As I sit down to write my column, I’m overwhelmed, yet again, by the news of a school shooting, this time in the tiny town of Perry, Iowa. I know that town a little bit, in that when I was a kid, I spent my summers on my grandparent’s farm outside the western Iowa tiny town of Manilla. To get there, we’d drive to Des Moines and then get on Route 141. That state highway was a magic carpet ride for us, and Perry, just beyond the state capital, was a regular gas stop. Tragically, the nation now will know the name of that lovely little municipality in the same way we know Newtown, Parkland and now Perry. These names are attached forever to tragedy, much like you can’t really hear the word “columbine” without thinking of our own long ago school shooting.

I would, if I felt it would do any good, again mount my rickety soapbox of idealism, as a multiple gun owner myself, to shout about the need for real gun control for weapons of war in our nation. But given the mass murder of a first-grade class at Sandy Hook did nothing to move the needle on guns, I’ve given up hope on that radical minority of my fellow gun owners, who have found a way to block any meaningful legislation. It’s just a waste of ink, so to speak.

Stay up to speed: Sign up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

The Colorado Politics reporting on the ongoing battle over whether former President Donald Trump will appear on our state primary ballots continues to fascinate, though I stand by my earlier prediction the U.S. Supreme Court will eventually rule he stays on the ballot. Much like the theatrics about keeping CD-5 U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn off the ballot, this issue will come down to the people being able to vote for whom they wish. The arguments about the 14th Amendment are interesting, but without the required enabling legislation from Congress, my view is Trump can’t be barred. So, enough about that.

I’d also like to touch on the CoPo story on whom we lost in the last year. It’s worth the time to remember and reflect on a list of folks who, by and large, were dedicated to public service. I remembered, as I read, my brief conversation with Pat Schroeder. My admiration is undiminished.

And, of course, the ongoing civility battles (an ironic term, eh?) going on in the state legislature and the resulting resignations and appointments are quite remarkable. It will be interesting to see how this back-and-forth impacts the legislative session about to begin.

But instead, I’d like to note the CoPo story on Denver Mayor Mike Johnston’s efforts to house the homeless. Much of the story discussed the seemingly high cost to house 1,000 of Denver’s homeless in the last six months or so. Johnston, who impressed the heck out of me when we sat next to each other at a political dinner a few years back, is touting his success, though no doubt his critics will declare the roughly $45 million to be way too much for too small an outcome. That translates to about $45,000 per homeless person, far more than we spend, say, on students in school.

Denver has plans to spend another $50 million for another 1,000 to be homed in 2024. The mayor’s critics argue the money should be spent on substance-abuse programs, mental-illness treatments and other factors that can lead to homelessness. And I get that; those programs merit additional spending.

But what I believe Johnston’s critics are missing is the idea of sunk costs. How did Johnston spend the money in the first round? Well, he mostly bought stuff. He bought hotels, tiny homes and set up “micro-communities.” In other words, he bought infrastructure that will continue to house, even after the one-time purchase costs. Sure, there will be maintenance costs, as there are for any dwelling, but those will be far less than the purchase costs. It’s as if a person bought a house for, say, $250,000 in 2023. Sure, that’s a lot of money for one year’s expenditures, but it was a one-time cost to the now homeowner (of course there are mortgages and such, please forgive me for simplifying). He or she will not be spending that same amount again every year, and they are housed.

There are those in politics who prefer to pass policies and implement laws and regulations which profit folks who might, in turn, vote for that person in the next election. It’s easy to understand why some politicians might want to spend tax dollars in that manner. Johnston is to be commended, in that he is putting down real money to benefit a group in our society not known for showing up at the polls. He is aiding people who are truly down and out because it is the right thing to do.

In the future, as the initial costs recede into history, I believe Johnston will be widely commended for his work on behalf of the homeless. I’m not sure how far in the future such approval may be, hopefully in time for his reelection campaign, but it is not at all clear that that will be the case.

Johnston did what he did because he felt the pain of those on the streets. We’ll see how phase two of the program works out. No program is without flaws and/or errors, but I believe housing the unhoused is ultimately both the right thing and the best thing to do for those in need.

Stay tuned…

Hal Bidlack is a retired professor of political science and a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel who taught more than 17 years at the U.S. Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.