Typical myopic EPA action. They could instead be offering matching grants to incentivize action, but they'd rather flush a few million down the drain on lawyers than have cleaner water.
While this particular administration, and council, has solved no local issue - but has handled most issues in a manner to generate legal action and lawsuits - they ARE NOT responsible for the stormwater mess - it has been years and many past administrations in coming! This is an inherited fiasco dumped in the lap of the current administration who are now faced with dealing with the public on how best to pay for 30 years of failed policy.
The $23M (or $33M with the Fed Suit) has been pledged- now, how will we best accept a manner of generating the revenue stream to honor that pledge and not pull the funds out of the General Fund?
So when an individual ignores the Fed, it's a felony, but when a city council does it, we should just let it slide. Screw that. The city shouldn't pay, the Council should pay for their decision themselves.
"The Anschutz Foundation donates to hundreds of worthy organizations each year, and it does not attempt to dictate to those organizations how to spend their monies [including] sexual orientation or gender issues."
Non denial. So they don't dictate to "worthy organizations how to spend their money." Of course, if you donate to anti-LGBT groups, you already know HOW they will spend that donation.
Perhaps I can clarify that language for them. "Yes. We donate to some designated hate groups. So what?"
Thanks for noting that, silver bullet. I'm not sure how that brief was omitted from the original text but see above for the updated version of this page.
Headline says... HBA endorses county candidates...am I missing something? I don't see any story about that.
Video: Sky Sox GM and Owner give testimony begging City Council not to harm their business in 2014 (link to video at bottom)
I have 3 things to say about the Sky Sox announcement that they’re moving to San Antonio:
2) For those who say “a new stadium would have kept them here…,” the City for Champions (C4C) plan approved by the State was NOT for a baseball stadium. The proponents of C4C and their surrogates in City government tried to force that issue on the owner and manager of the Sky Sox, but the Sky Sox did not want to move downtown. The Sky Sox had recently spent millions of THEIR private dollars making improvements to the stadium and knew their fan base liked the convenience of the location.
Thinking they could convince the Sky Sox to change their mind, C4C anglers were able to get the City government to pay for a $35,000 taxpayer-funded survey of businesses and season ticket holders about a new downtown stadium. When the results came in, Mayor Bach REFUSED to release the results for nearly a year until I threatened to sue the City over the release. When the results finally came out, it was apparent why they were withheld. It turns out that only 20% of season ticket holders said they’d for sure buy season tickets if the stadium was moved downtown. The City hadn’t shared the results with the Sky Sox either.
3) The ONLY committed users of the $200 million taxpayer-funded C4C stadium is a minor league soccer team, the Switchbacks, for about 15-18 games per year. So as to accommodate the only potential occupant of the new taxpayer-funded stadium, the City arranged for a temporary home for the Switchbacks (until we build their $200 million venue using City revenue instead of using it to fix roads and stormwater problems and funding our police and fire departments) immediately adjacent to the Sky Sox at the City’s Sand Creek Stadium. Same parking lot. Switchbacks would be placing portable toilets in said parking lot and presenting conflicts with the hundreds of events per year the Sky Sox hosted to keep their business viable.
The City offered the Switchbacks a screaming deal on renting out the City-owned facility that would be at the detriment of the Sky Sox. The owner, David Elmore, and the general manager, Tony Ensor, both pleaded with City Council at the time to look for another alternative because this would impact their business. Only four councilmembers listened. The result: today’s announcement.
This is from the text of the minutes of that meeting:
"Tony Ensor, Sky Sox President, stated that the arrangement would pose great harm to the Sky Sox and requested Ragain Sports find another location for their program. His primary concern was that the overlay of the schedule will impact the Sky Sox in a negative way and described they currently host about 200 non-Sky Sox events each year which could pose some conflict.
David Elmore, owner of the Sky Sox, explained the nature of the franchise, the only one in the league individually owned. He stated he chose Colorado Springs initially with the encouragement of the USOC. He expressed concerns relative to the scope of attendance proposed for the soccer games and questioned the values detailed in the pro-forma and the longevity of the soccer franchise to succeed in the proposed location. Thus, he expressed that this would be a temporary arrangement that could negatively impact the Sky Sox."
At the meeting the Switchbacks president admitted the team’s business plan was unsustainable unless the City built them a new stadium downtown or elsewhere. So in the hunt for a temporary home for the only “anchor” for a C4C stadium, we KNEW irreparable damage would be done to the Sky Sox who had built their business here for 27 years.
Motion by Councilmember Martin, seconded by Councilmember Snider, that the Resolution (for the Switchbacks to move in next door to the Sky Sox) be adopted. The motion passed by a vote of 5-4-0.
Yes: 5 - Bennett, Gaebler, King, Martin, and Snider
No: 4 - Collins, Knight, Miller, and Pico
Perhaps those upset about today’s departure announcement of the Sky Sox ought to contact Council President Merv Bennett (email@example.com), Council President ProTem Jill Gaebler (firstname.lastname@example.org) or Councilmember Keith King (email@example.com).
Do you support or oppose an enhanced vetting process for refugees from countries that support or harbor terrorist organizations? A one minute 'Quick Poll' to share your thoughts. Thank you.
Mayor Snyder was fantastic, IMO. As a Manitou Springs resident, any concern I ever had was promptly and personally responded to by him. He doesn't need to spend a lifetime in politics if he doesn't want; I hope that he and his family enjoy the downtime!
In reference to Andy Pico and the EPA Court Ruling, who is Mr. Pico trying to snow. Climate change is real, it is occurring all over the world, and there are extensive amounts of scientific studies to not only prove that change is occurring, but that it is impacting many people around the world. The climate change we are seeing now is the result of many, many decades of polluting the worlds atmosphere, much of which was done by the US in years past, or that is now being done by countries like India and China. It is our collective responsibility to do something about it. China and India can help out by polluting less now, but the damage that the US has done in the past cannot be undone. Therefore, our part must be done by sacrificing more now and the EPA Clean Power Plan was meant to try and make that happen. Be a denier, Mr. Pico, that man is not the problem. You'll be long gone before your children and grandchildren face many problems because you were too ignorant to see man IS the issue.
391 acres for 190 is a good deal given what we get. While it would be nice to belive the broadmoor might donate the whole thing that isn't how business works.
I would rather have access to trails, complete the southern loop and still have access to the parks which I'm sure could be negotiated.
However this is a golden opportunity and would not be tossed away without a thorough look.
GOP opposes health bill – Pam, you provide no details about this ballot measure and then just slam someone for opposing it – hell, anyone who already has health care should be "dead-set" against this. The majority of people already have some form of health care and most pay for their coverage in part; why would a person also want to pay 3.3% of their wages or from their pension (yes, even retired military people who have Tricare or VA access) into something like this when they already have coverage. Is the state of Colorado going to refund or pay back what a person already pays into Medicare A & B, Tricare, FEHB, or a person’s share of their employer's provided coverage; and, of course, many, many more have been allowed to be on Medicaid now under the Affordable Care Act, and they pay no monthly premium. Why would they want to pay 3.3% out of their meager minimum wage jobs or whatever their making. There are also people who work for companies that provide free health insurance as a benefit. Yes, there are some people that still don't have health care coverage for whatever reason, but the vast majority do and already pay for it. I’m sorry Pam if the Independent doesn’t provide any health benefits coverage or plan and you have to depend on the ACA (and it’s not cheap I may add), but asking people and their employers (they have to ante-up also to the tune of 6.6% of payroll) to pay for something twice is absurd. I think you need to do a little more research and provide the specifics of this plan and do justice to both your profession and the Indy’s readers. If this gets approved by the voters it will drive businesses and retirees out of this state in droves.
Why doesn't the Broadmoor donate the land it holds to the city and then tell its guests that if they want to get outdoors, Colorado Springs has some gorgeous public parks? Then everyone would benefit.
Petition opposing the Strawberry Fields portion of the land swap. https://www.change.org/p/colorado-springs-…
quote: Colorado Springs School District 11 has a lot of National Board Certified Teachers, making Colorado's top five along with Boulder Valley, Denver Public Schools, Cherry Creek and Douglas County. Certification requires teachers to review and improve their practices, and it's quite rigorous. The voluntary process usually takes up to three years, and at least half aren't certified on their first try. — JAS end quote.
UM NO...the teachers in D-11 are mediocre at best!! they DO NOT communicate with parents unless the parents call the principal and demand it. they are very lenient on bullying (they say they are harsh) but nothing is ever done to the offender. the kids get a bad grade and you get an automated call. The teacher needs to contact the parent and tell us so we can work together and help the student.....or at least that how I always thought I worked.... The teachers in D-11 are lazy and do the very base minimum of the job heck most of them clear the parking lot before the kids do when school is let out.... if that aint a sign that these teachers do nothing to help our kids I don't know what is.... now there are some employees that are very good with the kids but these people work in D-11 admin or counseling services.
Of course Sally Clark doesn't want folks reminded that she overlooked the first complaint and gave the employee complaint directly to Sheriff Maketa. Not a single republican County or State official has done anything about protecting the voters from future abuses of power.
I am glad that Mr. Bruce continues to monitor these ballot writers and tax proposals. More people should have cared when Sally Clark worded the ballot to give her a 3rd term to squeeze the tax payers out of a bigger salary and retirement package. More voters should be angry about being talked to into this worthless strong mayor. More voters should see through that the PPRTA tax doesn't sunset just the project list.
In Tuesday’s Gazette front-page article regarding the mayor’s feasibility study to determine if private money will fund the “controversial sports and event center”, the Gazette did not use the word “stadium”, not once, not ever. Is it now official Gazette policy to avoid the word “stadium”, seeing how inflammatory that word is, inciting as it does a flurry of angry emails to the mayor and council members from citizens opposed to spending scarce public dollars on a useless stadium instead of on potholes?
A feasibility study is not needed. City Leaders know – and have known for 2 years – that no private investors or benefactors will put THEIR dollars into a stadium, no matter how effective it may be as a catalyst for the building of much desired – by City Leaders and developers – downtown skyscrapers.
Another objective of the study is to determine what types of sports groups might use the stadium and how much revenue it would generate. Again, City Leaders have had 2 years to figure this out and the result is, there are no known users and no known revenue.
OTOH, it is possible that if the $300M stadium was eliminated, private investors or donors might fund a $25M something or other to take its place. Entrepreneur/developer Sanders sees a need for a convention center to help fill his hotel rooms and he might be willing to build a convention center next door to the iconic and visionary Olympic museum – using his own dollars, of course. Maybe billionaire Anschutz would be willing to split the $25M cost with Sanders. Or maybe not, since the Anschutz owned Broadmoor has its own convention center, which will be competing with Aurora’s convention center, and from Anschutz POV, more competition in the convention biz is understandably undesirable.
The best solution to this problem with no viable solution is to put the stadium to a vote of the citizens, who can be relied upon to vote No to taxpayer funding, which will be the end of the matter.
$43K down the drain. $43K squandered for no purpose. The Gazette reported last Friday that Council President Bennett said, "It's a huge waste of time and money, because all we can do is say, 'Don't do it again.'"
$43K isn't the end of wasted taxpayer dollars. The Council will seek another judge and continue on to their bitter goal of publicly chastising Collins. Ironically, the City Code of Ethics is only concerned with City employees/officials behavior while conducting business for the City. The Code does not apply to Collins since the property transfer was a private - not a City - transaction. There was no criminal act. There was no unethical act.
The purpose of the Ethics Code is to intimidate City employees and officials who are deemed to be disloyal to the City and unsupportive of the goals of City Leaders. The Ethics Code does nothing to protect citizens from genuine wrongful behavior of public servants. The Code should be abolished.
The two faces of Pam Zubeck on display.
In her original article, Pam stated that Klingenschmitt said "it's better to drown gay scoutmasters than allow them to participate in Boy Scouts of America". I called her out on that lie immediately. Now in this article, she somehow fails to mention the words that Klingenschmitt never said, but formed the basis of her smear-mongering headline and article.
We're still waiting for the time stamp of the video segment pointing us to the words you reported coming from Klingenschmitt. What gives, Pam?
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation