There are some stories that stopped you in your tracks this week.

517 year old boys in Grand Junction were killed when the car they were in went off a cliff.

And this happened just as the school year is getting started.

This tragedy puts everything else in perspective.

Wouldn't you say?

Yet the news keeps on coming.

The fire threat is still very real, even though we're having cooler, wetter weather.

We're seeing campaigns gaining traction and communities are making decisions about their future.

And the four people behind me are here together to listen and discuss what's going on.

So let's get started with this week's Colorado Inside Out.

Hi, everyone, I'm Kyle Dyer.

Let me get right to introduce you to this week's insider panel.

We start with Patty Calhoun, founder and editor emeritus of Westward Penfield Tate, Denver attorney and former state representative and state senator at the Colorado Legislature.

Jesse Paul, political reporter with the Colorado Sun.

And Luigi Del Puerto, editor at Denver Gazette.

And Colorado A politics are the boundaries of political coverage being stretched.

This campaign season is raising some very different questions on how candidates should be questioned and scrutinized.

Who gets to set the terms of a debate?

Also, how much a candidate's past statements should really matter.

And when a candidate's family member becomes part of the story.

Patty, there's a lot to talk about.

Please start us off.

Nature abhors a vacuum, and so do journalists.

So if we're if candidates aren't talking, you're going to find information any way you possibly can.

And one of the things is to look at what they've said before.

And I think what candidates have said before is fair game.

You want to be able to give them a chance to respond.

And this happens in business.

I mean, we saw that happen with Kwame Spearman of the Denver Book Society.

It happens with people all over you.

They've said things they don't agree with now or they need to explain.

It's out of context, but people who are running for office have to be prepared to accept what they've said before and explain why they said it, if they've changed their minds.

As for debates, of course I think they have an they have an obligation to their public to go into some, maybe not as many as they sometimes get invited to, but certainly Victor Marx should be willing to do a debate with a moderator.

Perhaps.

Maybe not.

Kyle Clarke, but we deserve to hear from our group editorial candidate for the Republican Party.

Okay.

And you know, I agree with what Patty said.

I if you're going to put yourself out there and run for office, you have to know that what you've said in the past is fair game and it teaches you a lesson.

I see so many people, I call it living out loud where you do it.

Everything you do is on social media, and then you wonder why people take issue with it.

We shouldn't put it out there.

I think typically your family ought to be off limits.

You're the candidate, not your daughter or your son or your spouse.

And so I think that's that's where the line ought to be drawn.

And with Victor Marks.

Yeah.

We we don't want to see he and Phil Weiser sit around a coffee table having a chat.

You need a structured debate where you have a seasoned moderator who can challenge them and push them on their positions.

Jesse.

Yeah.

Marx's debate, request really makes no sense to me.

So for viewers who aren't aware of it, he wants to have an unmoderated debate with Phil Weiser.

So no moderator.

I guess it would just be two of them having a conversation.

I really don't know how that would look.

I don't know how that would even start.

I know that, maybe 100 years ago, there were some examples of it.

But in current modern day politics, I don't see how that works.

And there's a reason why moderators exist.

They're there to guide the candidates, to make sure they answer the questions.

And to prevent, you know, the political discourse from becoming a shouting match.

And sometimes debates have to have that, even if there is a moderator, let alone if there isn't one.

So they play an important role.

In terms of past comments, you know, as a journalist who writes a lot about folks, things folks have said or done in the past, I think it is fair game.

And I think it's important context for people to understand how a candidate's position has changed over the years.

I know sometimes there's a tendency to fault people for changing their positions, but in some ways, I think there are voters who look at that is as maturity.

And so it's it's an important, it's an important data point for people to see both ways.

Right.

If maybe somebody still has those positions and if they've changed over time, how and why and how would they do that in office when they get information and, and change their views on things and the candidates should talk about it as opposed to like scrubbing their social media posts from years ago.

Yeah.

I mean, I would like them to talk about it when I find it, right?

I mean, I think people have a right to delete their social media posts, I'm sure as heck.

And I try as hard as I can to find what this person, it becomes a question of credibility.

Let me back up a bit.

A politician should be able to change their minds.

They should be able to go vote yes one day, vote no the next day.

Because in between, they might have gotten more information that changes their minds.

We want politicians to be able to compromise.

That's their job.

They represent the interests of their constituencies, not themselves.

They should be able to go, be nimble and change their minds.

Not a problem.

The question of credibility comes through not just what you've said in the past, but how you behave enacted in the past.

You know, sometimes we expect people that, if they behave the certain way for a really long time, and if they're confronted by it, then suddenly they would change their behavior.

Well, that's not how human nature works.

And it is.

And it is indeed a fair question and a legitimate question.

Whether how you've acted in the past is going to continue when you're representing a group of people that is running for office, making a declaration, hey, I want to represent you guys.

Does that change your beliefs suddenly?

Are you now a different individual suddenly?

Those are clearly legitimate questions.

And, To me, the character, the issue of character boils down to your principle as a politician.

I'm looking to vote for someone who's principled.

For example, I think a lot of people are.

They want to vote for someone they can trust that has credibility, sometimes the cover ups worse than the crime, so to speak.

Right?

I mean, not that the posting on social media is a crime, but why are you deleting those posts?

Or why are you changing your website?

It's totally a fair game and poses more questions and talk about fair game.

Going back to the families, we have the worst to possible examples right now.

You've got the Trump family.

You've got the Biden family.

Obviously, those children should be reported on if they are benefiting from the the positions their parents have, if they're getting favors, if they're getting lots of money, of course, the Trumps and the Bidens should be reported on.

It's harder when it trickles down.

You look at hypocrisy.

If someone is pro-life and then you discover their kid has had an abortion, or you wind up in this really tricky thing with the Lauren Boebert case, where her marriage was clearly troubled and her eldest son clearly has big issues, is it something you report?

Is it something you don't?

When Governor Lamb was in the governor's office, it was reported when there was a marijuana plant and in the backyard of the governor's mansion that was, that Scott Lamb had allegedly planted.

So this is not a new question, but it's a tricky one.

Yeah.

And I agree with that distinction.

I think if you're president of the United States your immediate family is fair game, especially if their behavior can be attributed to or suspected to be related to the office.

You hold that.

That's fair game.

Okay.

And before we move on, Jesse, you recently interviewed the Republican candidate for lieutenant governor, George Marker.

So I pronounce sense.

Tell me, because he's only lived in Colorado for three years.

Yeah, it was interesting.

We were kind of talking before we started filming today.

But, you know, Mr.

Margaret has a lot of complaints about Colorado and the direction of it.

But I asked him, you know, hey, you decided to move here knowing kind of full well where things are.

Democrats have been in control here since 2019.

And he said, his position on that was that he moved here to help save the state.

So take that as you go, okay.

All right.

All right.

Well, thanks, guys.

That was a good discussion.

We also talk about Colorado communities are taking very different approaches to the growing demand for data centers.

There is definitely no statewide consensus.

Denver currently has a moratorium on new data centers that goes through the end of May next year.

Aurora just rejected a six month moratorium, but wants strict new operating rules drawn up, over the next month.

Also next month, Colorado Springs could approve its first data center.

And then there's Douglas County, which has approved a $19 million tax rebate for a data center already under construction in Parker.

And all of this is happening while Colorado continues to grapple with the drought and limited water resources.

So the tension is pretty clear here at Penfield.

The economic opportunity that these facilities could bring versus the demands that they put on our environment.

Yeah.

And, you know, and context is important.

This is the latest iteration of economic development wars in our state.

I mean, it goes all the way back to when Canyon City and Boulder were vying for the top economic development engine and Canyon City one and got the prison and Boulder got the consolation prize, which was at the time the University of Colorado.

And so this has been part of Colorado's history.

The data center piece is sort of a different play on things, I think, because I don't think most people fully understand what they are, what they do.

I think most policymakers don't really understand what is the inherent economic development benefit for their community.

I mean, you build a big building and they're generating a bunch of, widgets and putting stuff out there.

And most of it is automated.

So they don't have a lot of people working there.

So where's the benefit?

they take a lot of land, which is in short supply.

They take tons of water And then it's the electrical load.

And, you know, people need to be thinking about whether Xcel Energy can meet the needs of all of these data centers that are popping up.

Then you got the whole environmental justice piece about some places are siting these centers in, you know, targeted communities that are often, economically disadvantaged.

And so we're going to continue to see this scattershot approach to these data centers.

Jesse, I remember sitting at this table, I think a few months ago, and after Denver passed its moratorium and saying I'm sure the surrounding communities will be happy to take them.

And, I just want to say I told you so.

Yeah.

There viewers out there, you know, it'll be interesting to see how the legislature tries to tackle this again.

Obviously, lawmakers couldn't get it together during the last legislative session.

There is debates over tax credits and regulations and where the middle ground was between those and ultimately the two bills that were debated at the Capitol failed.

Now, with the new governor, I think maybe you take a different approach to it.

I haven't heard a ton from Phil Weiser and what his data center plans are.

You're also going to get a change to make up at the legislature, maybe moving a little bit to the left after the primaries this year.

So I think there'll be a renewed push to take this on, especially as more of these data centers pop up.

I don't know if folks saw the interesting reporting over at Color Republic Radio about the data center that's being built in Weld County.

With that permitting that's going on.

And I guess they're just they're just going full send on the data center out there.

So, you know, the more that these, pop up, I think the legislature is trying to take a proactive approach now.

It's going to end up having to be kind of a reactive one.

And, we'll see where they land on it.

Okay.

Well, it's really interesting.

Back in Arizona, Intel was, which has a big presence over there.

Was considering where do we build our next, I think a big factory in Oregon or Arizona and Arizona.

One.

And in order to do that, they did, you know, incentives and all kinds of things.

My point is, the states are actively competing for tech companies And this, debate is interesting in the sense that the debate is whether we should repel them or not.

It's not attracting businesses.

It's either, do we want this businesses to be here or not?

Which is fascinating.

If you're thinking about, you know, a state's point, all the potential economic benefits that you get or not, you know, this, big, data center in Douglas County, I think is going to employ, what, 20 people or so once it's once it's done.

And, of course, you've got construction benefits and so on and so forth.

The other thing to consider is that technology is not static.

There is now a movement toward and, you know, you have the research yourself and see if it's true or not, but there's a movement toward a cooling system that doesn't, use a whole lot of water.

What we're hearing from the state, for example, State Energy Office is you know, data centers are actually going to use less water than, we initially thought, it's going to be way less water.

I think the real issue is energy.

It's and by the way, think about it's a win for Xcel, right.

That you got this data centers.

They got a new, you know, client and they're spending drawing a significant amount of energy.

And of course that has cascading effects on other consumers, businesses and residents.

And I think that's I think where the legislature is going to come in, that's I think where they're going to regulate.

I don't know exactly what that regulation is, but I think it's going to be something along the lines of, hey, you're a data center.

You need to figure out how you're going to power yourselves, and you might have to buy some contracts and so on and so forth.

Okay.

When you talk about cascading effects in Cheyenne, they're building a big data center, Wall Street Journal, that had a great story about it.

And one of the interesting things is you're right.

They only employ a handful of people once they're done.

But in the meantime, yes, there's construction work, but they take all the electricians, all the plumbers, a lot of the other people who would be building around the area to these giant data centers.

So the prices go up, or other businesses just can't get electricians and plumbers.

So that actually does harm in a different way.

It's also interesting as people do research.

So you, a professor there talked about how there are ways you can use the energy from data centers to heat areas.

And he was proposing that could be something that would heat lower income areas in Globeville, where we have a data center definitely growing because it was before the moratorium.

So, and we ran a story by Tom Downey, local local lawyer, about, with all the pot grows closing, you could put data centers in some of those because they've already dealt with the water issue, and they've already dealt with the power issue, and they've got big, empty places already built.

So we're going to hear a lot more about this, but I think we're going to hear about a lot more moratoriums.

Okay.

And by the way, there is a company I think it's based in Colorado that's experimenting with jet engines as a potential energy source for data centers.

And it's a self-contained environment.

And they said they might be able to make that work.

Okay.

All right.

Even with the cooler weather, weather that is settling in for a bit, thank goodness the fire risk in our state is still out there.

And we've dealt with the smoke all this week from the fires in Oregon right before the House went into recess.

Recess.

Colorado Congressman Jonah Cruz, who represents the second district, and some other Democrats, announced the Wildfire Response and Readiness Act, a package of 25 bills, which includes, let's say, measures focused on helping communities, prevent fires are early detection is another part of the measure.

Also helping the wireline wildland firefighting workforce, including paying firefighters more.

The reality check, though, Jesse, is a package of 25 Democratic bills, could go nowhere.

And, a divided Congress.

But something has to happen.

Could take 25 years to get those 25 bills fast.

And in their current congressional makeup.

Yeah, I mean, I think the reality is just that, you know, things move at a snail's pace in Washington, especially legislation.

So any any fire prone communities hoping for help from Congress should not hold their breath.

Or they might be doing it for 25 years.

I think, you know, a lot of the changes that you're going to see are going to happen on the state level, but the reality is that the legislature has no money right now.

And so, right, right now, what the Capitol can do about it, what lawmakers can do is, is kind of to run the edges, right, in terms of trying to address high insurance costs, maybe incentivize, some kind of mitigation and then, you know, look for new technologies like you mentioned, early spotting, eye detection, drones, things like that, to try and get fires addressed quickly.

You know, I, I'm interested after this fire season and the lessons learned.

I mean Colorado has seen, I think 4 or 5 firefighter deaths and you know, which is a horrible tragedy.

It's been a long time since we've seen anything like that in the state, and I think we're all kind of still waiting with bated breath to see what the federal report investigation comes out in terms of the four firefighters who died in Mesa County a few weeks back.

And I think we would all be better served if they could hurry up with that.

I we really have no idea what happened.

And that's something that's certain.

Certainly the Suns waiting on.

We do.

Yeah.

I actually think that there's more agreement and disagreement about what to do with wildfires.

I think both sides of the aisle clearly see it's a problem.

It's not going away.

We've heard so many for so many years now that the fire season is actually a whole year.

It's an entire year.

So I do think that Congress is less divided on what to do.

I mean, there are very practical and pragmatic steps that they can take right away.

Paying firefighters more is one of them.

You know, getting to help the communities affected, much faster is is another and, and at the state level, you know, there are things that they can do right now to ease the pain on those communities.

You know, tax incentives, tax breaks, things along those lines that make it cheaper, perhaps to buy, you know, insurance.

They could that is that a possibility?

Yeah, that's a possibility.

But what we know is that we have a big insurance problem, not just for those areas that are considered to be like fire or wildfire zones, but even here in metro Denver, some places can't even get insurance.

You know, you're lucky if you're a place that that's close to water somehow.

And in their algorithms, you know, the insurance algorithms, they'll say, yep, sure.

We'll provide one.

Patty.

Well, we have to remember it's not just a state problem.

It is everywhere, not just in the West at not just in America.

And you look at what's going on in Washington, you look at what's going on in France.

It's so tricky.

So what Congress can really do is hold the Fed's feet to the fire.

I mean, there was supposed to be reorganization this summer under the Department of Agriculture with their wildfire fighting group.

Let's hope someone is there looking at how efficient they can be, how they can cooperate.

Moving teams from to from state to state as they're needed.

We've seen that happen down in Pula, where Alaska had come down and now another cruise in charge.

There has to be a lot of cooperation.

And statewide, what you can do is what Polis did.

Looking at insurance, can you cut the cost?

What Jefferson County is doing with making sure people are clearing all the brush and trees close to houses?

But it really is a federal problem now.

And Douglas County has their own firefighting helicopter, right.

And they're able to tackle fires really quickly because of that pen.

You know, I agree with everything that's been said around the table.

It is it's a national issue and it's a global issue.

Also, which means maybe somebody ought to think about climate change and how that impacts it.

But that's a conversation for another day.

Congress.

And it rather than the 25 bills, I'd prefer to see them deal with the administration and make sure disaster relief funds flow to communities that are impacted, regardless of whether they're a red state or a blue state.

People are hurting.

People have been damaged in our tax dollars ought to go to provide some relief.

All of these things that people are talking about, you know, say for communities, firefighter relief, higher pay, all of them need to be done.

There's one thing that I haven't heard anybody talk about yet, and at some point we're going to get there and we may not be there yet.

And it's the I, the idea that maybe we shouldn't be building everywhere just because there's land there.

Maybe as a community we ought to be talking about.

Are there places where you shouldn't allow people to build residences?

Okay.

All right.

You know, we talked about the Broncos plans for a new stadium just briefly last week.

But this week, the team's owner told reporters there are still plenty of details to work out.

And that opening a new stadium by 2031 will be difficult.

The team says Burnham Yard is still the preferred site and even though it isn't finalized, Wednesday night the team held an open house.

I think it was a third open house where people who live in the nearby neighborhood and, anyone else who wanted to learn more about the stadium and the proposed district and this huge, massive development.

Luigi, where would you like to start?

I don't know exactly where to start parking.

It's always going to be a big issue of how you actually do parking.

They talked about integrated parking, which I'm not really sure what integrated parking really means.

The question here is, you know, they're sort of signaling it will be difficult.

It's the preferred site, preferred site.

It's not yet the settled final site.

I don't know this for sure.

I'm just reading the tea leaves, if you will, but it's very clear that there, there may be some concessions that they haven't gotten yet, some deals that they haven't quite locked down yet.

I do see this is happening.

It's going to be Burnham Yard.

They're going to build the thing there.

There will be some community input.

Not everybody's going to be happy with it.

And so on and so forth.

But I don't see them changing their mind.

And c going to Douglas County suddenly, Patty, the team is going to do it there because they just paid 55 million for a concrete facility.

No one else is going to do that.

It's four times, I think, what the last owner paid 4 or 5 times, you know, they they're paying the state for the seat at the Burnham Yard area that could be used by someone else.

No one else would use this concrete facility.

I think what they're doing when they complain about, oh, it's going to be hard to do it on time.

They are just looking for more concessions from the city, from the state, and certainly from the neighbors, because they're going to say if this it'll be a big empty hole if we go away.

But you don't pay 55 million for a concrete plant if you're not going to use it.

Okay.

You know, I think that's right.

I think the Broncos are preserving their options.

And they don't want to say this is it.

Excuse me, but it pretty much is it.

That's where they're going to be.

I think the neighborhood ought to continue to push and speak, because once this is done, there aren't going to be any do overs, and you can't go back and get concessions from the team of the city.

So they need to work to preserve the community, and preserve affordability, which is really their big issue.

Okay.

And Jesse, maybe the Broncos just want to have a new, official concrete supplier of the Denver Broncos.

I agree with everything that's been said here.

I don't I don't really have anything else.

I again, I just what why why I can see that they're going to move it there if they want to get more concessions out of the state.

Now let's go around the table and talk about some of the highs and the lows that we witnessed this week.

We'll start on a low note and we'll start with Patty, the end of a long running saga at this table, which is Ward Churchill at the disgraced former Siu professor.

He's passed away.

It's a lesson for all of us in free speech and looking into people's credentials and in honest, open discussions.

Okay.

I think for me, it still continues to be the Colfax BRT construction.

I, I continue to hear more and more people ask, why are we doing this again?

And when I tell some folks, well, we've got some dedicated bus lanes, they're like, why our policymakers need to do a better job getting out of front of this and telling people the whys of some of these decisions.

Okay.

All right.

Jesse, just the lack of debate acceptances from candidates is here.

Obviously, Victor Marx is one of the people who decided that he's not going to play by kind of the traditional rules, which is fine, but there are several other candidates who are kind of dragging their feet in terms of debate acceptances.

We're trying to hold a bunch of them, and I hope voters get an opportunity to hear from their candidates and see them face up with their different choices.

It's important.

I have no right to complain about the weather because I'm from Arizona.

But it got so warm that we thought, well, maybe we should explore how much it would cost to put an AC system in our very old home.

Can't afford it.

I've got a guy.

Good.

Let me know.

Okay.

Come on.

AC or heat pump.

Keep up.

Okay.

Oh, okay.

Those are very unaffordable.

Two.

But maybe you have the right guy.

Okay.

Let's talk about the good stuff.

Aside from AC with Patty heading out to Denver International Airport, which has had a lot of delays lately, but at least it gives you a chance to look at the art.

And several old pieces that have been off for restoration are back, including Leo Tango Mas, a very controversial conspiracy inspiring pieces.

That's great.

And today, Gary Sweeney's America why I love her, the most wholesome, happy piece at the airport that shows crazy landmarks all over the country went back up.

Okay.

All right.

Two things.

It's Patty's interesting interest.

You mentioned Littleton Goomba.

He was going to do the original mural at the what's now the Wentworth building.

But when it was the Five Points Community Center, he was originally commissioned to do that mural.

Admins also, Dia for the exhibit they've done on the alt club of Denver in the history there of the Debbie Town Pulse.

Okay.

All right.

Jess, we I spent most of this week in a, conference room with fluorescent lights, which sounds like it was really bad, but it was actually a retreat with my color design colleagues that we had for a few days.

I was not looking forward to it, I'll admit it, but I left feeling really inspired and motivated.

And so that was that was definitely a nice thing.

Good.

All right.

So my boy and I started, listening to this audiobook by Stephen Fry, a British comedian.

It's called mythos, and it's his take on the generation of Greek gods.

And I tell you, reading is really hard and listening so much better.

This is, I think, a triumph of human ingenuity.

And to be able to produce audiobooks where you can listen and do something else and listen to this great comedian and his exposition about the Greek gods, it's just been awesome.

Okay.

All right.

Good.

My high is, the 80s.

I love the 80s.

Totally for many reasons, but I especially love the 80 degree weather that is upon us.

After this searing summer.

And I actually heard it might go into the 70s, so I'll take it.

Thank you, insiders, for joining us this week.

We so appreciate it.

Thank you for watching or listening on to the podcast.

I'm Kyle Dyer, I will see you next week here on PBS 12.

PBS's 12 believes in the power of original local programing.

Help us bring more shows like the one you just watched by donating at PBS's 12 Dawgs program Support today.