Small wonder on Denver's Net Migration. The Colorado Sun's quite talented reporters.
Small wonder on Denver's Net Migration
A recent report by the conservative-leaning Common Sense Institute (see the CPR article linked first below), has it that Denver's net migration -- inflow take away outflow -- has fallen over 50% in the last decade.
Keep in mind that the net migration is still positive, more people are coming than leaving, but we have a decrease in the increase. Quoting the article (with link left intact):
"The state's population growth has declined by nearly 53% in the past 10 years, according to a new report released by the Common Sense Institute, a non-partisan research organization. The study measured net migration, which is the difference between people moving into the state and people leaving."
Screenshot 1 attached is the time series graph from the article for those that prefer pictures. Note a climb since 2021 (the dip in that year presumably due to COVID), but still nowhere near the high in 2015.
The numbers are especially stark if you look at what the census and demographers call the Denver Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area.** A couple non-contiguous quotes flesh this out:
"Denver is 'stuck in the slow lane,' according to the [CSI] report. According to the Denver Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), 66% fewer people moved to the area over the last decade. Colorado Springs also saw a dramatic decrease, at nearly 29%."
and
"The report found that the decrease in Colorado, in comparison to commercially and culturally similar cities, is startling. The Denver-Aurora-Lakewood area is the only such area in the nation reported to have a negative percentage change from a 70% increase in inward migration to a major decrease over roughly the past decade.
It's reasonable to figure that there are many reasons for the lower inflow and/or greater outflows. As you might imagine, the conservative-leaning group CSI has their views. Quoting their report (found through the link in the quote above):
"These results likely reflect a combination of economic, housing, demographic, and quality-of-life factors specific to the urban core. Contributing factors may include persistent challenges with housing affordability, concerns about urban livability, and evolving residential preferences that are prompting residents to relocate to the surrounding suburbs outside of the Denver PMSA or leave the region altogether. For example, a study published in ScienceDirect in 2021 found that the COVID-19 pandemic led to a significant shift in national housing demand away from neighborhoods with high population density. This change was driven, in part, by the increased prevalence of telework, reducing the necessity of living close to job centers, and a decreased value placed on proximity to consumption amenities. Additionally, neighborhoods with high pre-pandemic home values experienced a greater drop in housing demand."
Undoubtedly things like this are a part. But I want to point you to a couple Denverite articles I link to below. The first is an update to a Denver law to block the construction of most types of gas station, the second is an update on the Denver Sidewalk Enterprise program.
I'll leave it to you to read both, a quick summary will be enough for our purposes here. What you see in both is a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government. You see a shift in Denver's politics away from good governance and toward poor management of the basics.
A government that takes it upon itself to manage the economy (as typified by regulating one particular type of business out of the city) is the kind of government that leads to market inefficiencies and economic problems.
A government that has for years ignored infrastructure, but seemingly has no trouble digging deep to fund a homeless-NGO complex is the kind of government that leads to everyone in the city having to pay an additional $150 yearly (minimum) on top of what they already pay for city services to do something simple like fixing sidewalks.
I suppose you could argue that the above fall under the rubric of "affordability" as per CSI's report, but I think that the role Denver's government has played (as it has shifted ever-leftward) merits special mention.
Growth is always a struggle, but how we manage the growth is as much a factor in our outcomes as the growth itself.
**Quoting the article, "The State Demography Office, which works with the national census, defines the Denver area as Adams, Arapahoe, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, and Jefferson counties."
https://www.cpr.org/2025/07/15/fewer-people-moving-to-colorado-report/
https://denverite.com/2025/07/10/denver-zoning-gas-stations-judge-ruling/
https://denverite.com/2025/07/15/denver-sidewalk-repairs-project/
The Colorado Sun's quite talented reporters.
Let's start the way the Sun did. Screenshot 1 is a copy of the headline and subheadline from the Sun article linked at bottom.
It may be easy to miss, but those words, most of the article actually, show how much talent the Almighty has chosen to bless the writers at the Colorado Sun with.
You see, not only do they manage to turn a political "gotcha" Twitter stunt by a Congressional Democrat who isn't even from Colorado into news (see the beginning of the article), they managed to turn an increase into a cut.
Just for reference, I went to Google and asked for a definition of the word cut. I pulled all the possible ones that might have even a tangential connection to the word cut as it relates to a Congressional budget and made a collage. That collage is attached as screenshot 2.
Let's take another quote so we can all marvel at the writing chops on display here.
"But Evans appears to be the only Colorado representative claiming that the law [Trump's Federal Budget Bill] does not cut Medicaid — and he’s made the claim repeatedly. But while federal spending on Medicaid will increase each year over the next decade, the amount each year will now be far lower than previously set under prior law. In fact, the law will cut federal spending on Medicaid by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years, according to the most recent analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan, independent agency that is part of the legislative branch and tasked with providing lawmakers with economic analysis. The CBO analysis shows that 11.8 million people across the country will lose health insurance by 2034 because of the law."
Let's hit the high spots again in case they didn't land.
"while federal spending on Medicaid will increase each year over the next decade"
"the amount each year will now be far lower than previously set under prior law"
"In fact, the law will CUT [emphasis mine] federal spending on Medicaid by about $1 trillion over the next 10 years"
So, using friendlier numbers, if we'd kept with the previous administration's trend in spending, we would have gone from $100 this year to $200 next. Now, under Trump's budget, we go from $100 to $150.
And the Sun's Taylor Dolven (along with whoever edited this marvel) says it's a cut.
Dolven goes on in her article to round up a gaggle of friendly experts who all bolster her claim that an increase is really a cut if you think about it. I won't quote or give bios for all, but I assure you that they are an august group, picked completely at random and without regard to what they'd say when quoted.
I'll end this post the way I started it: I'll copy the last terror filled line from the Sun as my end. This one is, of course, preceded by another, completely separate doom-filled prediction.
The last line references a report by "health care experts" (economists) who were spurred to write a report by Senate Democrats.
Quoted with link intact:
"Health care experts warn the Medicaid cuts could lead to tens of thousands of preventable deaths."