You know how we've been talking about changes over the last many weeks and months?

Well, some of it is hard and some of it's good.

And we're changing things up just a skosh here on Colorado.

Inside out with a little musical chairs.

Don't worry.

Our insiders are in their seats.

The faces are the same.

Unlike some of the faces who will be in the student section at Folsom Field this weekend on the lookout for obnoxious behavior by students.

Now, everyone in their seats here knows to behave.

But we do agree to disagree and to learn from one another.

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 of Westword.

Erickson Solomon, columnist with the Colorado Politics, Denver and Colorado Springs Gazette.

Penfield Tate, Denver attorney with Tate Law and community leader who served in both the Senate and the House of the Colorado Legislature.

And Chris, Work, consultant with Roark Media.

Colorado is making national headlines again and again because of a case before the Supreme Court challenging our state's protection of the LGBTQ plus community.

We won't know for sure until June, but the US Supreme Court appears to be at the ready to back a free speech challenge to the Colorado law that bans conversion therapy, where children and teens are encouraged by therapists to stick with their gender identities that they were born with Patty.

The High Court heard these arguments on Tuesday.

And it's all stems from a, a Christian therapist who says, hey, I'm not allowed to have my free speech.

You know what I want to say come through in these sessions?

And the irony is, it's Kaylie Chiles, Colorado Springs, who has never actually had a client, a gay convert, you know, a conversion therapy client, but thinks it would impinge on her free rights if someone came and wanted conversion therapy, which has been banned not just in Colorado but in other states as being basically quack medicine.

You know, it's interesting, among the people who have gone through conversion therapy is Bowen Yang on Saturday Night Live.

He's from Aurora.

When he was a teenager in Aurora, he was taken to this, and he talks in a New Yorker interview about how damaging it was to him.

There is no one reputable who says this works, but that's not going to stop the Supreme Court.

It's interesting that last year they had another free speech case involving Colorado that was with calls Whalen, a musician who had been stalked online by a man who had left a million messages and the Supreme Court decided that wasn't threatening enough.

And they reversed his conviction, because of a free speech issue.

So I don't expect great things from the Supreme Court on this issue, but it would be a shame if they overturn it.

And, Eric, as Patty said, almost half the states have this kind of law.

A number of states do.

This is going to be a test case.

I sometimes think that, the Colorado Attorney General's office should maybe rent an apartment or, a house in Washington because they seem to be there with regularity and the state seems to get slapped down with regularity.

as Patty pointed out, what's one thing that I'm curious about?

This case.

And pens.

Pens?

The lawyer he can weigh in on this is it's purely hypothetical.

This that hasn't actually happened.

This therapist in Colorado Springs is just doing a sort of what if, I don't know to what extent therapy is governed by the same guidelines as medicine.

You know, in medicine, obviously, there's a public interest in making sure quack procedures, to quote Patty, are not a part of it and are not lawful, in therapy, if you have, quote, a consulting, consenting therapist and a, and, and a client who wants that approach, my instinct is a little more lenient.

Let two people, if they want to pursue that approach, there's no mandate that they do it.

But if they want to pursue that approach, I'm not sure that it needs to be regulated out of existence right off the top.

All right.

And our attorney, Ken, you know, this is, a weird situation because, I think we all know and believe that the Supreme Court's going to declare this law unconstitutional.

The irony is, it was supported in Colorado on a bipartisan basis.

So this wasn't Partizan legislation.

The other thing, to Patty's point is we have this doctrine in the law we call ripeness.

There needs to be a case or controversy for the court to adjudicate their.

Is it a case of controversy because no one's been prosecuted, no one's been threatened with prosecution, no one's done anything except you have a therapist saying, I was thinking about converting some people, but the law scared me, so I didn't do anything.

That's not a ripe case, but the antipathy this court administration has shown against the LGBTQ plus community leads everyone to believe they're going to rule this law, and constitute and it's it's really odd because states have always had the ability to regulate therapeutic, medical and other practices.

This is no different.

Over 20 states have legislation like this.

So now the court is going to say we are taking away the state's ability to regulate therapeutic practices.

That's a more chilling outcome than anything else here.

And, Chris, well, I think there needs to be a better definition of what conversion therapy is.

Certainly there have been, abuse as in this type of therapy.

You know, aversion therapy is one method that they use where a person is, is exposed to the images that they want to eliminate, and then they're made to be very feel very unpleasant, such as shock therapy.

However, that's different from cognitive behavioral therapy.

And a core tenet of cognitive behavioral therapy is challenging a person's beliefs, Child says that she only does talk therapy, that she doesn't adhere to these other abusive types of therapy.

there are implications.

As Eric spoke, Wisconsin recently, the state Supreme Court there just recently upheld its ban.

Whereas Virginia has said that it's not going to enforce its ban anymore.

Indiana actually prohibits local municipalities from having bans.

And then in Florida, Georgia and Alabama, a federal court says that the bans or unconstitutional.

So a lot of legal wrangling going on.

I think there needs to be a better definition, better laws if you really want to protect people.

But allow them to receive therapy.

Okay.

This week our weather became more fall-like with cooler and wetter weather.

And then there is the reality that there are fewer shelter beds for people who are experiencing homelessness.

An example in Loveland, Colorado, where the only shelter in town closed recently because of, funding issues.

So there was nowhere for people to go last weekend.

And the weather really took a turn and became very wet.

Eric, I will start with you.

Well, Loveland became the epicenter.

You know, Denver is usually the epicenter.

And now we have multiple epicenters.

We have Aurora trying a different approach, a tough love approach.

Loveland shut down their shelter.

The mayor up there actually opened up City hall for one night and let people come inside.

When it was raining cats and dogs will say, outside.

She took some heat for that.

I think some people thought only the city manager's allowed to open up City Hall after hours, she went ahead and did it.

My instinct is, with her on this one.

Whether City Hall can be a long term venue or not, that's a separate discussion, separate issue.

But on a one night basis, the woman showed some some basic human compassion.

Let's not rake her over the coals, the bigger issue, whether it's Denver, Loveland, Aurora, Colorado Springs, or really anywhere in this big country of ours, is what are we doing in terms of long term approaches?

And this country, you know, this has become an intractable problem.

It's a growing problem in most communities.

The numbers continue to go up, even in Denver.

Yes, we've gotten more people housed, but the overall numbers of homeless continue to rise.

We need long term answers, and they're short and supply.

And well, I agree with Eric.

Good on mayor Marsh for saying I'm going to do the sensible thing.

People aren't going to freeze on my watch.

And the fact that this is happening in Loveland tells you this is not a big city issue, the plight of the unhoused.

It is a broader systemic issue.

I won't get into the impacts of tariffs on building supplies, driving up the cost of housing or any of that, this conversation for another day.

But that's the fundamental issue, the fact that one medical bill can bankrupt a family and put them out on the street, that's a big picture issue that needs to be addressed.

But in Colorado, a number of jurisdictions are approaching this in different ways.

I applaud Jeffco, where you see Arvada, Edgewater, Golden, Lakewood, Westminster and Wheat Ridge all coming together to start thinking comprehensively county wide about how we address the plight of the unhoused, knowing that something has to be done because we don't want a bunch of people on the street for a host of public safety and esthetic reasons.

But knowing there needs to be, as Eric said, a long term systemic solution, well, then they try to do something in the state legislature last year, have a statewide or regional look at.

And that went nowhere, you know, and it gets into that old Home Rule City piece again, that I'm sure we'll be talking about later on in this program.

But that's part of the issue we have to deal with.

It is hard to to create statewide solutions to some of these issues, because every jurisdiction, Aurora wouldn't support that statewide solution.

They've got their tough love approach that by different opinions is either working or not working.

Okay, Chris.

Yeah, I mean, I've long been a critic of how Denver is handling the homeless problem because they just keep throwing money and throwing money and throwing money at it.

And as Eric mentioned, at least one study shows that homelessness is going up in the Denver metro.

You can't always throw money at a problem and expect that to fix it.

What is going to be really interesting is Aurora's navigation center, because as Eric and Pam, we're talking about finding a permanent solution, and they're hoping with this navigation center, which has been in the planning for quite a bit of time, it's not just throwing money at it.

It's saying, what do we want to do with this money?

With this navigation center, they have a company running it that is going to take people from temporary housing and provide them the services that they need.

So in the long term, they can get that permanent housing and stay in permanent housing.

Is this the place that's opening next month?

One stop shop?

Yes.

Mayor Kaufman's been talking about for a while.

Okay, well, I would Colorado Denver has been throwing money, but Denver has been throwing money specifically at more shelter, more housing, more tentative housing.

They're not just throwing money on the streets because we'd all be picking it up, but they don't.

Denver has a housing first philosophy.

Aurora has a workforce philosophy in Loveland, it wasn't so much a matter of philosophy.

We wrote a story on this a couple of months ago because you could see what was going to happen.

They just didn't have the money to keep their shelter open.

So we're going to have to close it.

We're not getting the money we need.

There are few other options, but the massive shelter that was very expensive, they decided they didn't need it.

They would work.

Maybe with the county, come up with that, shared things.

And then you have this first test, which is early.

It's not when it's snowing, it's when it's raining in September, September or early October.

And the mayor, good for her for saying, let's just bring them inside.

We've done that in Denver and snow and cold.

You suddenly find people.

I think they were in the basement of City Hall once, but Loveland is going to have to come up with a long term solution for short term shelter, just the way every other municipality is, and they'll all be looking at Loveland to see what is decided.

Kyle, just with reference to the statewide fix that was attempted this last session, did not pass.

Color me dubious about, that kind of an approach.

I actually like the fact that Jeffco municipalities can go one direction.

Aurora can try a work first approach.

Denver can try its approach.

Colorado Springs is a bit of a hybrid of different approaches.

Let's see what works because no one has figured this out.

So let's have some experimentation.

You really need that sort of laboratory approach because they're different drivers of unhoused populations and different communities, and those communities have individual needs.

You everywhere's different.

Okay.

All right.

We are seeing how the federal government does indeed favor certain cities and states for following in line with the administration's, plans.

But here in Colorado, that's happening, too.

14 Colorado cities have been kind of kicked to the back of the line for $280 million in state grants, because the Polis administration says they are not following state laws that are designed to increase affordable housing.

Now, Penfield at a time when funding opportunities are pretty scarce, it's something to see cities being say, no, you have to go over here and wait.

It's not as unusual as you think, okay, this this situation revolves around two laws.

One, that that is encouraging communities to allow for accessory dwelling units.

The granny flats is what some people call them.

And another law that is encouraging communities to increase housing density so that everything that gets built isn't just a single family house on an acre of land.

You're doing multi, multi unit development.

The issue here is that under these two laws, in order to qualify for grant funding, which is money, you just get that taxpayer dollars.

There are parameters established and some of these communities are saying we're home rule city.

We get the right to determine housing density in ADUs.

And I agree they get the right.

But if you exercise your right in such a way where you know it's going to disqualify you, or at least put you in the back of the line for grant funding, that's a choice you've made.

And so, I think eventually some of these communities may get access to some of the money, but I think the state has a legitimate interest in saying laws have been passed.

Grant funding is available.

Here's what you have to do to comply and qualify for it.

You can opt not to do it.

That's your prerogative.

Okay, Chris, what do you say?

Well, there's already a lawsuit on the table.

Six municipalities have said, hey, we're home rule, so we're not really happy with this.

We're taking this to court.

There is a question about the constitutionality of it.

This just this what has happened now with this hit list or this the good list and the bad list is it's just throwing gas on the fire.

So I think that if we see any of these 14 municipalities miss out on grant funding when they otherwise would have been qualified, there may be more lawsuits.

I think what's unfortunate is that the Department of Local Affairs dollar has always been a, agency that has worked with municipalities, help them get grant funding, been a state partner, and now it's become an enforcement arm.

Is it weaponized?

I don't know, you know, Maria de Canberra said that this isn't punitive action that's being taken against the 14, cities not complying, but it kind of feels that way.

Okay.

I'm not going to call you Pam Bondi, but we'll get into that fight later.

So it's a great trust.

Anybody know.

And you did answer the question.

So it really wasn't fair.

But I've been dying to say it.

So the thing about it is it's a grant that you can apply for.

We've just been talking about how home rule cities are important, that municipalities be able to make decisions on how to deal with their own problems.

We also know that statewide affordable housing is a big problem.

So polis pushed through this one concept that that had to affect two laws, but push it through so that people could be eligible for grants if they did the density housing, if they did, the granny flats, if municipalities decide they don't want to do that, it's not unreasonable for them not to be able to get grants.

We can't apply for grants if we don't apply.

If we don't qualify.

So I think there will be lawsuits.

People will complain.

We'll see if we even see any of this affordable housing be built.

But it might not be built in Aurora.

I think there is a distinction here.

What the state is doing is it has laws on the books, and those laws become criteria for grant making.

And if you comply with those laws, you're at the top of the line for the grants.

If not, you're at the bottom of the list.

Yet to the naked eye and to, I think, a whole lot of voters paying slightly more casual attention out there, it smacks a lot of what we're seeing coming out of Washington with the Trump administration pain, plain, blatant and obvious favorites between blue states and red states for all kinds of granting in Colorado has been on the short end of that list as a blue state.

Now, in the Trump case, it's often about politics.

It's blue red.

While the distinction I referenced earlier is in Colorado, it is about complying with statutory law on the books.

I get the distinction.

It's an important distinction, but yet it is lost on many people.

But Eric, it's a huge distinction.

What the federal administration is doing is playing Partizan games based on executive orders and personal prerogative.

There is no legal basis for the the distinctions they're drawing here.

We have laws on the books that say this is the objective we're trying to accomplish.

This is what you have to do to qualify.

If you qualify, we'll consider you for grant funding.

If you don't, you go to the end of the line.

And it's not Partizan.

I mean, Denver, Inglewood, Lakewood, Colorado Springs, Idaho Springs, Glenwood Springs, Durango, Cripple Creek, Ridgeway, these are all the communities that have met the criteria under the law and have applied for and in the queue to be considered for funding.

So it's not Partizan or any no argument for me.

I'm in fact, quote, quote unquote to everything you just said.

I and I agree entirely, yet I think for a whole lot of people out there, I think you need to meet voters where they are, and a lot of them aren't as tuned in as you.

I you are as I am.

Other people around this table, a lot of our viewers.

But there are a whole lot of voters who see this as the president picking favorite favorites, the governor picking favorites.

I think you need to acknowledge that it feeds a narrative.

Okay, I get your point.

Okay.

So the see you buffs first home game this weekend with Iowa State.

First game since the BYU match when students yell offensive cheers to the other team to squash any chance of a repeat performance.

This weekend, security guards and undercover police officers dressed in Ku gear will be sitting in the student section at Folsom Field.

They're to enforce the code of conduct at sports games, and anyone who is caught yelling or doing something that is not appropriate will be punished.

Chris, I will talk with you first.

Yeah, this situation is so embarrassing.

It's like mom having to go to school and sit in the classroom with her kid to make sure he behaves.

And Q is embarrassed on a national level, not only have they been embarrassed, but they've paid $50,000 in fines of the big fines into the big 12, sporting events, college football games get very raucous.

When I was a freshman at the University of Illinois, right before the big Michigan game, and everybody in the Big Ten hates Michigan.

I saw some things and heard some things that I had not seen or heard before.

It was very interesting.

But this is a little different because, BYU was being called out for their religious beliefs.

Q has a policy.

If you want to go to the game, you have to adhere to the policy, like grant funding.

I guess Penn.

Free speech.

Everybody's saying, oh, it's limiting my free speech.

Well, you can talk loudly in a movie theater and be asked to be excused.

So if you want to exercise free speech, go down to the public square.

But be prepared for the consequences because you might get punched in the nose.

I would draw any comparison to Pam Bondi because you were so reasonable there.

You're exactly right.

And this was my disgrace last week.

What I think is so crazy now is if you want security at games, and there are many reasons to have security at games, just drunks.

Why put them in?

See you undercover outfits.

I would love to know what they like.

Do they dress up like buffaloes?

I'd love to see someone.

Is Ralphie or Brandy, whoever that buffalo is now.

But just go have security in the stands and leave it at that.

Be better if the crowds just behaved.

But if you feel the need for security, don't go with subterfuge, silly.

I actually find this a fascinating issue.

You know, this is a public institution.

University of Colorado.

It is a public stadium, Folsom field.

So there are free speech protections that come with public spaces.

Yet a family ought to be able to go to a game and take their five year old, ten year old teenager, whatever, without hearing the worst of the worst.

and maybe instead of enforcing speech laws, if we just enforce some intoxication laws that could cure the problem.

You think so?

And then this is not undercover cops in a, in a college football game.

You know, I remember a time when C.U.

was begging students to come to games because they wouldn't show up.

The team was so awful.

But I gotta tell you something.

I grew up in Boulder.

I went to many a CU football game.

I sold Cokes in the student section.

Let me tell you something.

What was said about BYU was not half of what used to be said about Nebraska.

That was really and truly offensive.

And you know, if he could make a 15 year old kid blush like, oh my God, it's bad.

I worry about CU because imagine a situation where you got an unruly kid who's mouthing off, and the undercover police who probably been on everybody threw him off the stadium.

And then the university says to further punish you, even though you pay student fees, you can't come to any more football games or any more basketball games.

You think the Regent, Wanda James situation was a mess?

This is a nightmare.

I would probably be the parent that sued.

See you This is not a good look for you.

By any stretch of the imagination, All right.

Now let's talk about some of the highs and the lows of this week.

We will start on a low note so we can finish upbeat Patty I will start with you.

Well clearly it's me.

Yes.

For those who missed it last week I may do better.

Denver, because of the shocking act of sitting down and talking to the mayor, mayor Mike Johnston, in public.

We were actually on 16th Street talking about the developments down there.

And I've said the bit my biggest concern with Do Better Denver is no context and no accountability.

So I will say contact.

I had wanted to talk about what was going on with the pavilions.

We've got an early tip.

We couldn't confirm it.

The mayor said he wanted to talk about it, so we sat down first in journalism.

Journalists should go talk to public officials and thank God some public officials are still willing to talk to journalists.

We don't see that at the white House.

So the context, talking about the ball, and that's what your job is down there.

Denver Ethics Commission recently, sort of on a technicality absolve Phil Washington, the head of Dia and other officials out there for this good god expensive trip that I believe it was nine Dia executives took first class business class, exorbitant airfares, exorbitant expenses to some conference in Barcelona, Spain.

If Mayor Johnston wants to demonstrate both ethics and frugality, particularly in this election season, in the run up to his vibrant Denver bonds, maybe he ought to, you know, send somebody packing.

Jerry Jones, the owner of the Denver, the Dallas Cowboys, was recently criticized because of a gesture he made to the New York fans when the Cowboys were beating the Jets.

He claimed he was intending to give the thumbs up, but a different digit slipped out and sits dead and it was caught on camera.

It's so easy to get caught, it's inadvertent.

I get my fingers.

I get confused by them all the time.

Well, the Gunnison County Stock Growers Association has, filed a petition.

They got 28 organizations on board asking for a pause to the wolf reintroduction program.

Gunnison is set to get wolves this December.

What's upsetting about this situation is the board of county commissioners did not sign the petition.

A county commissioner reached out to me and said, well, we did file a four page letter of support for the stock growers, but that's highly different than than saying we are asking for the pause as well.

We support our stock growers who are an integral part of this community, and we're asking for this pause, too.

Okay.

All right.

Now let's talk about something good.

Start with you, Patty.

To make up for bad behavior, three very fast things.

Charlie Miller, who did such a great job at the off center, which has just been offered by the CPA.

So good for him.

Good for them all.

Now, the 16th Street finally opening.

Get down there and see it.

And my mother, who turns 97 this week.

Congratulations and puts up with me.

Happy birthday, happy birthday, happy birthday Eric.

Yay to Charlie Miller.

Yay to Shirley Calhoun and Aida channel 12 for trying something different.

The set here today is new.

We're all in different positions.

I like it, and I think innovation and experimentation is good.

Two thumbs up, thumbs Penn.

Thumbs up.

Yeah, thanks for watching.

Two real quickly, big ups to the city and County of Denver for finally closing the deal with regard to the Park Hill golf course and the land swap.

So now, as part of the bond package, we'll have well, hopefully voters will give the city money to begin to activate the park.

But, also, I just want to congratulate the recent Colorado Hall of Fame inductees, former Bronco, Steve Foley, nugget, a fat lever, buff Kordell Stewart, Tennis Hall of Famer Gigi Fernandez, Olympic swimmer Wendy Koenig, and a local guy who pastor Harry Holland's do all time career leading scorer.

Excellent.

All right.

Okay, I have three, but I'll be fast.

Okay.

Peace in the Middle East if it sticks.

The 2026 teacher of the year is from Greeley.

The first time it's come from Greeley.

His name is Steven Paulson.

And as I have mentioned, every year in the last three years, the Fat Bear contest in, Katmai National Park has taken place.

And the award winning bear, his name is chunk.

And he survived a broken jaw this summer, and he has gone on to be the Fat Bear of the year.

He had a broken jaw.

He had a broken jaw.

Wow.

Oh, good for him.

Okay, I'm kind of bear.

I'm keeping with your theme because my high is something really happy.

The Denver Zoo's latest lion cubs are now enjoying time outside.

The feisty four spent the first couple of months of life inside behind the scenes bonding with mom, but now they are all out exploring their outdoor space.

But with baby steps.

The three sisters and their brother are out from 930 to 1130 every morning.

Then they go inside and have quiet time.

But as they get older and stronger, they'll be spending more time outside.

But they are so so so so cute.

And so I just had to get these faces and talk about them on the show.

With chunk, chunk, chunk, chunk.

All right.

With the broken jaw, with a broken shell.

All right.

Thank you, insiders.

Thanks.

Behind the scenes crew, we appreciate you two, along with our viewers at home, our listeners on our 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.