The city of Aurora, Colorado, has found itself grappling with a surge in crime attributed to the notorious Venezuelan gang, Tren de Aragua (TdA), leading to a public clash between Aurora Mayor Mike Coffman and Denver Mayor Mike Johnston. Coffman accuses Johnston of obfuscating the truth about how these gang members, along with other migrants, ended up in Aurora, placing the blame on two nonprofits contracted by Denver. Coffman alleges these nonprofits, with Denver’s tacit approval, housed migrants in Aurora without notifying local officials, contributing to the escalating crime problem, particularly the alarming presence of TdA.
The controversy ignited following a viral video showcasing armed TdA members forcing their way into an Aurora apartment complex. While both mayors held a joint press conference to address the public outcry and project a unified front against the gang, Coffman contends that Johnston remained evasive when questioned about the disproportionate number of Venezuelan gang members in Aurora, especially given Denver’s open acceptance of thousands of migrants bused from Texas. The influx of approximately 45,000 migrants into the Denver metro area since December 2022, according to the Common Sense Institute of Colorado, further fuels Coffman’s suspicions.
Coffman’s accusations gained traction following a City Journal report alleging Denver’s involvement in relocating migrants to Aurora through these nonprofits, who reportedly collaborated with landlords to secure housing and subsidize rent. One such landlord, CBZ Management, operates the very apartment complex featured in the viral video. Coffman claims that upon confronting Johnston, the Denver mayor admitted to contracts with nonprofits placing migrants in Aurora but refused to disclose specific numbers, locations, or resources provided, claiming the information was unavailable.
Coffman, however, disputes Johnston’s claims, citing Aurora’s city attorney’s discovery of contract provisions requiring the nonprofits to report precisely this information. He argues that Denver inserted ambiguous language into the contracts – “in Denver or in the surrounding communities” – to allow placement in Aurora without direct responsibility or notification. Furthermore, Coffman challenges Denver’s justification for withholding the data, citing privacy concerns due to personal identifiers. He suggests redacting names to provide the information while protecting migrant privacy. Johnston’s office denies directing any nonprofit to place migrants in Aurora and asserts no knowledge of city funds being used for rental support at the implicated properties.
The unfolding situation underscores the complex challenges arising from the influx of migrants, particularly the unintended consequences of resettlement strategies and the emergence of criminal elements within migrant communities. Coffman emphasizes the devastating impact of the escalating crime, especially the TdA’s presence, on Aurora’s image and potential long-term economic repercussions. He calls for transparency and accountability from Mayor Johnston, demanding a truthful account of Denver’s role in the matter.
This inter-city dispute highlights the broader national debate surrounding migration, resource allocation, and intergovernmental communication. While Denver maintains its commitment to supporting migrants arriving from the southern border, Aurora grapples with the localized consequences of these policies. The clash between Coffman and Johnston reflects the tensions between humanitarian efforts, public safety concerns, and political accountability in managing the ongoing migration crisis. The demand for transparency and accurate information sharing becomes crucial for addressing the root causes of the problem and mitigating its negative impacts on local communities.
