Iconic Englewood pizzeria's future uncertain after 64 years in business
ENGLEWOOD Colo, (KDVR) — A popular Englewood pizzeria that has served families for 64 years soon has to close their doors and find a new location.
The owners of 'Frank the Pizza King' say they have rented the building for more than six decades on South Broadway. Now it has been sold and the new property owners made it clear they'll have to leave.
Benzina on Colfax stays open longer after announcing closure for rising costs
'The pizza is great,' said regular Misty Steinhauer.
She's talking about the food at the popular Frank the Pizza King.
'303-789 2279. that's the number I have memorized to order this pizza,' said customer Steven Laflar.
He would know because he has been ordering his favorite meal since 1983.
'I get a coke and a 10-inch sausage since I started getting pizza here,' he said.
'I was in a little walker running through the kitchen,' said co-owner Matt Krascek. '64 years ago my grandfather started the business when he came to America. He immigrated from Italy.'
Since then Frank the Pizza King has started sharing his recipes with the community.
Krascek's family has called the building home for more than six decades. Last week he learned the new owners have different plans for the only place his family has known.
Local nursery growing 2,000 trees to plant in Quarry Fire burn scar
'Our old owner contacted us on Thursday and said he was getting ready to accept the offer for the new owners to take over and they want us to evacuate,' he said.
He created a post on Facebook announcing the news. It garnered a lot of attention.
'This is one of those places that just feel like home,' said Steven. 'I'm super bummed.'
Customers started a petition that now has more than 1,700 signatures with people hoping the popular pizzeria will stay.
'It's meant a lot and really shows how much Frank means to this community,' said Krascek.
While the future of the generational business is uncertain, Krascek wants his faithful customers to know one thing.
'We love you, you're a part of the Franks family and you always will be. The Krascek family and our employees are so grateful for you. Grateful for the 64 years you've been with us,' Krascek said.
Sign up for the FOX31 Denver Guide weekly newsletter for events and activities
Krascek has not yet had a conversation with the new owners but hopes the petition will help them see how much this place means to the community. Right now there's no official date set for the closure.
'If you want to come in come in as soon as possible because we're not sure how much longer we'll be here.' said Krascek.'Come enjoy it and be a part of the family one more time.'
FOX31 also reached out to the owner but did not immediately receive a response.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
We Need to Fix the So-Called GENIUS Bill
A bipartisan majority in the Senate has just passed the GENIUS Act to provide a regulatory framework for stablecoins. A similar bill, the STABLE Act, is working its way through the House. President Trump wants to sign a stablecoin bill into law this year, so it looks like we are well on our way to a long overdue regulatory regime for stablecoins. Or are we? We shouldn't count our chickens before they hatch. The proposed legislation is flawed and can and should be fixed promptly to eliminate needless duplication that will impose excess costs on the industry and the taxpayer. Fortunately, the legislation can easily be fixed. The House and Senate bills, although broadly similar, have some differences, and the two chambers will have to come to an agreement. Will the resulting bill be known as the STABLE GENIUS Act? There is still time to avoid problems like the choice of 55 different regulators, or keeping interest-bearing stablecoins out of the regulatory framework. The problems in our obsolete regulatory framework have contributed to the sorry state of crypto regulation in the U.S. We have literally hundreds of different financial regulatory agencies at the state and federal levels, and they don't play nicely together. The regulators engage in turf battles to extend their domains, while other important issues fall into the neglected cracks. FTX was regulated by state money transmitter regulators, of all people. Whose bright idea was that? This fragmentation of our regulatory system was one of the contributing factors to the financial crisis of 2008. Congress's response in the Dodd-Frank legislation was to add yet another layer of bureaucracy, the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC). The idea behind the FSOC is that the dukes and earls in charge of the regulatory fiefdoms would get together in a committee and cooperate more than they had before. Congress is about to repeat this mistake by requiring joint rulemaking from the alphabet soup agencies. This byzantine bureaucracy has slowed a sound approach to digital assets. A case in point is the battle over whether a particular digital asset is a Security under the infamous Howey test, and thus subject to the whims of the SEC, or a Something Else, and thus subject to the different dictates of the Something Else Regulators (CFTC? CFPB? state banking or money transmitter regulator?). We are all familiar with the contortions that issuers of digital assets have gone through to avoid the Kafka-esque SEC experience. Even TradFi issuers of securities do their best to take advantage of the many exceptions to SEC registration whenever they can. SEC oversight is an overly expensive and cumbersome process, especially for newer and smaller companies. The SEC has been spectacularly unsuccessful over the years in properly scaling registration requirements to the size of scope of newer and smaller enterprises. The proposed bills would permit issuers to choose from 55 different regulators by establishing themselves in the right jurisdiction with the right kind of charter. In addition to the alphabet soup at the federal level (FDIC, OCC, Fed, NCUA, and, for security-stablecoins, the SEC), stablecoin issuers could also choose a state regulator. With a choice of 55 different regulators, what could go wrong? Lots of things. First, there is the danger of a race to the bottom. Stablecoin issuers will be tempted to choose the regulator with the laxest and least costly oversight. This increases the chances that the regulators will miss something important. To remedy this, the bills require that the Secretary of the Treasury certify that a state's regulation is 'substantially similar' to the federal regulation. If it is 'substantially similar,' why bother with such redundancy? Also, the Secretary of the Treasury has to go through a formal rulemaking process to come up with principles for establishing substantial similarity. Talk about a duplicative waste of resources! But wait, like in a good infomercial, there is more! More waste and redundancy, that is. The House bill requires the OCC, FDIC, and Fed to engage in a joint rulemaking in consultation with the state regulators on capital requirements for stablecoins. Any veteran of joint rulemaking can attest to what a long and painful process it is for different federal agencies to work together on a joint rulemaking. Joint rulemakings proceed very slowly as getting agreement between agencies is a long, slow, and often contentious process. One survivor of such joint rulemaking related to me an incident in which a shouting match between staffers in the different agencies almost led to a fist fight. Congress can set deadlines for rulemaking, but there is usually no punishment if an agency dawdles for years past a deadline. Speaking of turf battles, stablecoins that pay interest are not covered. Who regulates those? A stablecoin that is a 'security' is also not covered by the bills. Such coins are presumably regulated by the SEC. We can expect regulators and the courts to wrangle incessantly over whether a future stablecoin-like product is regulated by one of the 55 stablecoin regulators, or by the SEC or CFTC, or CFPB or someone else. At a time when the DOGE administration is eviscerating government agencies in its bungling attempts to eliminate waste and redundancy, constructing a regulatory regime in which overlapping regulators jockey for position and duel in joint rulemakings is an absurd contradiction. Congress needs to pick a single regulator and get rid of the joint rulemakings and state loopholes. Of course, before we talk about who and how we should regulate stablecoins, we need to be clear about why we are regulating stablecoins. This will help to figure out the best approach to regulating stablecoins. In general, financial regulation has some common-sense objectives: The economy won't die when something bad happens. Customers are protected when an intermediary fails. The economy can grow and be stable. Market participants have the information they need to make good decisions. Fraudsters aren't selling bogus instruments. Intermediaries who hold customer assets can be trusted. Prices are fair and not manipulated. Stablecoins are an important innovation in the global payment system. They help to cement the role of the dollar in the global economy. They are likely to grow substantially from their current size and become systemically important. The failure of a very large stablecoin could transmit distress throughout the economy. Those losing funds in such a failure could in turn default on their obligations, threatening to bring down still other entities with no direct holdings of stablecoins. A run on a stablecoin would cause it to dump its holdings of U.S. Treasuries, causing distress in the Treasury market. This is the epitome of systemic risk, and it needs to be monitored and managed by our de facto systemic risk regulator, the Fed. Congress can and should fix the flaws in the STABLE GENIUS bills. Congress should pick the Fed as the single regulator for stablecoins. Interest-bearing stablecoins should be brought into the stablecoin regulatory regime. These fixes can be done simply and promptly to the existing texts. Congress should also begin giving serious thought to how to later fix our dysfunctional regulatory structure. A more intelligent and nimble regulatory structure would have more quickly grasped the many benefits of blockchain technology and come up with appropriate ways to promote innovation safely and ensure American leadership. We need to begin the discussion on how best to do this. Financial technology will continue to evolve, and our obsolete regulatory structure will hamper that innovation unless we fix it and soon.
Hamilton Spectator
4 days ago
- Hamilton Spectator
IslandLinkBus nixes service from Tofino and Ucluelet to Port Alberni, passengers must first go to Nanaimo
Nora O'Malley Local Journalism Initiative Reporter Ucluelet, BC - IslandLinkBus has cancelled their service from Tofino and Ucluelet to Port Alberni. In a rather confusing string of emails, Islandlink says passengers riding between Tofino and Ucluelet must first go to Nanaimo's Departure Bay Terminal, even though the bus stops in Port Alberni in front of the Casino en route to Nanaimo. A one-way ticket from Ucluelet Junction (the pick-up spot is Ukee Poke) to Departure Bay is $75. The cost for a bus ticket from Tofino to Departure Bay is $85. It's $45 for a ticket from Departure Bay to Port Alberni. 'This is all necessary to fine tune our operations and costs of operations, we are not subsidized in any fashion,' said Lisa Brisco, IslandLinkBus operations manager. 'Passengers from Tofino and Ucluelet wanting to go to Port Alberni must first go to Nanaimo and then return to Port Alberni. We do understand there are added costs incurred, but that is the only way with our license,' she continued. 'To make that stop would be operating contrary to our license. That in turn will risk our jobs and the services we offer on the island, so we do as we are licensed to do.' 'IslandLink has a 'connector' license where Greyhound/Tofino Bus had an 'inter-city' license,' Brisco explained. 'Our one and only destination is Departure Bay in Nanaimo and our service connects with the BC Ferry service in Nanaimo.' IslandLink also told the Ha-Shilth-Sa that they cancelled the Tofino/Ucluelet to Port Alberni service 'as the numbers to and from the coast were not enough to keep that route at this time.' The company said to 'check with BC Transit'. BC Transit confirmed in an email that 'there has been no formal exploration of service between the West Coast and Port Alberni'. Tla-o-qui-aht Tribal Administrator Iris Frank is deeply troubled by the reduction of bus service. 'We on the West Coast have an urgent need for reliable transportation,' said Frank. 'This service is not a luxury. It is a need. Tla-o-qui-aht members, along with members from Ahousaht and Hesquiaht, depend on this transportation to access medical care that is not available in our home communities. These trips also allow our people to take care of vital needs—groceries, prescriptions, financial services, and family obligations—often all in one trip,' Frank continued. 'Without a consistent and affordable bus service, many will face impossible choices. The absence of this essential connection will create additional financial hardship for our people. This is not just about transportation. This is about equity and fairness. We must not allow our communities to be left behind,' she said. IslandLinkBus has a trip leaving every morning from Port Alberni to Nanaimo's Departure Bay Ferry Terminal at 8:40 a.m. The cost is $45, one-way. Then IslandLink picks up passengers at 10:40 a.m. in Nanaimo for a trip to Tofino and the Ucluelet Junction. IslandLink collects passengers in Tofino at two stops (House of Himwitsa or Cox Bay Visitor Centre) and then Ukee Poke (2201 Pacific Rim Hwy) at 3 p.m. before heading eastbound to Port Alberni. The bus stops in Port Alberni at 4:30 p.m. to pick-up passengers headed to Nanaimo. An IslandLink bus driver re-iterated that if he lets passengers off the bus in Port Alberni, they could lose their license. The final trip of the day is a 6:10 p.m. service from Nanaimo, Departure Bay Ferry Terminal to Port Alberni, 3800 Block Maple Way, opposite the Casino. 'Our service originates and ends in Port Alberni daily, we employ three Port Alberni residents and have maintenance services and fuel purchases in Port as well,' said Brisco. Elloise Hoey, 29, was waiting for the IslandLinkBus service from the Ucluelet Junction to Nanaimo on June 16. She missed the 3 p.m. bus and is out $75 because she was waiting at the Junction Visitor Centre instead of Ukee Poke where the bus collects passengers for its eastbound trip – an honest mistake coming from a U.K. traveller on a work visa. Gutted having missed her bus, Hoey was unsure as to how she was going to get to Nanaimo for a flight the next day. Hitchhiking was not an option in her mind, but she did have a family member in Lake Cowichan that she could call on to do the roughly four-hour drive to collect her. Frank called on all levels of government to recognize the urgent need for sustainable transportation solutions that 'respect the realities of life in remote Indigenous communities.' 'This is a moment to rally together, to raise our voices, and to insist that no one should be denied access to basic services simply because of where they live,' said Frank. MLA Josie Osborne reminded West Coasters that both Island Health and the First Nations Health Authority helps with travel for medical appointments. 'I encourage any constituent with questions about these programs to reach out to my office,' said Osborne in an email. 'Establishing a new inter-regional service between the West Coast and Port Alberni will require a strong partnership between the local governments, First Nations and B.C. Transit, especially knowing that most new routes and service expansions are initiated by local governments. As the local MLA, I will do everything I can to support communities and local voices in this important work to improve transportation access for people,' she continued. Osborne noted that West Coast communities, local governments, and First Nations worked hard to establish a new public transit service on the Pacific Rim, the first new route added to BC Transit in eight years. 'We now have reliable, safe and affordable options for people to travel between Tofino, Ucluelet and Hitacu, and this is a massive accomplishment for our communities,' said Osborne. Visit the IslandLink at for more information on rates and booking queries. -30- Captions IslandLinkBus picks passengers up at Ukee Poke/West Coast Shapes for a cross-Island trip to Nanaimo. While this bus stops in Port Alberni to pick up more passengers, Tofino/Ucluelet passengers are not permitted to step off the bus. If they want to go to Port Alberni, they must carry-on to Nanaimo and then purchase a one-way ticket from Nanaimo to Port Alberni. IslandLinkBus leaves Ukee Poke at around 3 p.m. on June 17 for an eastbound trip to Nanaimo, Departure Bay Ferry Terminal. (Nora O'Malley photos) Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Bloomberg
4 days ago
- Bloomberg
TikTok Ban Extension Likely the Last: McCourt
Live on Bloomberg TV CC-Transcript 00:00Frank. This is a never ending story, is it not? Well, it just does seem that it's it's taking a long time to get a deal made here. You know, you had the 270 days and then the the 275 day extensions and now another 90 days. So, yeah, it's it's been a while. But, you know, I've learned to be very patient, to hang around the group. A lot of good things get done when that happens. And, you know, my sense is and this is not a you know, this is purely purely my opinion, but I think this is the last extension. I think 90 days, not 75 days, is significant. And I think something gets done within the next 90 days or not. But does it involve you? Have you been on the phone with the vice president? Have you been involved in the negotiations? We are. You know, we were very much involved during the the first extension and less so during the second. Things have been relatively quiet, as a matter of fact. So I don't know if I should draw any inferences there, but it's been it's been fairly quiet overall. Look, I still love our chances, Caroline, because, look, the legislation is very, very clear on what it mandated. Our our bid, as far as I know, is the only bid that actually qualifies that actually meets the criteria in that legislation where we completely disentangle from the Chinese technology. So said Frank, I want to get really detailed on this because on the other side of the table in this bidding process, there is a coalition of different individuals and technology companies whose proposal, as I understand it, is outside what's legislated for. In other words, some element of co-location of data and licensing. The algorithm, which you just explain how your bid is distinct from that. Yeah, well, and I think you've hit the nail on the head in what we are, We're not looking to help co-host the data or to use the Chinese algorithm where we are. You know, Project Liberty is about empowering individuals, not exploiting them. So we're not interested in scraping people's data, surveilling, surveilling them. Right. Spying on them, scraping their data, aggregating it, and then micro profiling people and then using a black box algorithm to manipulate them. That's not what we're interested in. And that's why tech talk is so attractive to us, because we can not only solve the national security issue, but we can move the user base and the data onto this new clean made in America stack, which doesn't rely on Chinese technology, doesn't surveil on people, and as a matter of fact, empowers people to permission the use of their data and get paid for it. This is going to be the new Internet. It's going to happen sooner or later. How many more days can go by where we're going to read about another horror story that is occurring with the current Internet technology, which is highly exploitive and highly predatory. The current model is not sustainable, in my opinion. It's going to change. We believe the sooner it changes, the better. Frank As the extensions keep coming and the process continues, does the price for tick tock go up or down or stay the same? Well, from our perspective, it stays the same because what we what we were buying. Assuming the user base stays the same and there's no change in the numbers as far as the value to others, I can't I really can't comment on that and I'd only be speculating. But, you know, our our our view is we can put a really clear value on tick tock, a us tick tock with the current user base, with the data, with the brand, without the algorithm. Frank, we asked you and we thank you for being so transparent about your conversations with the administration. What about with China? What about with Bytedance? Because we understand much of the elongation of the process is they don't want to let go of the algorithm and they want to keep it intact. Caroline I think that's a really important question you're asking. I don't think any of us know what China's ultimately going to do here, and I think it's a big if in this whole transaction. It's I think one thing we do know is they're not going to let us go with the algorithm or with the IP. So any chance of a deal, in my opinion, would be a deal that disentangled from their technology and, and, you know, deal with disentangled from their technology. I mean, why not make the deal then? Because the the if there's not going to be a deal and the only option you shut down, why not sell the pieces in parts for a lot of money and and achieve their objective, which is no sharing of their technology. So I think that we just don't know if they're even going to let us chip to go without the algorithm. We're betting they will. And that's been our bet from day one. But we'll see. And what about the mood music of the userbase? When this all first came to light under the Biden administration, there was fierce opposition from many of those users. But actually the US public at large actually wanted to get rid of TikTok. But now it feels as though we've moved the other way. Where is general public consensus on whether we want to kick out TikTok or not? You know, I think it shifts and moves. I think right now what's happened is that because, you know, this is the third extension, people are a bit anesthetized and you're not sure what's going to happen. And so are are kind of not as it's it's not as front and center on the minds of the user base as it was when it was threatened to be shut down with with the legislation. By the way, I believe us Tik Tok is going to be sold. The shutdown, the legislation is is very clear and something's going to give here. And I you know, again, I said earlier and I have no, I please, I have no no proof of this, but I, I just have a gut feel. This is the last extension. Something's going to happen during this 90 days. So, Frank. Sorry to interrupt you. So you've also you basically opened the door to a third path, which we we discussed less, which is that the president could indeed decide, you know what I don't want to go with. I've a better and I will shut down us tick tock or tick tock in the US. Just just explain, you know how you you've been transparent contact with the administration has been limited in this period. But but that seems a possibility. Yeah, I think it is a third possibility. And this is again, I've said from the beginning, I think when push comes to shove or or when they see that this, this process has come to a conclusion. Tick tock will be solved without the algorithm. But you're quite right. And it may be shut down on the US side and and or China may just not allow it to be sold. These are all distinct possibilities. So there is there is uncertainty here. But look. Project Liberty is continuing to build the technology on board users and and create this alternative Internet, which we think is a we need now. The bottom line is we have an Internet that's broken, but nobody's not going to use it until there's an alternative. So our goal is to build that alternative and then and then actually migrate users and build and by the way, built new apps in this new world to integrate user base there. So who would not? And if given the choice of an Internet, that's surveillance you've scraped your data and and it basically exploits you versus an Internet where you're positioning the use of your data, you get paid for your data if it's a commercial use case that it's used for and you're in charge of you again, you're at the center. What? Right now we have an Internet where the platforms are at the center. We're all just commodities. We need an Internet where we're at the center, we have agency. Again, we're in charge, and we're respected, quite frankly.
