Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

    • All
    • Today
    • Last 7 Days
    • Last 30 Days
    • Select a Date Range

Comment Archives: stories: Calendar: IndyBlog

Re: “Banning Lewis Ranch study says new annexation agreement is needed

City residents and city council should demand developers pay for needed infrastructures; roads, schools, drainage, police and fire stations, etc. Doing so will keep the price of new homes high which in turn raises prices of existing homes to benefit we who've already invested in the area. Otherwise we pay for their infrastructure, they sell homes cheaper than the true cost of the communities they build, our property values stagnate and we have a harder time selling our homes if we must compete with their taxpayer subsidized homes.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by OldCrank on 12/14/2016 at 3:43 PM

Re: “Process to alter BLR annexation agreement begins

"Missing from the presentation was" everything that would cost the tax payers and make it a loosing proposition and the fact that the entire thing is a corporate welfare subsidy for Jenkins.

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Bill Burns on 12/14/2016 at 11:38 AM

Re: “Process to alter BLR annexation agreement begins

We need BLR about as much as we need former Mayor Bach .....

Why why why does anyone believe that adding 18000 acres 15 miles from downtown is a good thing

Growth for growths sake of irresponsible.

If you think Colorado Springs is a poster child for unchecked SPRAWL you ain't seen nothing yet

You might think you live in Colorado Springs and El Paso Country but if BLR happens you'll actually be living in the Dutchy of Jenkins. One Family will control not only downtown ,( where they've held back development for years) but 18000 acres they expect us to pay for.


6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by actionjackson on 12/14/2016 at 4:21 AM

Re: “Process to alter BLR annexation agreement begins

It's a real concern to learn the level of trust among City Council members has degenerated to a point where they don't keep one another informed about major studies as they progress. Some things may need to be kept out of the public eye, although it's difficult to see why this is true of this study, but the Council members should have been kept up to date. To chastise fellow Council members for their lack of information when you're the one who should have provided it is arrogant and hypocritical.

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Clara McKenna on 12/13/2016 at 3:44 PM

Re: “Banning Lewis Ranch study says new annexation agreement is needed

So what was the point of COS annexing 24,000 acres in 1988. we still dont have enough police to cover the city limits. nothing but pure greed. so why not de-annex it and let it become its own city EG; like fountain or security. or stay in unincorporated El Paso county. Developers will still have to provide infrastructure as they should. you want to build houses then you provide the roads, sewers etc.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dsand on 12/13/2016 at 3:40 PM

Re: “UPDATE: More about the AFA coach tweeting salvation messages

We're (I'm) not interested in HIS Religious beliefs, or anyone else's for that matter! WHO CARES? He needs to keep them to himself, and stop trying to proselytize. That he feels the necessity to have to shout it from the rooftop, is a sign of weakness and desperation; not to mention an attempt to prey upon the weak and fearful. That's what religion does.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by mbomcar on 12/13/2016 at 2:56 PM

Re: “Banning Lewis Ranch study says new annexation agreement is needed

The claims of the developers of Banning Lewis are without facts. Woodmen Hills and other local development has been done with the developer paying for roads including the widening of Meridian and Woodmen Roads with a special tax applied to pay for that infrastructure. The drainage control ponds were also paid for by the developers. Every home or business built in the district has to pay for tap fees for water and sewer. It seems as if the developers of Banning Lewis are wanting the public to pay for infrastructure allowing them to a better profit with ability to reduce the price a little bit to attract buyers. Those who buy in Banning Lewis should pay for their own infrastructure.

10 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Alfred Kreps on 12/13/2016 at 9:47 AM

Re: “Banning Lewis Ranch study says new annexation agreement is needed

rich people rule and the rest of us... not so much. the p***y grabber president elect will give massive benefits to the rich and the rest of us... not so much.

enjoy the next 4 years... not so much.

6 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by happyfew on 12/13/2016 at 8:29 AM

Re: “Banning Lewis Ranch study says new annexation agreement is needed

Privatize the profits and socialize the costs. That works!

Exactly what happened with the bank bailouts after the big crash.

Welcome to the new Fascism Economy!

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by billd on 12/13/2016 at 5:36 AM

Re: “UPDATE: More about the AFA coach tweeting salvation messages

This was the equivalent of slow-pitch softball--not surprising that USAFA managed to hit a single, but they could've easily hit this one out of the park but just quoting AFI1-1 and stating unequivocally that they expect ALL USAFA leaders to conform, whether their paycheck comes from the Treasury or the AFAAC. Active duty AF officers and HEAD coaches and USAFA can have their own twitter feed and facebook page (many do), but USAFA and Air Force leadership need to continue to make it clear that if they use those feeds in ANY way are used to represent the Academy or if a reasonable individual could see those feeds as potentially coercive toward subordinates/recruits or negative representations of the Academy, then they need to be stopped and reprimanded.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by BirdManBlue on 12/12/2016 at 7:08 PM

Re: “UPDATE: More about the AFA coach tweeting salvation messages

While the current Constitutional 'win' is certainly to be celebrated, it is also critical to understand that pending a sincere commitment by the AFA leadership to upholding the secular precepts of the Constitution, this is merely the latest in a series of battles to keep fundamentalist domionist Christianity from overrunning our nation's military institutions; active duty included. Lobotzke, the latest 'sacrificial lamb' will surely be followed by others, as he is merely the latest in a series of provocateurs attempting, bit by bit, to chip away the 'wall of separation' that keeps us from descending into the Christofascism that so characterized pre-modern Europe and which forced those who settled America to flee. That this is a coordinated effort is obvious since both Lobotzke and his AFA employers could not help but be aware (considering the extensive history of conflict with MRFF over similar issues) of the unconstitutional nature of the provocation. And, considering the profound Christian fundamentalism of the incoming Trump regime one can only expect the provocations to increase in frequency & magnitude and for the willingness to adhere and acquiesce to Constitutional dictates to only wither further. The fight is far from over.

5 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Rael Nidess on 12/12/2016 at 5:33 PM

Re: “Cottonwood gets good news to the tune of $15,000

Wonderful news!! The Cottonwood Community of Artists are such a wonderful asset for the Colorado Springs!

Posted by CeCe Beauchamp on 12/12/2016 at 3:06 PM

Re: “AFA coaches must provide "appropriate disclaimer" on Twitter accounts

You people need to get a life!...Seriously! The main complainant is trolling, trolling people who protect your country and put their lives on the line. SMH

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Leroy Fevrius on 12/12/2016 at 1:29 PM

Re: “Calling all city candidates


" ...are there any who are salvageable, trustworthy, and honest?

No way do I have the hubris to make that call. What I want is for those who are up for reelection to have the decency to account for, in public, the fact that they cast a vote in favor of a measure which their constituents were calling upon them to vote against. Provably and overwhelmingly, the citizens of Colorado Springs made it very clear that they wanted to take the matter to a vote of the people.

That said, from my point of view, this one bad call is evidence of a much deeper concern.
Shouldn't we be far more disturbed by the fact that six men felt themselves to be under enough pressure to vote for the swap that they dared to do so even when it was perfectly obvious that they were ignoring the voice of the people? Who gets away with controlling our public officials to that extent? Is it individual councilpersons who pose the problem in Colorado Springs, or is it a private little culture of control by unseen forces with which we must do battle? Bluntly stated, are we willing to let the Broadmoor Hotel make our decisions for us?

"The three who are not up for reelection, should they be recalled?

Those of us who believe that a wrong has been committed need to hold up our end of the representative contract by insisting that Mr.'s Bennett and Strand publicly account for the fact that they voted contrary to public will. I would hate to think that the only way to hold them accountable for that one misuse of the public trust is to go so far as recall them. I think it falls to us to ask them, and to stand firm until candid answers are given.

On this one issue, to be sure, Councilpersons Murray, Gaebler and Collins can rest easy at night knowing that they did the right thing.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by doonya on 12/12/2016 at 12:58 PM

Re: “Tax measures coming to a ballot near you

TOPS is flawed. You can't continue to buy open space that you cannot afford to maintain. It must be fixed before any new parks tax is enacted.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by LivesLocally on 12/12/2016 at 7:16 AM

Re: “Trump's pick for Interior no friend of America's parks, nonprofits say

Who cares about Parks and natural resources, and clean air and water, right? Certainly NOT Drumpf and his poorly educated sheep. Their cult leader led them astray. He picked the weakest, angriest, most vulnerable in our society and he targeted them. He knew they were too ignorant about the World at large and cared only about their small little lives. They'll have ZERO right to complain if and when he can't produce what he promised them.I'm more worried about the horrible consequences to Planet Earth when Drumpf gets through scorching it!

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by mbomcar on 12/11/2016 at 2:24 PM

Re: “Calling all city candidates


All five of the council members running again need to get the boot or are there any who are salvageable, trustworthy, and honest? The three who are not up for re-election, should they be recalled?

2 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Robert Gentry on 12/10/2016 at 3:43 PM

Re: “AFA coaches must provide "appropriate disclaimer" on Twitter accounts

I was going to post a comment on this 'non-fix' to the problem [is that by intent?], but find I cannot improve on 'birdmanblue's' excellent comment! Attaboy Birdmanblue!!

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Rael Nidess on 12/10/2016 at 10:32 AM

Re: “Calling all city candidates

Colorado Springs is desperately in need of a fresh and brand new City Council .....

Throughout the weeks and months following Council's 6 to 3 vote in favor of the Broadmoor Land Swap, public opinion has held that representation of the citizens of Colorado Springs was sorely lacking on that issue, and that other considerations strongly influenced the final vote. The April 2017 election will give every voting citizen of Colorado Springs a golden opportunity to make his and her vote count as never before. We can, and must, support and elect responsive, unencumbered, and above all impeccably honest council persons to hold office in Colorado Springs. (It would also help if they can read and correctly interpret the results of polling). This upcoming election holds enormous promise for a city which has been ruled for far too long by forces which jerk the strings of our elected officials like behind-the-scene puppeteers.

April 2017 could be, at long last, the election which proves that the people of Colorado Springs are not as blindly accepting of falsehood, misdirection, and political shenanigans as our present office holders think us to be.

A current councilperson might say to us, "Why punish me for just that one vote when I've done a lot of good with my other votes during my time in office?" Because that vote mattered, Mr. Councilperson. Because it set a horrible precedent which will haunt future generations in Colorado Springs, quite possibly forever.

And most important of all, because it did not accurately reflect the will of the people. It wasn't even close.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by doonya on 12/10/2016 at 10:27 AM

Re: “AFA coaches must provide "appropriate disclaimer" on Twitter accounts

This really makes no sense at all (the Academy position). Requiring that employees and military at the Academy only have a disclaimer that their views aren't (officially) those of the Academy and are privately held, while the individual posting those comments uses USAFA imagery/branding and is widely known to be a leader at the Academy (e.g., coach, faculty member, AOC, Superintendent, etc) is ludicrous. Would that mean that the colonel could have her own twitter feed, re-tweeting quotes from the KKK (or ISIS/Daech), but by saying "these are my own views and shouldn't be associated with USAFA" that makes it all okay? USAFA leadership could/should apply a simple rule: If it would seem reasonable and prudent for the Superintendent, Commandant, Dean, or Athletic Director to tweet it or post it on their personal Facebook page, then it's okay for the coach to do the same.

Posts by a 3-star on their devotion to a specific religion or rejection of religion--backed by USAFA signage, even with a disclaimer--would be a clear violation of AFI1-1, so why isn't the same true for a football coach or English professor? (Ref:…)

Once again, this is REALLY EASY to fix, Coach Lebotzke: Get two twitter accounts. Use one as a coach and representative of USAFA. Call it "Coach Lebotzke." Get another twitter account (they're free) and call that one "Steed The Evangelizing Dominionist Christian." Use the former to talk about USAFA and football. Use the latter to spread your sky-fairy beliefs. Do NOT cross-tweet between the two. Do NOT allow your recruits or cadets to know about or follow you on the latter. MANY people do this. It's not hard. It's even legal and prudent.

However, since the Academy is NOT providing this type of clear guidance and separation (that would give Steed the ability to practice his religious fervor without issue), I can onl conclude that they APPROVE of his using the twitter feed to spread his religious views while simultaneously doing his job--and that's very, very wrong.

(BTW - the views expressed above are mine only and do not officially represent AF or USAFA policy--except for AFI1-1, which IS Air Force Policy.)

7 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by BirdManBlue on 12/10/2016 at 8:42 AM

All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent   |   Website powered by Foundation