Thank you so much!
Hahaha. Good question @Joel. Should have added "in theory" ....
"These rules exist so that the powerful cannot exert undue I nfluence on public officials, and one entity does not control a city. That is good public policy."
How familiar are you with Colorado Springs?
No Taxpayer Dollars.
I think we can count all who believed that on one thumb.
$500,000 is a first installment on nearly $200,000,000 that taxpayers will pay for museum infrastructure. This is the project everyone was told that the "State" and "private financing" was going to pay for. Who is surprised that was a lie? Not anyone who listened to the facts.
@SANDMARC, the invitations were sent by the Parks Department. The meeting itself was also controlled by the Parks Department. It was their meeting, and per a letter signed by Suthers and Bennett, it was their study. Also, there are rules which prohibit gifts to public officials. If they did not pay for the catered event, then that is a gift. These rules exist so that the powerful cannot exert undue influence on public officials, and one entity does not control a city. That is good public policy.
This meeting/party was hosted by the El Pomar Foundation as part of their Pikes Peak Recreation and tourism, Heritage Series. No city funds were used. Guess that got left out of the story.
How impressed are you with the 12 candidates who have so far announced formally that they will run?
Just wait until Ms. Palus and Mr. Suthers give the Broadmoor Rosemont Reservoir! This town is whack. Take names and vote this council out!
Since when does the City Parks department spend so much time at the Broadmoor? Why is the head of the marketing department for the Broadmoor on the panel? I agree: too cozy in my opinion. The Broadmoor is not the only business in town, but our city government sure acts like they are.
Very cozy. I wonder how much Ms. Palus knows about the Broadmoor's interest in Rosemont Reservoir water rights.
Do you agree with the Colorado Springs City Council decision not to place a parks funding measure on the April Municipal Election ballot? A one minute Quick Poll. Thank you!
Comical and a big, "Duh!"... is the Broadmoor the new headquarters for the taxpayer funded Parks and Recreation Department? Planning the next chunk of historic parkland they intend to give away while assuming a behemoth liability?
... The City Council long-term has proven pathetic at maintaining city infrastructure whether it is the parks or roads. In the 1970's 1980's and early 1990's the roads and parks were properly maintained with the existing budgets. Our corrupt Council would then drain funds from those two groups - claim to the citizens "Were Broke" and beg for tax increases to cover for them subsidizing developer interests. Our developers/development fees are 70% LESS than the average of the other front range cities. Raise the development fees to be equal to our neighboring cities, fund stormwater with that and leave the parks/road maintenance budgets alone. This council is corrupt to the interests of developers....Let's see how much infrastructure costs they pass to the citizens for the Banning Lewis Ranch/Jenkins development !!
Originally TOPS was just for acquisition and then was tweaked to allow a percentage for maintenance of TOPS properties. In 2013, citizens approved a change allowing a percentage of TOPS funds to be used for any City parks. The City abruptly took those funds and reduced the general fund commitment by the same amount. What special taxes like TOPS, PSST, etc do is set up for the City to rob the funds originally dedicated for those purposes. Parks are a role of government and should be covered under the general fund and to the extent allowed by TOPS. It is also important to note that TOPS has a sunset and without continuance, the City will scream bloody murder because they've a squandered much of what was previously dedicated from the general fund for parks. They've gotten accustomed to the extra dollars.
TOPS should be reworked as the source of money for park maintenance. It was an oversight that all of its funding go towards acquisition, as at some point you won't be able to maintain what you purchased.
Heaven help us all Joel, when money trumps a principle. Appreciate the reality check, but faith trumps both. And being on the right side doesn't hurt either :)
Denying people the right to vote just because you want to win is a LOSER.
I appreciate what Joel Miller is saying. At the same time, I believe that attitude of powerlessness that has crept into everyday American life is what has caused many of the problems we face. I have seen too many people make a difference to believe that.
After 8 years with the original Haunted Mines crew in a leading staff position, and after 6 years with the museum, also in a leadership position - I second Mr Ducote's comment.
Look at it for the statement it is.
Would WMMI seperate themselves from the donations given by past and present HM volunteers for anything less than a very serious problem with the current Haunted Mines management?
The answer is no.
There is a reason WMMI was willing to forego a donation like that. There is little HM can say in defense.
The management and their treatment of WMMI staff and property over the last two years was attrocious. I have first hand experience and evidence of such.
As far as volunteers leaving due to Angel's 'high standards', that is simply laughable. Angel purged the professional team who built Haunted Mines, and she now sees the consequences.
The unfortunate reality is that this group will face an opponent in court who has a virtually unlimited supply of taxpayer cash to fight them. The City has never just said, "forget it...we're out of money to fight this legal battle." This is especially true when the Anschutz Corporation is firmly in the City's corner as they are the beneficiaries of the transfer.
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation