Skip to content

Breaking News

Letters to the Editor |
Letters to the editor: Buffs’ future lies with the PAC-12; taxes will be more than you think; CU south development impact


Editor’s note: The headline on Tom Schantz’s letter has been updated to better reflect the content of the letter. 

Tom Schantz: CU sports: Buffs’ future lies with the PAC-12

With UCLA and USC deserting the PAC-12, some are saying Colorado’s future lies with the Big 12 or possibly the Big 10. Years ago I urged Colorado to leave the Big 12 for the PAC-12 and that is still my position.

Colorado is a western state, culturally and politically linked to western and Pacific coastal states. The only reason given for leaving the PAC-12 is based on football dollars (besides seeking a chance of playing Nebraska). It is time that we recognize that college football is now dominated by a handful of schools. Chasing a national championship or even a conference title in the Big 10 or Big 12 is out of reach.

Given the new proposed 12-team playoff plan where six conference champions are included, Oregon and Washington should stay in the PAC-12. Add a couple of California schools and consider bringing in Colorado State and Boise State.

While Colorado might continue to flounder in football, a smart athletic department should look to other sports, ones that don’t require 70 to 100 players. There is no reason why CU shouldn’t be a national basketball power. The men’s team does well, the women’s team could be great. But two of the top female recruits in the country left Colorado for Stanford. UConn, a non-Power 5 school, is the basketball capital of the world, playing to sold-out field houses. You only need to grab a few players to dominate in the sport.

Then add softball (every college recruiter in the country attends summer high school age tournaments in Colorado) and baseball.

Tom Schantz, Lyons

Robert Pane: Library District: New taxes will likely be more than you think

Like many Boulder citizens, I am trying to arrive at an informed decision regarding the Library District measure on the November ballot. Unfortunately, the two guest opinions in the Camera from last month were not helpful. On August 10, Chris Barge stated that a “yes” vote would cost “about $9.62 per month on a home with a taxable value of $500,000.” On August 20, Claire Kelley uses the same $500,000 actual home value to say “you’ll pay less than $10 per month in taxes for a district.”

According to the Daily Camera Business pages of March 8, 2022, the median home value in Boulder was $1,587,450. Using this value, half of all homeowners in Boulder will be paying at least triple the stated “$9.68 per month” for the Library District.

I will assume the use of the unrealistically low $500,000 home value by both opinion writers was just an innocent coincidence, rather than a deliberate effort to confuse the voters.

Robert Pane, Boulder

Robert Porath: CU South: Everyone has chosen to ignore the impact of development

Boulder has been a college town since first landing the University of Colorado. As the university grew, the city benefited and grew around it as a symbiotic partner.

Under Bruce Benson and a Republican Board of Regents, and tired of having to go hat-in-hand to an increasingly tight-fisted State Legislature for funding, CU adopted a pro-growth corporate real estate business model — bigger is better and more is more money. The university is run as a business operation, with generous tax benefits.

Similarly, the City Council has joined the growth and development bandwagon and, for some unknown reason, so has the local Indian Peaks Chapter of the Sierra Club.

How this has fared for Boulder residents is where problems arise. Housing has not kept pace with business development and thousands of cars commute into and drive around town every day, resulting in constantly increasing traffic congestion and ozone pollution. It is impossible to find practical benefit for residents and neighborhoods from the Google invitation, the University’s Limelight (hogging) Hotel on the Hill, or the proposed South Campus expansion on a site that is a natural open wonder as it stands “as is.”

CU, the City Council, and the Sierra Club have each chosen to ignore the impact of the project and its carbon footprint despite the reality of climate change, global warming and the West’s continuing drought. In the coming election, the people of Boulder have an opportunity to make a clear statement for the environment and for themselves. Vote yes to repeal.

Robert Porath, Boulder