Happy for Drew Goodman and Hunter Goodman as the Rockies start winning

The two people I am happiest for this Rockies season are Drew Goodman and Hunter Goodman (no relation).

Hunter Goodman, who had 31 home runs last year, is arguably the best catcher in baseball and is playing near the MLB minimum at $810,000. He deserves a four-year extension and a $100 million contract. The Rockies should give him that contract tomorrow or risk losing him to every other team in Major League Baseball.

Drew Goodman, who is the best play-by-play announcer in baseball, has had to pretend enthusiasm the last eight years announcing for the Rockies. I had the luxury of turning off the game after five innings when the Rockies were losing ten to nothing the last eight years, but Drew has had to stick it out and finish the game and pretend there was still hope.

I listened to the Rockies destroy the Reds on Wednesday night, and I was in tears at the end of the game for Drew and knowing he finally has a Rockies team he can enjoy announcing.

Let’s hope the Rockies can continue winning, so Drew Goodman doesn’t have to pretend anymore, and Hunter Goodman can play for the millions of dollars he deserves.

Steven Antonuccio, Pueblo

It is beyond time to rid downtown of the Denver Pavilions

Re: “A dire diagnosis,” April 29 news story

It has been recommended that the Denver Pavilions be demolished. Hurray!

The experts were too kind. This visitor-repellant monstrosity was an anachronism when new and got worse over time. It came as a surprise to learn the building is only 28 years old; its design comes out of an age when cars had tailfins.

Hey, to attract people downtown, let’s erect giant gray walls to make them feel insignificant. While inside, we’ll heighten the effect with stark, uncomfortable furniture and finishes. And, we’ll promote a gaming arcade to bring in adults (as teens are gaming online). What could go wrong?

Maybe residential space is a good replacement. Another way to get people downtown is to have them live there.

Ralph Taylor, Centennial

Crime-solving doesn’t require invasive technologies and erosion of privacy

Re: “Police opposition kills Flock camera data limits,” April 30 news story

Dear Gov. Polis,

I strongly oppose any policy or rhetoric that treats mass surveillance as a necessary tool for public safety. Suggesting that law enforcement needs to monitor the movements of the entire population to solve crimes is both misleading and historically false. Crimes were investigated and solved long before governments had the ability to collect pervasive location and behavioral data on ordinary people — and they are still solved today without it.

The absence of mass surveillance does not “hamper” law enforcement’s ability to investigate crimes. Effective policing relies on targeted, evidence-based investigations, warrants, due process, and professional skill — not on tracking everyone, regardless of suspicion. Equating blanket surveillance with public safety conflates convenience with necessity.

Collecting data on the entire citizenry treats everyone as a suspect by default and undermines fundamental privacy rights without proven benefits. Public safety and civil liberties are not in conflict here. We can support lawful, effective law enforcement while firmly rejecting indiscriminate surveillance of the public.

I urge you to clearly state that mass surveillance is not required for effective policing and to prioritize policies that respect privacy, constitutional limits, and the presumption of innocence.

Jeffrey Marquez, Thornton

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.