Thanks, Mr. Mullin, for a terrific article. From the moment Mayor Bach announced his Grand Plan, I was against it. The stadium etc is not a good idea just because he says it is. The info in this article is exactly what the electorate needs to help decide if the stadium is worth building. Furthermore, if something BIG must be done to "revitalize" downtown, then I want a sparkling new library built on the very spot intended for the stadium. And I'm agreeable to paying a special assessment property tax or whatever to fund it. Also, within walking distance of ATB park, let the private sector build a year-round farmer's market, with small restaurants serving market foods, art galleries, and vendors selling handcrafted wares. Sorta like Seattle's Pike Place Market, sans the flying fish.
Detroit has a MAJOR league baseball stadium. It sure worked great for them.
It's a shame that such an expensive proposition has been short-sheeted when it comes to a true business analysis. For instance, I saw no analysis of the location of current season ticket holders and no discussion of their future willingness to drive 25 minutes and pay $10 to park to see a game. My guess is that many will choose to drop those tickets.
I voted for this mayor but will not do so again, as I am tired of his behind the back deals to address his own agenda with no regard to general public needs or input.
Omaha moved its stadium to the suburbs to make room for a brand new downtown stadium to host the college World Series and other high dollar generating events. They would have never moved it without another stadium going in. Most cities also have growth and sprawl (like Woodmen and Powers) but they also keep focus on their core downtown. Stadiums, science centers and museums are usually..........Downtown.
what a lovely tribute to two fine people. I always enjoyed seeing both Jeannie and Pam when I was in Poor Richard's and was so very heartbroken over their deaths. They would be SO very proud of you for writing this! Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts with your readers.
Thanks Ron, well stated.
The utilities were turned off by direction of the mayor and there was no water to keep 346 houses from burning...right, good job utilities department.
And the fire started when The DEA decided to burn some pot...so that is where everyone should look to cover their bank costs.
So I wonder, how will selling a crown jewel of the city for a one time shot of cash benefit the citizens in the long run? Is it better than a constant annual stream of cash direct to the city's coffers ($31 million this year) with no "middleman" (i.e. shareholders)? I doubt it. And could the Koch brothers, who provided campaign funding to Mayor Bach, be involved?
How do constant rate hikes needed to pay distant shareholders concerned only with investment returns benefit our community?
In terms of service and rates, there is a similar situation in Pasadena CA and surrounding communities. Pasadena, like Colorado Springs, owns their electric company. Surrounding communities recieve power from an IOU. During a recent Santa Ana windstorm considerable damage occured. Who had the least amount of damage and fastest restoral of service? Why you guessed it, Pasadena with its city owned utility. For more information, see these articles written by Dr. John Grula in the Pasadena weekly.
Per the reference to wildfire response in your first comment, you do realize that Los Angeles has a Municipal electric utility, right? Large, successful municipal utilities can be found across the country. Almost all are highly valued by their citizen-owners. Only in a far right wing wacko land like C. Springs are so many anxious to cleanse themselves of the sin of a City Owned Enterprise, despite its many benefits.
This article is about not selling the electric division to Xcel. By the way Xcel employees came to the Springs to help restore services. Hente forgot to mention that fact
Sam, this article pertained to the Waldo Canyon fire and the successful heroic efforts by employees of CSU to fight it. The last thing I heard was that the fire was probably started by humans. I'm not sure why you brought up global warming, or as others see it, cyclical weather changes seen throughout history.
Im Just wondering where all these green electric plug in cars are getting there power from ,are you thinking it's not from a coal power plant ? Coal is better than nuke or oil fired , and natural gas fired. Clean burning bag house type power plants Are more cost effective. I have owned four homes in Colorado Springs two with solar heat and hot water, it really can help offset utilities cost, however It is not an affordable option for many individuals. Did you know CSU ,actually goes to great lengths to educate how to save energy ,conserve water and be more green. They also own hydro plants at USAFA (co-op) and Manitou springs. Purchase wind energy, Did you know that cows also cause global warming.
There is no one right answer. But selling Drake or "moving" Martin drake
Is a bad idea and spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to find out is
Kinda wasteful also!
It's ironic that CSU is doubling down on burning more coal which is causing global warming. Global warming has and will continue to cause record summer temperatures and ultimately more wild land fires.
Finally, it is a non-sequitor to believe that a Investor Owned Utility would not have responded in the same way during an emergency. Wild land fires occur in San Diego and Los Angeles on a regular basis and the IOU's work promptly and professionally to restore service.
Dave, you're most welcome.
There's a new book out by James Kunstler called Too Much Magic. Though a bit extreme in his predictions and descriptive language, he makes a case that we are in "The Long Emergency" where the world's massive population is causing resource depletion and leading us to a major "contraction," from which we simply cannot invent our way of as we have in past crises, and that we can't even forge a consensus on what to do about it (gridlock in Congress and acrimony over Global Warming / Climate Change).
Meanwhile, author Michael Klare tells us is in "The Race for What's Left" that earth's resources are largely gone and competition (war?) for resources will intensify. Author Stephen Leeb made the same case in "The Oil Factor" back in 2003.
A good discussion of the issues derived from the people problem (and relevant books) is found in this article: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2…
OldCrank, I think that's pretty accurate. Thanks for the productive discourse.
Dave, hello. I got a flavor that Wattenberg was whining a bit about not maintaining the kind of growth rates that keep the economy humming along, something in the 3% rate, and that he was predicting bad outcomes from such a declining birth rate. Too bad for MacDonald's and Disney, eh.
I also got the flavor that we the people, world over, aren't going to go out and multiply to please the wealthy masters who want billions of excess workers on the scrap heap of labor.
I was pleased to learn from his book that birth rates are falling in all nations; even 3rd world types are getting educated about birth control and the lessening need for large families.
You don't think I made my case? What about your case? I was simply pointing out the fact that you said nothing that made sense relative to overpopulation as well as your somewhat obvious attempt to push your liberal agenda i.e., you and Sandra Fluke's desire to have her neighbor pay for here birth control. Now, I don't have a problem with birth control (or reasonable abortion for that matter). I just don't think it right to force people that do not agree with that position to pay for it. Is that so unreasonable?
As to your grandiose proclamation that you want to "...leave our children a world worth inheriting" , doesn't everyone? And if so, wasn't your statement a bit pompous?
I would submit, if you are really serious about saving the world, you vote for anyone other than obama.
Smartestman, sure I have an agenda (and it is simple): to leave for our children a world worth inheriting. I don't think you made your case, but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. I don't think it moves us toward a solution. Thanks for reading and responding.
Your conclusions "What is keeping us from doing this" are simplistic and agenda based, to say the least. Let's break it down:
Your first example: "it just takes a little information" The people that actually care have embraced population growth since the 50's. What is left are people that do not care (mostly in third world countries) and people that believe more offspring is the way to advance their particular cause.
Your second example: Same answer as #1
Your third example: "our culture's addiction to growth". Once again, it is not "our culture" that is the problem, at least with respect to population growth.
And lastly: "ultra-conservative attack on funding of family planning" your true agenda sneaks out and it is pretty smelly. (This appears to have absolutely nothing to do with birth control and everything to do with the government paying for it. One wonders if you get your cue from Miz Fluke.)
I, for one, believe the UN numbers are understated. I think the population of the world will double in the next 50 years. Since we will not have figured out quantum physics by then in order to get us off of this planet, the world, as we know it, will cease to exist.
Now, the religious nut jobs (currently the Muslims) may indeed cause a world war prior to the 50 year scenario, and overpopulation (at least for a short period of time) will be protracted.
OldCrank, I read Fewer and found it wanting. Wanting more people, that is. Did that not bother you?
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation