News
News from Boulder, Colorado and Boulder Channel 1 News editors To advertise please call 303-447-8531
Boulder Channel 1 News Editorial: Time to Fire Police Chief Stephen Redfearn – Boulder Deserves Better
Apr 29th
April 29 2026 By Jann Scott Boulder, long celebrated as a progressive, open community that values transparency, accountability, and trust between citizens and law enforcement, now faces a serious leadership crisis at its Police Department. Chief Stephen Redfearn must be fired immediately. His decision to encrypt police radio communications and deny broad news media access to scanner traffic represents a dangerous step toward secrecy that misjudges the very character of this city. dailycamera.com He als denied access to this very news org and individual crime reporters
Redfearn claims encryption protects officer safety and prevents criminals from monitoring movements. These concerns echo national trends, yet in Boulder’s context, they ring hollow. The department offered a handful of select outlets costly encrypted radios tied to restrictive contracts that limit real-time reporting and expose media to liability—conditions major outlets like the Daily Camera rightly rejected. Public scanner access, a longstanding tool for journalists to alert the community to unfolding events like emergencies, fires, or incidents, has been curtailed. Redfearn’s team insists this enhances inter-agency coordination and privacy, but the move effectively hides real-time police activity from the public eye.
This isn’t transparency; it’s control. Boulder residents expect open government, not a department that decides what the press—and by extension, the people—can know in the moment. History shows scanner listening rarely compromises operations but frequently empowers timely, accurate reporting that holds everyone accountable. By restricting it while promising “dashboards” and delayed releases, Redfearn underestimates Boulder’s sophisticated, engaged citizenry that demands real oversight, not curated narratives. bouldercolorado.gov
Redfearn’s tenure has been marked by controversy, including past scrutiny from his Aurora days and local tensions over oversight and community relations. Boulder’s crime picture is mixed—property crimes have declined in recent years, yet residents still grapple with theft, safety perceptions, and calls for balanced policing. A chief who prioritizes encryption over partnership misreads this town’s ethos of openness. Progressive Boulder rejects opacity; it thrives on sunlight. boulderreportinglab.orgCity leaders must act now. Replace Redfearn with a chief who respects Boulder’s values—someone committed to genuine access, not restrictions dressed as safety. Our community deserves policing that builds trust through visibility, not walls. Fire Chief Redfearn before more damage is done to the public’s right to know.Jann Scott, Boulder Channel 1 News. Voice of reason in Boulder since 1989.
Boulder’s pro-Palestine movement has intensified its criticism of U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse
Mar 13th
Boulder’s pro-Palestine movement has intensified its criticism of U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.), following a heated email exchange that highlights deep divisions over U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
Dateline: Boulder, Colorado – March 13, 2026 Local activist Rob Smoke sent a strongly worded email to Congressman Neguse early Friday, accusing him of complicity in violence against Palestinians through U.S. military support for Israel. Smoke referenced Neguse’s alleged presence and applause during Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s addresses to Congress, as well as claims of AIPAC financial influence on the representative. The message described graphic civilian casualties in Gaza, calling Neguse a “shameless pile of excrement” and a “disgrace.”
Smoke copied numerous local figures, including activists, journalists, and community members, sparking a chain of replies. Rob Prince praised the directness, suggesting Neguse was “groomed” for higher office by compromising principles. Joy Barrett expressed understanding of the outrage but cautioned about publicly sharing emails amid risks to free speech and vulnerable community members. Evan Ravitz labeled Neguse “Genocide Joe,” critiquing his role as Assistant Democratic Leader and ties to defense interests. Eve Partridge shared frustrations over politicians’ stances on regional conflicts, including funding for Israel.
Neguse’s office had earlier responded to a constituent message—apparently related to U.S. involvement in Iran—defending his vote for H.Con.Res.38, a war powers resolution to remove U.S. forces from unauthorized hostilities in Iran. Records confirm Neguse supported the measure in early March.
The exchange reflects broader tensions in Boulder, a hub for pro-Palestine activism amid ongoing debates over U.S. aid to Israel. Critics point to Neguse’s campaign contributions from pro-Israel groups, including significant AIPAC-related support over recent cycles.
Neguse’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the email or related accusations. The incident underscores persistent local activism challenging congressional positions on Middle East policy as conflicts continue to influence domestic discourse.
Should City Boulder form Metropolitan Districts ?
Mar 6th
Boulder March 6, 2026 by Boulder channel 1 News Should the City of Boulder allow the formation of Metropolitan Districts under a proposed local ordinance?
The City of Boulder is exploring an ordinance (with drafts open for community feedback through March 16, 2026) to permit property owners to propose Metropolitan Districts — limited special entities that finance public infrastructure like roads, water, and sewer lines through property taxes within a defined area. This tool aims to support long-term financial stability by ensuring new growth pays for its own infrastructure, rather than burdening the city’s general fund.
Proponents argue it could accelerate development or redevelopment while aligning with Boulder’s values through strict local standards, a Model Service Plan setting debt limits and tax caps, and maximum legal protections for the city and residents.
Here are the key pros and cons based on the city’s materials, Colorado-wide experiences with metro districts, and development discussions:Pros:
- Enables growth to be self-funding: “Metropolitan Districts help accelerate development or redevelopment opportunities within a specified area by ensuring that growth pays for its own infrastructure,” per city officials. This reduces pressure on the city’s budget for extending services to new areas.
- Supports housing and affordability goals: By spreading infrastructure costs over time via bonds repaid through property taxes, districts can lower upfront home prices (potentially by tens of thousands per home, as seen in broader Colorado examples), helping address housing shortages without immediate taxpayer burdens.
- Provides tailored infrastructure financing: Districts fund essential public improvements (roads, utilities, parks) not covered by city funds, making large-scale or redevelopment projects more feasible while adhering to local standards for alignment with Boulder’s goals.
- Offers city protections: The proposed ordinance and Model Service Plan would impose strict rules on services, debt, and taxation to safeguard residents and the city, building on recent state transparency reforms.
Cons:
- Adds property tax burden on residents: Owners within a district face ongoing special taxes (mill levies) to repay infrastructure debt, which could increase costs for homeowners — especially if development slows or sells out incompletely, as seen in some historical Colorado cases where taxes rose sharply.
- Creates independent entities with limited city control: Metro districts operate separately from the general fund and can incur debt/obligations independently, raising concerns about long-term accountability, even with local oversight.
- Risk of misalignment or abuse without strong regulation: Past issues in Colorado (e.g., high debt burdens in slow-selling developments) highlight potential downsides; while Boulder’s proposal emphasizes protections, critics note metro districts are “powerful” tools that require careful oversight to avoid negative impacts on residents.
- Could incentivize sprawl over infill: Enabling easier financing for new development might shift focus away from denser, in-city projects, conflicting with Boulder’s priorities for sustainable growth and preserving open space.
City Council is tentatively set to review the ordinance on April 2 (first reading) and April 16 (second reading), 2026. Residents can provide feedback on the drafts via the city’s website to help shape this tool for Boulder’s future.
