Weld Said with Mary Metzger | A Greeley Free Press Podcast

West Greeley Community Oversight Committee Member, Bob Locke, Asks "Is the Math Mathing?"

This episode was originally recorded Thursday, May 28th, 2026This is a longer episode than usual, but if you’re trying to understand what’s happening with the Catalyst/Cascadia project in west Greeley, it may be one of the most important conversations we’ve released. Mary sits down with West Greeley Citizens Oversight Committee member Bob Locke and local artist and community advocate Megan McBride Kennedy for an in-depth discussion about the proposed development, the project’s finances, public transparency, housing, jobs, community benefits, and what growth should look like in Greeley. Together, they explore questions many residents have been asking: * Does the project make financial sense? * Who benefits from the development? * What risks are taxpayers taking on? * What role should the community play in major decisions? * And ultimately, who is Greeley growing for? Whether you support the project, oppose it, or are still trying to understand the details, this conversation offers an in-depth look at the concerns, hopes, and questions surrounding one of the biggest development proposals in Greeley’s history. This may be the most detailed public conversation we’ve had yet about the Catalyst/Cascadia project and its potential impact on Greeley’s future. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit greeleyfreepress.substack.com [https://greeleyfreepress.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

So, Are You Working Class?

I just love Weld Said [https://www.youtube.com/@GreeleyFreePress]—podcast host Mary Metzger’s gently spoken but penetrating questions asked of guests who have generously agreed to the vulnerable position of being publicly interviewed. I feel a little thrill every time a new episode appears in my podcast app. But the one aspect of this show that has vexed me is the perpetual twofold question, asked of each guest: “What do you think working class is, and do you identify as working class?” I have felt like it’s almost irresponsible, as there’s never any follow-up to whatever ridiculous thing the guest says. In one episode, a guest said yes, he believes he is working class; he works with his hands. In almost the same breath, he then referenced his au pair, pausing to thoughtfully ask the host if she knew what that was. Another guest emphatically declared that we are all working class if we have jobs. This from a well-to-do woman with an extensive education and a former job in the corporate sector. I wanted to f*****g scream. But there’s got to be a correct answer, right? A reputable, official definition, maybe from a sociologist or venerated-but-controversial economist from the middle of the last century? I’m always in my car, driving the 92 miles to my job (just happy to be here!), listening, and I always make a mental note to do some research on the term. Wikipedia says, “Most common definitions of ‘working class’ … limit its membership to workers who hold blue-collar and pink-collar jobs, or whose income is insufficiently high to place them in the middle class [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class], or both.” The Center for American Progress defines it as “workers without a four-year college degree.” The National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare says younger people and socialists use the term to denote anyone who has to work for a living. I guess everybody’s right. So now I think I’m starting to understand Mary’s commitment to asking this question: it’s a kind of litmus test. What are your attitudes about education, socioeconomic status, relationships to labor? Do you think you’re an Average Joe or better than those around you? Do you think any of this matters and if so, how? And it’s a private litmus test for the listener too: what do you think of the guest’s answer? I come from pretty humble roots, but I’ve never known how to categorize myself. My dad went to college, but he was a drastically underpaid schoolteacher on the south side of Chicago. We didn’t have a lot of money, but he was educated. So, what is that? I went to college—lots of it—thanks to generous, need-based government funding and talent-based scholarships that were available back in the 90s. I majored in arts and humanities and earn less than most entry-level high school teachers in Wyoming. I feel supremely uncomfortable around my colleagues, whose families were better off than mine growing up, and I most often relate best to those with less education than me, despite the fact that I work in academia. My frustration with Mary’s question is really about my own class issues, perhaps laced with the guilt of having been lucky enough to pursue my interests and create meaningful work for myself in adulthood. I want to think of myself as working class, but I’m probably kind of… not. Some guests on Weld Said seem not to want to call themselves working class. Is that a status issue? Those who do really don’t seem to fit the general vibe; is that a desire to be relatable? And what does the title “working class” mean if it can mean anything at all? In this day and age, after a solid 50 years of a shrinking middle class and at least 20 years of hearing “affordable higher education” as an oxymoron, what use are these divisive terms? The average American under the age of 65 has a median bank account balance of $8,000 across checking, savings, and money market accounts [https://www.bankrate.com/banking/savings/savings-account-average-balance/]. That’s a financial cushion which could so easily be obliterated by one medical emergency. I don’t know what class that implies, but it’s a painful truth more of us have in common than we realize. And if you pull on that thread, perhaps the entire fabric of this whole system of socioeconomic categorization unravels. Maybe that was the point of the question all along. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit greeleyfreepress.substack.com [https://greeleyfreepress.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Melissa McDonald on Cascadia, Working Class Greeley & Rebuilding Trust

This week, Mary sits down with Greeley Mayor Pro-Tem Melissa McDonald for an in-depth discussion about the Cascadia development, the Community Oversight Committee, housing affordability, homelessness, economic growth, and the role working-class voices play in shaping the future of Greeley. Melissa reflects on criticism she and City Council have faced, acknowledges communication challenges surrounding the project, and shares why she believes developments like Cascadia are important to Greeley’s future. Along the way, the conversation explores public engagement, water, downtown development, housing solutions, and what it means to serve a community that doesn’t always agree with its leaders. Whether you’re a supporter of Cascadia, a critic of it, or simply trying to understand the debates shaping Greeley, this episode offers an opportunity to hear directly from one of the elected officials helping make those decisions. At a time when many public conversations happen through social media posts, comment sections, and public meetings, we appreciate Melissa McDonald taking the time to sit down for a long-form discussion about some of the most debated issues facing our community. We may not all agree on the answers, but meaningful community conversations begin when people are willing to listen, ask questions, and engage with one another. Listen now on Substack, YouTube, and Apple Podcasts. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit greeleyfreepress.substack.com [https://greeleyfreepress.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Catalyst Project Won’t Save Greeley: A Reality Check

Greeley is staring down the Catalyst Project — with promises of economic growth, better connectivity, and an upgraded quality of life. It’s dressed in ribbon-cutting language: jobs, vibrancy, and revenue capture. Peel back the glitter, and what you get is a plan that mostly lines private pockets, and hands Greeley residents a bill with very few guarantees. The Catalyst Oversight Committee Mayor Dale Hall framed the committee’s role as a translator between city hall and the wider community. “What we’re trying to find is, somehow, how you can help us translate this information to a community wide understanding.” ~ Greeley Mayor, Dale Hall Yet the execution has too often looked like posturing. The council has presented itself in a matter that suggests that they alone grasp the complexities of the project, and we the community do not. The job of the committee should be to ask questions, create needed transparency and attempt to mend broken respect, not to manufacture consent and push the project forward as is. The committee could also recommend a community benefit agreement be in place for the project. A community benefit agreement could demand the project provides high paying jobs with benefits, provide transparency for wages and career ladders, implement environmental regulations to protect our land and water, or even determine that portions of the profits be used to sustain community projects. Effective public communication starts by seeking genuine public interest, holding forums where questions matter, sharing clear data in plain language, and acknowledging concerns rather than dismissing them. Instead, the process of the Catalyst Oversight Committee feels driven by an agenda to “make the project look good” and to bamboozle Greeley residents into acceptance, despite consistent opposition requesting the city to pause and listen. Worse, there’s a troubling tone beneath the strategy: an implication that neighboring cities regard Greeley as a second-class place, that must lure wealthy newcomers with heavy incentives, and a narrative that frames Greeley’s own people and housing stock as inadequate. If the city truly wants community support, it must stop talking down to its residents, stop treating public engagement as a PR campaign, and start rebuilding trust by honoring local voices, explaining trade-offs transparently, and designing outcomes that respect the city’s existing character and the people who already call it home. The first Catalyst Oversight Committee meeting was all about the big picture and featured a slideshow called “High Level Overview”, led by John Hall. John Hall is an external consultant and advisor for the city of Greeley; he shifted from a director position to a consultant role in June of 2025. John Hall described the process of negotiating with developers to develop the land west of Greeley. “The question isn’t whether growth will happen, but what kind of growth we choose.” Rather than reacting and letting growth just unfold, Hall argues for a proactive, deliberate approach that influences long term growth in Greeley. Hall explained it was the city that was actively reaching out to developers, to help Greeley proactively grow. In the Catalyst Project the city of Greeley is considering themselves as the Developer, and Water Valley is the fee developer. At the end of the first committee meeting, I was surprised to hear several members say they were not aware of the 501(c)(3) nonprofit LLC that will assume the city’s debt and issue bonds to cover the predevelopment costs and the remainder of the Catalyst project. The Second meeting was kind of about the big picture but was more of a waste of time than anything. At the end of the second meeting the mediator hired to facilitate the committee asked the members to give their opinion on how to present the information to the public so they can better understand how great the project is. The facilitator shows blatant bias by insisting the information had always been public and that people should have “shown up” to the community meetings. She states, “there were council meetings, public meetings that people didn’t go to.” This is false. The community did show up, spoke out and organized only to be ignored by the council. The citizens rallied not once but twice because they were not being heard. The people formed a petition to get Catalyst on the ballot and let the people vote. However, the Catalyst was treated as an administrative rather than legislative matter, and the first petition was dismissed on a technicality. This prompted a second petition aimed at changing zoning to at least temporarily halt the project. Critics say the development was poorly conceived and now appears financially unviable: feasibility studies suggested two anchor tenants, hotel and waterpark occupancy projections were wildly inflated, and overall numbers seem unreasonable. You can’t make people buy into a blatantly bad idea simply by repeating it louder. What Greeley Needs to fix: Perceived mismatch between leadership priorities and community direction One prominent problem is a pattern of top-down planning— “orchestrating growth” from the top. Instead of genuine community led decision-making. The impact of this has made residents feel sidelined; projects may reflect leaders’ preferences rather than community needs, harming public trust. Instead of building shared ownership, the project has often been presented as a done deal or framed by leaders as the best available future. That makes it harder to craft solutions that match actual local needs and priorities. Community buy-in is critical for long-term success; without it, the project will continue to provoke resistance, delays, or misaligned outcomes. Economic growth and opportunity: for whom? The pitch is simple: more development means more sales tax transitioning to benefit Greeley. However, that logic conflates government receipts with residents’ wellbeing. Sales tax revenue flows to municipal budgets and could decrease the deficit, but this does not automatically translate into better lives for the average Greeley resident. The supposed “economic growth” is largely captured by corporations and outside private equity, not by raising incomes or creating durable, high-quality jobs for locals. With the Catalyst project there is minimal impact and doubtful benefits for residents. the measurable benefits to everyday people in Greeley are likely minimal. If you’re living paycheck-to-paycheck in Greeley today, you won’t necessarily be better off because a flashy new complex opened on the outskirts of town. If you’re living paycheck-to-paycheck in Greeley today, you won’t necessarily be better off because a flashy new complex opened on the outskirts of town. CBAs provide a replicable, legally enforceable framework for ensuring that public investments yield measurable benefits for historically disadvantaged workers and communities. As worker’s wages go down, many people feel pessimistic about the U.S. economy. Local governments have tried to boost economic growth by giving corporations tax breaks and subsidies to invest locally. However, wealth inequality remains a serious problem, and there are still too few jobs that pay enough to support a family. If the city of Greeley continues to make major investments in private developments, it is essential that these deals include commitments to benefit the public. Organized community members who fight for Community Benefit Agreements have been successful in raising wages for publicly funded projects, for example. The Tennessee Soccer Stadium CBA secured a $15.50 floor for wages back in 2018, they were also able to secure local hiring commitments from high-poverty areas called “Promise Zone residents”, and by 2023, Nashville Soccer Club had hired 180 employees, 80 of whom were Promise Zone residents. The Tennessee Soccer Stadium CBA secured a $15.50 floor for wages back in 2018, they were also able to secure local hiring commitments from high-poverty areas called “Promise Zone residents”, and by 2023, Nashville Soccer Club had hired 180 employees, 80 of whom were Promise Zone residents. CBAs are a mutually beneficial contract for all parties involved. Equitable training and employment opportunities can benefit historically disadvantaged populations, while simultaneously building a workforce pipeline for companies. A Community Benefits Agreement calls for a development funded by public resources to deliver concrete economic benefits for Greeley residents through binding, enforceable commitments in the development agreement. Specific requirements include a minimum 50% local-hiring target for all construction and operational jobs tied to the project. Living-wage standards with full benefits for all project-related employment. Implementation of state-registered apprenticeship programs that prioritize Greeley youth, workforce development participants, and previously incarcerated residents. Allocation of at least 20% of procurement spending to Greeley-based businesses, and provision of affordable commercial space reserved for Greeley startups, artists, and small businesses. Higher local hiring and living wages increase household income, reduce unemployment, and expand the tax base. This approach would benefit Greeley by keeping public investment and the economic gains it produces within the community. Higher local hiring and living wages increase household income, reduce unemployment, and expand the tax base. Apprenticeship and re-entry-focused training build long-term workforce capacity and reduce recidivism. Local procurement and affordable commercial space stimulate small-business growth, preserve creative and entrepreneurial ecosystems, and help diversify the local economy. Binding, written commitments ensure these outcomes are measurable and accountable, preventing promises from evaporating once construction begins and ensuring the city’s residents truly share in the project’s economic return. With an influx of higher-end housing aimed at regional demand, Greeley risks further inflation of property prices and rents. Housing and property values: who benefits? Developers and local officials talk about “growth,” “opportunity,” and “economic development.” But when you scratch the surface of the proposals being pushed with Greeley taxpayer dollars, a troubling picture emerges, much of what’s being built won’t serve Greeley residents. When the primary beneficiaries are non-residents, we must ask whether taxpayers in Greeley are getting a fair return on their investment. This could be a loss for local renters and homeowners. With an influx of higher-end housing aimed at regional demand, Greeley risks further inflation of property prices and rents. I have heard repeatedly from Greeley City council and during the Catalyst Oversight Committee meetings that Greeley is becoming a housing shed for Colorado, where only commuters live here. Rural farmers, working class people, and immigrants have made this city their home from its founding. By driving up the housing prices the city is effectively driving those people out. I am concerned that this is why the council is so eager to push the catalyst project through, as housing prices increase property taxes will also increase and the city will generate more revenue. When houses aren’t affordable, lower income families are forced to leave. A Community Benefits Agreement would call for legally binding, deed-restricted affordable housing protections tied to Greeley’s actual Area Median Income (AMI) of $68,650, not national or developer-calculated figures. It could require 50% of all new housing units within a 10-mile radius of the Cascadia development to be set aside for low- and moderate-income residents, with those commitments written directly into the development agreement (no voluntary pledges). Affordability definitions must reflect Greeley AMI. Prioritize existing Greeley residents and households on local housing waiting lists. Furthermore, prevention grants should be established with specified funding amounts to protect residents facing displacement from Cascadia-driven rent or value increases. Lastly, a property tax relief program with defined dollar caps and eligibility thresholds could be created for longtime Greeley homeowners experiencing higher assessments linked to the development. Property tax relief for long-time homeowners preserves community continuity, reducing the risk that rising assessments force out established residents. Implementing these measures would stabilize neighborhoods, prevent displacement, and ensure the benefits of large-scale development accrue to current Greeley residents rather than pricing them out. Binding, deed-restricted units and use of local AMI make affordability enforceable and tailored to local incomes, while resident priority and eviction-prevention funding protect vulnerable households during market shifts. Property tax relief for long-time homeowners preserves community continuity, reducing the risk that rising assessments force out established residents. Altogether, a CBA would promote inclusive growth that balances new investment with the city’s social and economic stability. We’ve seen too many promises broken. A legally binding CBA with enforcement mechanisms means developers can’t walk away from their commitments. CBAs shift power from developers to communities. When development happens in our neighborhoods, we deserve a say in what benefits we receive. Right now, Greeley has an affordable housing problem, imagine if Greeley followed suit from other CBA’s for stadiums like in Tennessee, where they negotiated 20% of developed units rented at affordable rates, and at least 20% of affordable units must have 3+ bedrooms to accommodate families. Negotiations like these can ensure that no Greeley resident is displaced. Growth and development aren’t inherently bad. Thoughtful projects can revitalize neighborhoods, create jobs, and expand opportunities. But we must be honest about who benefits. If Greeley taxpayers are being asked to fund development that mainly serves developers, and other non-residents, that’s a raw deal. Residents demand transparency, accountability, and projects that prioritize our community, not just the bottom line for outside buyers and developers. Thanks for reading! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support GFP’s work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit greeleyfreepress.substack.com [https://greeleyfreepress.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]

Weld Said | Episode 8 | The Holistic Gem in the Heart of Greeley

There’s something very Greeley about this episode. Mary sits down with Jennifer Mongan, owner of the Academy of Natural Therapy [https://www.natural-therapy.com/] in downtown Greeley, to talk about working class life, chronic pain, caregiving, and the ways our bodies carry stress long before we realize it. The Academy has been teaching massage therapy and holistic wellness for nearly four decades and has recently added an esthetician modality for its students. But this conversation goes far beyond the classroom. Together, Jennifer and Mary discuss how healing doesn’t always come from the places we might be told to look. Sometimes it comes through massage therapy, acupuncture, posture correction, breathing, herbs, community care, or simply someone reminding you to slow down and breathe. They also explore what it means to be working class in Greeley, why so many people live with pain they think they just have to accept, and how community support often becomes the real medicine when life gets hard. From chronic pain and autoimmune struggles to caregiving, kids’ posture, and the importance of helping people before crisis hits, this episode is a reminder that wellness is bigger than prescription, it’s about how we care for ourselves and each other. Listener Note: Discussions of health, wellness, and healing in this episode reflect personal perspectives and should not be taken as medical advice or an endorsement of any specific treatment or product. Please consult a qualified medical professional when considering treatment options. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit greeleyfreepress.substack.com [https://greeleyfreepress.substack.com?utm_medium=podcast&utm_campaign=CTA_1]