The Coloradoan, June 6, on Fort Collins’ homeless locker program:
A modest proposal to provide lockers to people experiencing homelessness continues to stir major controversy in Fort Collins.
The locker issue is a small piece of a much larger challenge: How does our growing community address the needs of people without housing, even as their numbers grow?
The Coloradoan editorial board supports the proposal by the Fort Collins Mennonite Fellowship to place 13 lockers outside its building for use by people experiencing homelessness. The project seems to be a heartfelt effort by the congregation and others to literally ease the burden of fellow residents.
With 24/7 access to lockers, program participants could go about their daily lives, including holding down jobs and attending school, without having to carry their possessions everywhere they go.
That simple, comforting benefit could be a step toward finding and keeping work as well as permanent housing. It seems a harmless way to help a few people get on their feet.
However, we would encourage the Mennonite Fellowship to have a clear way to measure the success of its locker program. In administering the lockers, the church will have role in determining whether its locker area is more regularly visited by representatives of Outreach Fort Collins, which connects homeless people to local services, or Fort Collins police officers responding to complaints and safety issues.
Critical to the success of this program will be policies to ensure that the lockers provide those experiencing the relief sought without turning into an undue burden themselves to the fellowship or its neighbors.
Concerns about the locker program expressed by Old Town businesses and residents are understandable. The area has seen an increasing number of problems related to transients in recent years, including disturbances, trespassing, harassment, and drug use.
The church’s proposal is not intended to create a party place for people moving through town. It’s meant to assist people who live here and need a place to safely store belongings as they deal with challenging life circumstances.
In February, the City Council rejected a request by the church to financially support a locker program. The council’s issue with the proposal wasn’t so much about money as it was safety concerns.
The church then went out and raised the money it needed to acquire and install the lockers.
The proposal is going through a city development review process. Consideration by the Planning and Zoning Board was scheduled May 31, but was delayed until at least June 21 so staff could further analyze safety concerns.
That could be seen as a red flag for the proposal’s prospects for getting approval. Any decision by the Planning and Zoning Board is likely to be appealed to the City Council, which has already stated misgivings about the idea of lockers at this location.
The proposal’s fate ultimately might hinge on interpretation of city code and the willingness of residents to fight for or against it.
Homelessness is an incredibly complicated, messy issue. Its facets include substance abuse and mental health issues. Some people are homeless by choice; others are forced into it by circumstances beyond their control.
Fort Collins already offers extensive services to people experiencing homelessness, including lockers at the Murphy Center and shelters, with many public and private entities filling various roles. The faith community is a major player in those efforts.
As the Mennonite Fellowship locker drama plays out, we encourage the community to continue supporting area service providers and the important work they do toward helping our neighbors without housing get off the streets and into stable living arrangements.
Editorial: https://noconow.co/2M2ReOY
___
The Pueblo Chieftain, June 5, on youth autopsy reports:
Gov. John Hickenlooper stood for the public’s right to know last week when he vetoed a bill that would have prevented access to autopsy reports of minors.
The Colorado Coroners Association had lobbied for Senate Bill 223, arguing that to release the cause-of-death reports involving children would be painful to families and, in the case of youth suicides, might inspire copycats or other consequences.
In his veto message, Hickenlooper said: “At its core, the issue before us is the proper balance between protecting grieving families from continued trauma due to public disclosure and (the alternative of) permitting such information disclosure to prevent future tragedies.”
Most of the legislative debate focused on youth suicide when, in fact, SB 223 would have denied public access to autopsy reports involving any cause of death to a minor.
The Colorado Press Association and other media advocates strongly opposed the bill for weakening transparency under the state’s open records law.
The bill’s restrictions to public access were aimed at the news media for the most part. SB 223 would have allowed access to a long list of non-media people. They included parents, legal guardians, law enforcement investigators, district attorneys, child fatality prevention review teams, the state domestic violence review team, state health officials, medical record custodians, the state division of youth services and lawyers in both civil and criminal cases involving children’s deaths.
Indeed, there are a lot of other causes of death, some of a violent nature, besides youth suicide.
Hickenlooper understood that in his veto message: “We need not look far for examples in which public disclosure, media scrutiny and good journalism led to positive changes to prevent tragedies, particularly in areas such as child neglect, abuse and trafficking.”
Good for the governor for standing for the public’s right to know.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2JkqKqh
___
The Gazette, June 4, on the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case:
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission is an embarrassing affront to civil rights. Don’t rely on us for this view. Analyze the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark ruling Monday in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The court’s ruling makes the commission sound more like a mindless star chamber than an entity responsible for upholding religious liberty and other civil rights. Through “hostility” toward Christian beliefs and religious liberty, the commission damaged a man’s reputation and business.
The ruling wasn’t close. The court voted 7-2 in favor of an opinion that admonishes the commission for its treatment of Lakewood baker Jack Phillips and abates its action against him.
Liberal justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer joined the majority opinion, written by moderate justice and consistent gay-rights defender Anthony Kennedy.
The conflict began in 2012, when couple Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins entered Masterpiece and asked Phillips to design a cake to celebrate their pending marriage in Massachusetts. Phillips politely declined. He had done business with the couple but did not want to design something celebrating their wedding. Doing so, he explained, would violate his religious beliefs.
Craig and Mullins filed a discrimination complaint. The commission, Administrative Law Judge Robert Spencer, and the Colorado Court of Appeals sided with the couple.
The ruling jeopardized civil rights that protect us all. A state that forces artistic expression might demand gay bakers create cakes for homophobes. It might order a black baker to design cakes for the Ku Klux Klan. Freedom to associate necessitates freedom to disassociate.
The discriminatory commission ordered Phillips to “cease and desist from discriminating.” It ordered him to obtain “comprehensive staff training on the Public Accommodations section” of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. It ordered him to change “any and all company policies to comply with” the commission’s order.
The commission ordered Phillips to prepare “quarterly compliance reports” documenting “the number of patrons denied service” and “a statement describing the remedial actions taken.”
The orders led Phillips to give up designing wedding cakes. He laid off 60 percent of his employees and suffered six years of financial loss.
The court minced no words in denouncing the state’s mistreatment of Phillips. A few highlights:
. The “Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality”
. “When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires”
. “The Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause”
. “Religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views”
. “The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised”
As previously explained in this space, the Phillips case inspired Bill Jack of Castle Rock to test the consistency of the Civil Rights Commission’s opposition to bakers declining cake orders they don’t like.
Jack asked three Denver-area bakers to create Bible-shaped cakes and adorn each with scripture opposing homosexuality. The bakers refused, so Jack complained to the Civil Rights Commission.
Incredibly, the commission sided with the bakers. Phillips must design cakes that offend him, while bakers offended by scripture have no such obligation. The conflicting rulings were ignorant, weird and blatantly discriminatory.
The court characterized the state’s disparate treatment as more “hostility” toward Christian beliefs.
“A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness,” the opinion explains.
This was not a case about gay rights. As the majority opinion states, other conflicts of this nature must be separately adjudicated “with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”
This case prevents authorities from favoring select liberties and disparaging others, based on popular sentiment. It tells civil rights commissions and lower courts to uphold the law, not just those elements of law favored by commissioners and judges.
Colorado state government’s abuse of Phillips cost him more than his constitutional rights. It harmed his reputation and business. It cost six employees their jobs. With this ruling, state government should compensate Phillips. It owes him for the damage it caused in a crusade to insult and denounce our inalienable right to exercise beliefs.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2xKk43w
___
Craig Press, May 31, on Colorado’s June 26 primary:
Thanks to 2016’s passage of Proposition 108, Colorado’s unaffiliated voters will - for the first time - be allowed to cast ballots in the June 26 primary election.
Before passage of the proposition, Colorado utilized a closed primary system, meaning voters who chose not to affiliate with a political party - the state’s largest voting block and Moffat County’s second largest - were barred from casting primary ballots.
People choose not to affiliate with a political party for a number of reasons, but regardless of the motivation, this heretofore under-represented voting block seems to be growing. According to an article published by thirdway.com prior to the 2016 presidential election, independent voter enrollment in Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Pennsylvania jumped more than 34 percent between June 2008 and June 2016, while new enrollments in both major political parties barely budged.
These numbers suggest that passage of Proposition 108 stands to significantly improve primary participation in Colorado, and we hope Moffat County’s unaffiliated voters will take advantage of this change.
Of course, the change will necessitate inception of a modified primary protocol, and voters should be familiar with what those modifications mean. In June’s Clerk’s Corner column - published in the Wednesday, May 30 edition of the Craig Press - Moffat County Clerk and Recorder Lila Herod offered a detailed explanation of what’s new for the June 26 primary.
Most significantly, everyone should be aware that voters who have not declared a party preference will receive two ballots in the mail - Democratic and Republican - but may complete only one. This means voters must choose which ballot to vote and may not split their votes between the two. If a voter returns two ballots, neither will count.
And it’s vital those votes count, particularly here in Moffat County, where most, if not all, local races will be determined by the primary.
The stakes surrounding these local races are high.
Ongoing declines in the energy sector will continue to cut into county revenue, and this will present difficult choices through the next several years. It is imperative we elect leaders who recognize the challenges we face and bring workable ideas for how to face those challenges in a way that is both fiscally responsible and protective of our irreplaceable local amenities.
This is an important primary, one made even more significant by its inclusion of unaffiliated voters and the fact that it will largely determine who our local leaders will be for the next four years.
It is our sincere hope that all Moffat County residents will make their voices heard on June 26. In our opinion, there is never a good reason to skip voting, and this year, it’s easier and more inclusive than ever.
The June 26 primary election is our chance to set the course of our community for the next four years and, perhaps, beyond.
Please, don’t let that chance pass you by.
Editorial: https://bit.ly/2Jn8qx1
Please read our comment policy before commenting.