Opposition to Belmar Park apartments is about preserving a beloved spot of nature

Re: “Residents battling apartment project,” Dec. 24 business story

John Aguilar’s article about the controversial residential development next to Belmar Park in Lakewood covered the issue thoroughly, but it’s worth emphasizing — again — that the giant residential complex planned by Kairoi Residential will sit smack on the boundary of the park; 1,000 people, their pets, traffic, noise, lights, air pollution, and lots of glass windows will not produce good outcomes for the native fauna there. Just as important, such development will seriously reduce the peace and quiet that people enjoy in the park now. No buffer space is planned.

Regarding noise impacts on wildlife, environmental author Ben Goldfarb wrote, “For animals that survive by the grace of their hearing, traffic’s ‘masking effect’ can be fatal. Ambient road noise drowns out songbirds’ alarm calls and prevents owls from detecting rodents.” This is the kind of effect we can expect from plopping a giant residential complex next to green space.

Kairoi’s plan to remove 69 mature trees now on site ignores the benefits these trees can provide to both wildlife and people. These include cooling shade on hot summer days, removal of air pollution, carbon sequestration, preventing soil erosion, mitigating floods, and, of course, nesting, feeding, and perching sites for birds. Only greed would promote the cutting down of mature trees in an environment where they have succeeded in surviving our harsh climate. Kairoi should design something that would fit better into the existing neighborhoods and cause less damage to wildlife and park habitats.

Polly Reetz, Denver

When May Bonfils commissioned her mansion in 1937, she did not site it directly adjacent to Kountze Lake, in what would become Belmar Park. There was an appreciation for the grounds and the environment that supported so much wildlife. That legacy is nowhere apparent in the plan for the proposed 412-unit Belmar West apartment complex that Kairoi Residential is set to build bordering the lake at Belmar Park.

This development exudes hubris and disrespects the natural world, with designs to remove 69 mature trees and subject wildlife (and neighbors) to years of construction noise. When the project is complete, a five-story edifice will block the morning light from the lake and blind birds with the afternoon sun. According to the City of Lakewood, this is allowed despite ordinances that require tree preservation and projects that blend seamlessly with the existing neighborhood.

Kairoi has presented award-winning design at its One River North project, which incorporates green space throughout its structure. Unfortunately, Belmar West must have been assigned to an architect-in-training who could not understand the beauty of the site and how the project could be enhanced by integrating the existing trees into its model. Once the project is done, it cannot be undone, but we will watch city officials and staff trying to remedy the many problems it will cause and residents lamenting the park is not what it used to be.

Liz Evans, Denver

Indoctrination on our campuses

Re: “Follow the money to the source of antisemitism on America’s campuses,” Dec. 24 commentary

Doug Friednash’s column regarding the corruption of our universities with foreign money would have been markedly more powerful if placed into context. And the missing context is that our universities promote and stoke intolerance and prejudice. Our universities were founded to, among other things, provide safe places to express and debate alternative points of view with tolerance and acceptance but have become breeding zones of hate and cancel culture flowing from the intolerant positions with which the schools indoctrinate their students. And Harvard may be the worst. The foreign donors are responding to the fertile ground they see, making investments to increase the intolerance and hate on our university campuses and undermine our great American heritage of openness and freedom. A change of culture on our campuses is needed to root out intolerance and hate.

Scott Gillespie, Parker

Citizens denied a candidate

Re: “Trump’s appointees hold America’s fate in their hands,” Dec. 24 editorial

I was shocked that the editors of this newspaper, in the lead editorial of Sunday’s Perspective, endorsed the Colorado Supreme Court’s purely political decision to remove Donald Trump’s name from the primary ballot. I am definitely not a Trump fan, and I hope he will never again occupy the White House. Democrats are always saying that we must stop Trump because he’s a threat to democracy. I believe that is a correct assessment. But a slim majority of the Colorado Court apparently decided that the way to save democracy is to destroy two of its most sacrosanct tenets: due process of law and the right to vote for the candidate of your choice.

Due process and the right to vote for who you choose are routinely denied in China, Russia, North Korea and Iran. We don’t do that here in the United States. I was glad to see that three of the seven judges on the court dissented from this wrong-headed decision. Chief Justice Brian Boatright noted that Trump has not been charged with insurrection, much less tried and convicted by a jury. Those things may eventually happen, but they haven’t yet. All are prerequisites to the majority’s ill-advised decision. Hopefully the United States Supreme Court will reverse it 9-0.

Richard Stacy, Highlands Ranch

Disqualified, not convicted

Re: “Ruling could spell doom for democracy in the name of saving it,” Dec. 27 commentary

Let’s apply the maxim, “You are entitled to your own opinion, but not to your own facts,” to this guest commentary. The term “insurrection” was not used regularly until recently because, since the Civil War, we had no insurrections. The commentator used Webster’s Dictionary’s definition of “insurrection” and then pleaded that this did not fit with the clear facts on Jan. 6, 2021. The protesters most certainly did use force and arms to attempt to prevent the execution of the legal certification of the presidential election.

If one knows the term “due process,” then one should know that the proceeding in Denver District Court provided just that. The commentator tries to ignore the fact that there was an extended hearing with the opportunity for both sides to present testimony and evidence. He confuses the fact that this proceeding was not a criminal trial but was a civil one with a high standard of proof, “clear and convincing evidence.” The 14th Amendment does not contain a requirement of a finding of “guilt” to disqualify a candidate for committing insurrection.

I believe that the vast majority of Coloradans and Americans will fully agree that the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision will further strengthen democracy by holding those who are unfit to hold office accountable for their actions.

H. Rene Ramirez, Aurora

If a citizen running for president were found to be younger than 35, that person would not be convicted of being underage. That person would be disqualified as not eligible to run.

The Colorado Supreme Court found Trump to be not eligible to run. It was not a conviction.