I honestly don’t know any other headline I could use as it relates to my feelings on the City of Grand Junction’s reaction to an Op-Ed that ran in the 2/26/25 edition of The Business Times.

Before the sun set and the ink dried on that issue of The Business Times, I received an email from the city with concerns about the contents of the Op-Ed along with what appeared to be a defense of the city’s actions related to the closing, moving and resettling of the homeless resource center from its current location in downtown Grand Junction.

And while I expected some sort of response, it wasn’t this. Then again, perhaps given City Council’s actions in the past several years, maybe it is. After all, responding and doing without listening to the people of Grand Junction seems to be the standard operating procedure.

Making the email response even more confusing, I honestly could not understand just who wrote the response or exactly what office the response came from. My final take? The email, while making fair points here and there in its contents on a few (off) topics, had nothing to do with the focus of the Op-Ed in question.

So let’s start there. This time on topic to what was sent to me.

First off, I do not know who wrote the email. Was it the city manager, the city communications director, the communications director writing on behalf of the city manager or the city manager writing through the communications director? I literally can’t tell. But I’ve always believed when one is writing for oneself, identifying who’s writing the communication is paramount. Same as if you’re writing as a representative of someone else. I’ve read the email dozens of times since its arrival, and I still don’t know, but I do know it’s from the city.

Let it be known here. I am writing as the publisher of The Business Times and as its representative. Period.

So accepting that, let’s address what the email states right off the bat. Here’s the second paragraph:

“Transparency and ethical governance are how the City conducts its business whether in working to address the complex issue of homelessness in our community or otherwise. In the penultimate paragraph of the Feb. 25 Business Times article regarding Homeward Bound, the Business Times staff characterized the City’s consideration of the possible purchase of the property at 2851 North Avenue as 1) for the benefit of Homeward Bound and that the purchase would be unethical; 2) that a decision to buy the property will be without public input and implying that there will be none; and, 3) that the City is without funds to acquire the property. The characterizations are inaccurate and inappropriate, and the Business Times must correct or retract the same.”

Let me be clear on one point. It was an Op-Ed, not an article, and The Business Times nor its publisher will retract opinion based on random takes or interpretations of Op-Eds or opinion columns. Opinions are written to make folks think – especially when it comes to speaking truth to power. Also, if one wants to speak their opinion related to an Op-Ed or column, one writes a letter to the editor on topic for what was printed – not demand retractions.

So, perhaps that does explain (a little) the email I received. It wasn’t written as a letter to the editor, because whoever wrote it didn’t want to address the focus of the Op-Ed, which was the conflict of interest between HomewardBound and city council members when it came to initially awarding the homeless resource center funding to now purchasing of property for moving the center from its temporary home to a new facility the city is looking to purchase next door to HomewardBound’s current business location.

So, let’s also look at what the city says it’s about. We never said purchasing property for the resource center would be unethical. You did. But entering into negotiations to buy the property next door to HomewardBound certainly appears very concerning at best, again, because when the original contract was awarded, there was no transparency related to the political relationship of the mayor and HomewardBound’s chair.

And in what way does negotiating to buy the property right next to HomewardBound not look like it’s for the benefit of HomewardBound, especially now that council member, candidate and HomewardBound relationships have come to light.

And seriously, the city is literally in negotiations to buy the property without public input. Having any input from citizens after the fact is meaningless.

As for funding, let me help. It’s not in the budget, even though the city knew last year it would need to move the resource center because of complaints and safety concerns. I thought safety was a priority with our city council. Additionally, there are plenty of safety concerns surrounding HomewardBound’s current location from citizens and businesses alike. So, by all means, let’s send more their way?

We’re not saying the city shouldn’t be part of the solution related to the myriad problems caused by the homeless situation in our town. We’re simply saying the city should be transparent and honest. It now appears it hasn’t been from the start with the resource center.

Trying to change the subject won’t hide the elephant in the room. Perhaps the city will address it in its next email.

Craig Hall is owner and publisher of the Business Times. Reach him at (970) 424-5133 or publisher@thebusinesstimes.com