By Joel Warner
By Michael Roberts
By Alan Prendergast
By Michael Roberts
By Michael Roberts
By Amber Taufen
By Patricia Calhoun
By William Breathes
Over the years, I have found too many reasons to not trust upper management--which is sad, since we are all supposed to be caring for children. All too often, I have seen the best interest of a child being violated by poor casework or the system mandates.
If everyone could have attended at least one of the recodification meetings dealing with our children held over an eighteen-month period recently, most would understand what a mess we have in our system today. The Department of Social Services has become one of those uncontrollable government systems that no longer have a purpose, but rather protect the system. I am sure that the intent of 96-272 was not to cause the harm it has, but could it be that people are just confused as to what it was intended to do?
I recognized years ago that the Department of Social Services could cover up almost everything it wanted to--and did so on many occasions. It could hide behind its definition of "confidentiality" or the many layers of command, and nobody would know the difference. Nobody can tell the public what is going on except foster parents--and we have no authority. We sign a contract with the county department that is one-sided because we care for children and we try to make a difference.
We need the help of the public to stop this madness.
Richard H. Inzer
In response to James Plunkett's letter in the February 7 issue of Westword, which stated that the current director of Colorado's Central Registry of Child Protection is a former Kempe Center director: I must say that I was flattered by Plunkett's inaccurate reference. While it is true that I was fortunate to be a small part of C. Henry Kempe's legacy from 1983 to 1994, I was never, as Mr. Plunkett asserts, director of the Kempe Center.
David B. Denson
The Height Report
Regarding Stuart Steers's "Height Makes Right," in the February 7 issue:
It is unfortunate that one development project should spark such a Draconian response as seen in the proposals for the wholesale revamping of LoDo's zoning ordinance (although some would argue that it was a battle waiting to be waged ever since the creation of the district). LoDo's Historic District, to quote from 1987 Denver documents, was created "to revitalize the area by attracting additional businesses, restaurants and other enterprise, as well as residents." It was not created as an inner-city "Suburban Pastiche."
If LoDo's new residents don't like the mixed-use nature of this environment, then I would respectfully point them in the direction of the suburbs and would strongly suggest that when they purchase their next residence, they fully apprise themselves of the environment they are moving to, including a thorough review of the relevant zoning ordinance. If no one else has, I would like to point out to LoDo's new residents that there are some long-standing property owners in LoDo who have already seen their property values and rights negatively impacted to accommodate the Historic District. It is quite unrealistic to suggest that we should be forced to make further sacrifices in order to enhance residential property values in the district--which is precisely what is proposed by the new plan.
Looking further down the road, from the present rumblings within the residential community we can see that the buck just ain't going to stop here. We can, I am sure, look forward to controls on restaurants, bars, clubs, parking, traffic and, who knows, even baseball may be forced to close early.
The residential community in LoDo is an important one and should be encouraged to grow, which it will regardless of the current proposals. But let us not forget that they are a part of a whole.
John Nadler, President
Compco Colorado (LoDo property owner)
Letters policy: Westword wants to hear from you, whether you have a complaint or compliment about what we write from week to week. Letters should be no more than 200 words; we reserve the right to edit for libel, length and clarity. Although we'll occasionally withhold an author's name on request, all letters must include your name, address and telephone number.
PO Box 5970
Denver, CO 80217
or e-mail to: