Data centers: What good are they for Colorado?

Re: “Dueling policies for data centers,” March 1 news story

The Denver Post article about two competing bills in the legislature regarding new data centers in Colorado seems to start with the presumption that we want the data centers.

Why do we want them and who wants them? Is it the politicians wanting bragging rights about our state becoming another Silicon Valley? Perhaps they want more businesses so they can collect more taxes from the new residents. Alternatively, they just want more power in Washington by increasing our population. Has anyone stopped to ask why we want to attract more people to our state?

Colorado is in a fight with other Western states to obtain more water for our growing population. Our wildlife is being crowded out by the increased urbanization. The roads are so crowded that it is not uncommon to come to a complete stop on our interchanges during rush hour. We have a serious housing shortage. The air is being polluted by the increased number of cars. These are all the result of a growing population. Did anyone stop to ask why we want more people?

During my 53 years living in Colorado, I have never heard anyone (other than politicians) say, “We need more people.” On the contrary, the conversation is more often about how we are becoming overcrowded. I would like the politicians to explain why we need more businesses and more people in our state. It should not be a presumption that more is better! Are our elected representatives truly reflecting the wishes of their constituents?

Doug Hurst, Parker

Anger and disbelief were our reactions when we read about House Bill 1030, which is under consideration at the statehouse. This outrageous corporate welfare bill would provide some of the world’s wealthiest corporations with massive state tax reductions to build monstrous resource-thirsty data centers. Analysts projected a $92.5 million tax loss in just three years if a bunch of these data centers are built. Just one 160-megawatt facility would gobble up as much power as 176,000 homes once completed. Consider for comparison that the entire DIA airport uses around 45 megawatts of power!

As the state legislature grapples with bone-deep budget cuts, we cannot afford to exempt data centers from paying their own way nor allow their unregulated construction. Taxpayer-funded corporate handouts would entail massive hits to tax revenue that should be used for our schools, roads, infrastructure, and valid state needs. What essential services will potentially be cut or axed to cover the lost revenue to the state from this corporate giveaway?

These data centers also demand massive amounts of our water. A CoreSite data center in Denver alone will use approximately 805,000 gallons of water per day to air-condition its computers. That is the same as the average daily indoor water use of 16,100 Denver homes.

I pray our state legislature will condemn HB-1030 to the corporate welfare hell where it belongs in. Instead, they should support Senate Bill 102 that will hopefully properly regulate these tax-eating, water-wasting, and electricity-gobbling monstrosities.

Terry Talbot, Grand Junction

We were in Hilo for a story that had zero to do with the parks. Visiting Volcanoes National Park again, together with the coconut bridge problem, had sent us across the island from Kona, and the plan was straightforward enough: After our long-awaited volcano visit ended, we planned to do the remaining reporting, get something to eat, and head back out to Kauai via wonderful Hilo Airport. We had not flown through Hilo in years and wanted to check it out, too, and we were glad we did. And we were not expecting Hilo itself to change anything about the day. But it did.

Hilo gave us something we weren’t expecting.

What changed it was not a museum, any paid admission attraction, or some “must-see” visitor stop. It was a public park near the airport that we could have very easily passed by.

Liliuokalani Gardens does not look that impressive from the road. There was no gate, no fee, no reservation sign, and none of the now-familiar friction that can come with so many Hawaii stops. You did not have to plan for it, book it, or have any special reason for just being there. We just showed up. And almost immediately, we had the same thought that many other locals and visitors probably would: how is this still free?

Liliuokalani Gardens still feels generous and opulent.

Not free in the sense of being modest or “nice for what it is.” Free in the sense that if this were packaged somewhere else as a formal attraction, people would pay for it without much hesitation. The gardens are spacious, beautifully kept up, and full of details that only really register once you show up and slow down. The ponds, the bridges, the stonework, the open lawns, the beautiful trees, the way the paths keep opening up to new views. Nothing about it feels slapped together or reduced to the bare minimum.

What impressed us was just how easy it felt spending time there. People were wandering, stopping, sitting, talking, exercising, and taking their time. Some sat on benches and picnicked, as we did, while others strolled along the paths without any clear destination. Nobody seemed rushed. It was clearly Hilo at its best.

More often than not, the Hawaii experience starts before you even arrive. There is planning, the fee, the booking window, the parking issues, the time slot, the shuttle, the warning signs, the whole uncomfortable low-grade sense that you are entering something managed as tightly as Hawaii deems necessary. Some of that is understandable. Some of it is probably unavoidable. But it changes the feeling of a place in Hawaii. And it turns too many stops into logistics first and enjoyment second. But not here.

Liliuokalani Gardens felt like the opposite. We could hear planes not far off landing and taking off, and still see how close we were to the airport and town, but inside the gardens, all of that fell away. What took over instead was the sound of water, the stillness around the ponds, the nesting nenes, the bridges, and the rare feeling that nobody was trying to move us along.

After we left the park and before returning to Hilo Airport, we also stopped at Rainbow Falls. That stop turned out to be a whole different story. More on that soon.

Liliuokalani Gardens dates back to 1917.

The Territorial Legislature set aside land in Hilo for a public park dedicated to Queen Liliuokalani. The gardens’ own history says the park grew out of an early Hilo push to create a Japanese garden and tea house, influenced by Hawaii’s large Japanese immigrant community and by Laura Kennedy’s 1914 trip to Japan. That history helps explain why the place feels so substantial today: it now spans 24.67 acres, including the Japanese-style garden, Moku Ola, and other connected park areas.

What Hilo exposed about Hawaii.

These places are not good only because they are free. They are just good, period. The fact that they are free only sharpens the comparison. In a state where more visitor experiences now come wrapped in fees, reservations, restrictions, and various bottlenecks, Hilo can still find ways to offer places that feel open.

That does not mean every site in Hawaii can or should work this way. Some places are too fragile, too much in demand, or too small. But Hilo is a reminder that not everything meaningful in Hawaii has to be turned into a managed product. Not every worthwhile thing needs a layer of hassle between the visitor and Hawaii itself.

We did not go to Hilo looking for a parks story at all. We were nearby because of the coconut bridge problem.

Hawaii visitors are paying more, planning more, and dealing with infinitely more rules than they used to. Sometimes that is the price of preserving what visitors came for in the first place. Sometimes, however, it reflects a broader shift in how the state now handles access, demand, and public spaces.

Hilo offered exceptional beauty without a transaction attached and access without any conditions. We could just arrive spontaneously, stay as long as we wanted, look around, and then leave on our own terms. After so many Hawaii stops built around fees, timing, and control, this is one place where the welcome doesn’t come with a price tag.

For more information, visit the Friends of Lili’uokalani Gardens website or Facebook page.

Lead Photo: © Beat of Hawaii.

California has launched a huge crackdown on criminals buying and registering supercars outside of the state to avoid eye-popping sales tax.

Fourteen people have been charged after $20 million worth of vehicles were sourced to the Big Sky State in what authorities are calling the “Montana Loophole.”

The cars include a $1.8 million McLaren Elva, a Porsche 918 Spyder and a $1.26 million Ferrari F12TDF, the attorney general’s office said.

In the Golden State base rate sales tax is 7.25%. For a Lamborghini or Ferrari that can reach up to $250,000 or higher, that can mean a tax bill over $18,000. In Montana it is zero.

The gang, from Alameda, Marin, Santa Clara and Sacramento, allegedly dodged more than $1.8 million in taxes since 2018.

They are accused of filing false records showing the supercars were bought in Montana but then drove and kept them in California.

The DMV has launched nearly 100 criminal investigations into similar schemes across California since 2023 and recovered $2.3 million. It says the schemes are costing over $10 million per year.

It says there are 601 fraudulently registered cars involved and the DMV and California Department of Tax and Fee Administration have reviewing all car sales made in Montana.

California AG Rob Bonta said: “When bad actors abuse legal loopholes and submit fraudulent documents to evade their obligations, the California Department of Justice will not stand idly by.

“Every dollar of unpaid taxes is a dollar taken from California’s roads, schools and the vital services our communities rely on.”

The AG’s office said Beverly Hills was the city with the most suspicious car sales, with 416 cases on its radar from the luxury enclave.

It also released a series of text messages from defendants in Marin County and Walnut Creek, which said: “Don’t want the state of California to know anything about this car.”

Another asked: “Before you deliver it to him can you please remove the dealer plate.” One more asked if those with Montana plates had issues, the reply was: “Not yet.”

Another defendant added: “70k saved — I can’t believe the registration lasts for five years — that’s crazy. Stupid California. Paid 3k to own a 600k car for 5 years — lol in Cali that’s like 75k for 5 years. Hella dumb.”

California DMV Director Steve Gordon said: “We encourage all Californians to do the right thing and register their vehicle here if they are operating it in California.”