Public Comment Process Debate in Denver Land Use

Colorado Public Radio covers the ongoing controversy surrounding a proposed CoreSite data center in Denver’s Elyria-Swansea neighborhood, where state air regulators are urging the company to hold public meetings with residents. The project, already under construction, has drawn heavy opposition due to concerns about pollution, noise, and its location in a historically overburdened community. fileciteturn7file0

The reporting highlights tension between regulators, the company, and community groups. While the state has recommended more public engagement, CoreSite is not legally required to hold additional meetings and has instead leaned into smaller negotiations and a potential “good neighbor agreement.” Meanwhile, residents and advocacy groups continue to push for more transparency and a larger public forum to air concerns.

The Bullet Point Brief

State regulators are nudging CoreSite to hold public meetings. Nudging, not requiring. Important distinction.
The project sits in Elyria-Swansea, a neighborhood already dealing with industrial impacts. That is fueling strong local opposition.
CoreSite is tweaking its plan slightly, including smaller generators, but insists it is a technical change, not a response to pressure.
Residents packed a meeting even after the company backed out. That tells you how heated this has become.
The process is now shifting toward behind-the-scenes negotiations instead of large public forums.

My Bottom Line

Let me be very clear. This is not about CoreSite. This is not about Elyria-Swansea. Land use decisions belong at the local level, and the people closest to the project should have the loudest voice. Period.

What this is about is what has happened to the public comment process itself.

I am a First Amendment guy. Always have been. I have spent a lifetime defending the idea that people should show up, speak up, and be heard by their elected officials. That is the foundation of local government.

But over the last few years, something has changed. And not for the better.

Public hearings are no longer just conversations between local residents and decision-makers. They have become performances. Choreographed, scripted, and in many cases, professionally managed by national-level organizations that have no real stake in the community but every interest in the outcome.

You can see it a mile away. The same talking points. The same phrasing. The same emails hitting your inbox over and over again like they were printed from the same machine. Because they were.

These are not organic conversations. These are campaigns.

And here is the part that should bother everyone, regardless of where you fall on any particular project. These efforts are often funded through 501(c)(3) organizations, backed by donors you will never see, pushing agendas that may have very little to do with the actual neighborhood in question.

Dark money. Professional activists. Manufactured outrage.

All wrapped in the language of “community input.”

That cheapens the real thing. It drowns out the actual voices of the people who live there, who have to deal with the consequences, and who deserve to be heard without being part of someone else’s national strategy deck.

Look, I still want people involved. Show up. Speak. Engage. That is how this is supposed to work.

But let’s not pretend the system is as pure as it once was.

Land use is not a popularity contest. It is an application of code. Facts. Standards. Rules.

And when the same cut-and-paste email hits your inbox for the twentieth time, you start to realize something important.

You are not hearing from your constituents anymore.

You are hearing from a machine.

Source: Colorado Public Radio