Letters advocating for a political candidate should focus on that candidate’s qualifications for o ce. We cannot publish letters that contain unverified negative information about a candidate’s opponent. Letters advocating for or against a political candidate or ballot issue will not be published within 12 days of an election.

Betzing said the city council has the right to pass resolutions supporting or opposing ballot measures, per Colorado’s Fair Campaign Practices Act.

He added that Littleton’s city council has passed resolutions regarding ballot issues in the past, including the formation of the Littleton Downtown Development Authority, a lodgers tax and procurement changes.

Perspectives on the measure

Several councilmembers spoke in favor of the resolution, stating reasons they do not support the ballot measure.

“One of the biggest issues I think we all have is the costs, that if (the measure) eventually passes, could burden the city with multiple elections throughout the year and multiple costs,” Schlachter said.

Littleton’s current city charter limits special elections to one per year, City Clerk Colleen Norton said. If the measure passes, she said this limit would be repealed from the city charter. e number of permitted special elections per year would instead be constrained by state timeline rules based on when petitions are deemed sucient and when other elections are scheduled.

is opens up the possibility of several special elections each year, but special elections would not be unlimited, Norton wrote in an email to CCM.

e city estimates the March 7 special election to cost $165,000.

Marchetti recognizes this cost but does not think the prices of special elections are a reason to reject the measure.

“ ere shouldn’t be a price tag on how the citizens should be treated,” he said in an interview with Colorado Community Media. “What is the price of democracy?”

Proponents of the measure say it is about having citizen’s voices heard, after they felt their petition and votes were ignored regarding the rezoning of a shopping center called Aspen Grove for new housing last year.

To resident Susan ornton, who opposes ballot question 300, this

• Publication of any given letter is at our discretion. Letters are published as space is available.

• We will edit letters for clarity, grammar, punctuation and length and write headlines (titles) for letters at our discretion.

• Please don’t send us more than one letter per month. First priority for publication will be given to writers who have not submitted letters to us recently.

• Submit your letter in a Word document or in the body of an email. No PDFs or Google Docs, please.

• Include your full name, address and phone number. We will publish only your name and city or town of residence, but all of the information requested is needed for us to verify you are who you say you are.

• Letters will be considered only from people living in Colorado Community Media’s circulation area in Adams, Arapahoe, Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, Elbert, Je erson and Weld counties.

• Do not use all caps, italics or bold text.

• Keep it polite: No name calling or “mudslinging.” action seems like a “back-door approach to seizing power.”

“I am generally not in favor of special elections because they tend to be forced by people or groups that have special interests,” she said in an interview with Colorado Community Media. “(Special elections) tend to have much lower voter turnout, and mostly the people who vote are those who are involved. erefore, it increases their chances of forcing a change.”

Barr said the measure concerns him because of the impact it could have on housing policy.

“Housing seems to be at the crux of the argument about those who are supporting it,” he said at the Feb. 7 meeting. “I would say that if housing is on the mind of the folks that are supporting this, this could ultimately have potential implications to how we work on housing policy in the future.”

Marchetti said he and other citizens in an advocacy group called Revision Littleton, which supports the measure, are not against growth in Littleton.

“Growth is going to happen,” he said. “It doesn’t have to happen in such a fashion that it becomes overwhelming to the city’s infrastructure and to the citizens that came to Littleton because of what it was.”

Appropriation

Council members voted unanimously to amend the city’s 2023 budget to approve approximately $165,000 in additional funds to cover the costs of the March 7 special election.

Public commenter Pam Chadbourne said the city should be able to provide “more precise and accurate costs” and asked for more data from the city on this front. She also said she wanted to see how this election’s cost compares to past special election costs.

In an interview with Colorado Community Media, Norton said the cost of the election will remain an estimate. Final numbers cannot be tallied until weeks after the election is held. Norton said nal costs are tallied based on extra postage, vendor bills and costs based on the hours election judges will have to work.

Among other reasons, she attributed the increase in operating costs from the city’s last special election in 2015 to in ation and supply shortages. In addition, the number of eligible electors in Littleton has increased by approximately 6,000 voters since the last special election, which also adds to costs.

Ballots for the special election will start being mailed to residents on Feb. 13.

BY CORINNE WESTEMAN CWESTEMAN@COLORADOCOMMUNITYMEDIA.COM

While working out at a gym in Golden recently, someone approached Ty Scrable and asked if he was associated with Colorado School of Mines. Scrable had to explain that, no, he’s just a Golden resident.

Unfortunately, Scrable said, this isn’t the rst time it’s happened.

“I get that a lot,” he said. “People think I’m a student, professor or tourist because I’m Black.”

Systemic racism stubbornly remains in Golden. But, as Scrable said, it has morphed from Ku Klux Klan demonstrations in the 1920s and racist housing policies in the 1940s to something less overt but still widespread and endlessly frustrating.

Because White people make up the overwhelming majority in the city and, thus, are seen as the norm, Scrable said, “many people don’t view me as part of my own community.” e newspaper, which now is part of Colorado Community Media, isn’t immune to biased coverage. is report is the product of its journalists attempting to examine the paper’s coverage of the Black community since the Civil Rights era and own up to its mistakes.

In the wake of Black Lives Matter demonstrations in the summer of 2020, many cities and newspapers across the United States have started reckoning with their pasts, examining how they’ve contributed to systemic racism, learning what they can do to be more inclusive and fair. e Golden community has started the process, and now it’s the Golden Transcript’s turn.

Since 1866, the Golden Transcript — known as the Colorado Transcript for its rst 103 years — has been a record keeper for Je erson County. While its stories are extensive and valuable, the paper contains original and reprinted content that was harmful to the Black community and other marginalized groups.

Just one example is its coverage of the Black Panther Party, a group that gained national attention in the late 1960s for its response to policing in Black communities across the country.

Between 1969-1971, the newspaper published approximately 170 articles that referenced the Black Panther Party. Nearly all of these articles

BEYOND THE GOLDEN TRANSCRIPT: Our efforts to reconcile racial mistrust begins with this story

In our newspaper this week, you’ll see an article about the Golden Transcript. It’s one of two dozen newspapers owned by Colorado Community Media, which also owns this paper. The article tackles the issue of systemic racism in the Transcript’s pages.

The idea for the project started in 2020, when the Colorado News Collaborative, Colorado Media Project and Free Press convened the Black Voices Working Group, which was made up of Black leaders, community members and journalists. The group addressed media coverage and focused on how to improve trust in mainstream media among the Black community. Acknowledging past harm was the No. 1 recommendation made by the group.

A few months later, I attended a Denver Press Club event where Jameka Lewis, a senior librarian at the BlairCaldwell African American Research Library, illustrated biases in mainstream local media coverage of the Black Panther Party in the 1960s and ’70s while exhibiting rare prints of the Black Panther Press. Many of Lewis’ examples came from the Transcript. Most articles were wire stories from other cities, but editors still chose to run them, affecting perceptions of the party in Golden.

We pursued and were awarded a grant from the nonpartisan Colorado Media Project to explore, uncover and analyze this issue in the form of the special report that is in this edition of your newspaper.

Our newsroom, which is predominantly White, also participated in the Maynard Institute’s diversity, equity and inclusion Fault Lines training along the way. West metro editor Kristen Fiore was a speaker at the Advancing Equity in Local News convening with journalists from publications like the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Washington Post to talk about this project.

We believe this story is important beyond Golden — and we hope to spark conversations in our communities across the Denver area about race and inclusion and how our news coverage impacts those issues.

Linda Carpio Shapley is publisher of Colorado Community Media, which runs two dozen weekly and monthly publications in eight counties. She can be reached at lshapley@coloradocommunitymedia.com