Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

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


Comment Archives: stories

Re: “Colorado Springs has 'fastest-growing Millennial population'

when we only started with 16 millenials and we get 5 more I suppose that is a big increase... why would any younger person want to be in this poorly run retirement village.

13 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by happyfew on 07/24/2014 at 2:03 PM

Re: “AFA picks visitor center site

Because you know... fuck grass and open fields.

10 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Dave Elizi on 07/24/2014 at 1:43 PM

Re: “Is the C4C resolution a contract?

This sure looks like a contract just like an "events center" seems an awful lot like a convention center(which is prohibited). It is unfortunate that the Attorney General will not take this on. As the State is one of the involved parties one would think the State has an interest in making sure they are making agreements with parties who have the authority to do so. As to the projects themselves: The medical center, olympic museum and AFA visitor center all seem like they might provide benefit to the city and do not require large inputs of tax funding. The stadium/events center seems to most like a giveway to developers and the Mayor's Cronies which is unlikely to earn back its costs. As Curious notes there is no shortage of stadium or event space in town so why should we divert future tax receipts for the next 30 years to build more?

15 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Frank Pado on 07/24/2014 at 11:53 AM

Re: “A major hitch

What a tangled web we weave...

Anschutz should pay Norris the $1M as a side matter when buying the property, but as this unfolds we'll see how much honor the man has. What's $1M out of $8B?

I went to the rodeo, once, as a newcomer here. Didn't like the sermon preached at the end of the show. Never went back. Never will.

No article in the Gazette. Bwahahahaha....guess we know how much honor he has.

15 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by OldCrank on 07/24/2014 at 11:45 AM

Re: “A major hitch

A nice piece of reporting on a topic missing from the Gazette. Good job!

13 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Clara McKenna on 07/24/2014 at 10:40 AM

Re: “Is the C4C resolution a contract?

All of the facts Anita has stated above have been stated many times over the past months in this forum. And they need to be repeated to counteract the "if we build it they (tourists, businesses, jobs, glory) will come" fantasy irresponsibly promoted by the Gazette, C4C website, city leaders and unthinking columnists. None of the proponents present verifiable facts about the downside risk of building a 100% publicly funded stadium/event center that the proponents admit will bleed red ink.

COS does not NEED a stadium downtown in order to host the hoped for 20 annual Olympic TRAINING events that the proponents say will draw new out-of-state visitors. The World Arena - now owned by Anschultz - was built 15 years ago to host sporting events and which was envisioned then to attract tourists, businesses, jobs and glory. And now Anschultz has purchased the Norris-Penrose Event Center and its 10K seat stadium. COS has a glut of stadiums. One wonders WHY the C4C proponents are determined to build yet another stadium - this one to be paid for by taxpayers - amd WHY the C4C proponents refuse to put the stadium venue to a vote of the people.

Squandering public funds on a useless stadium is being promoted by a mayor who during his candidacy posed as a fiscal conservative and was elected by a conservative majority. WE - the ones who will have to pay for the stadium with our future sales tax dollars - have a right to know WHO will personally benefit by this transfer of wealth from the citizens. The undisclosed WHO includes the property owner, developer and the mayor's cronies.

Thanks to clever politicians who found a way to substitute their will for ours by taking our tax dollars instead of raising taxes, we do not have a RIGHT to vote. But we can demand that the mayor allow-permit-accede-grant-graciously do us the favor of putting the stadium to a vote of the people. So let's demand that our voice be heard.

11 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by curious on 07/24/2014 at 10:07 AM

Re: “Damn shame

Stop oppressing the helpless and stop making false accusations and spreading vicious rumors. Feed the hungery and those in trouble. Then your light will shine out from the darkness, and the darkness around you will be as bright as day. Isaiah 58: 9-10

Posted by distinctivelydifferent on 07/24/2014 at 9:19 AM

Re: “Congress takes a vacation

Obama can, and should, be impeached. However, the corrupt Democrats in the Senate would block conviction. Therefore, I believe the people themselves should take the initiative and remove Obama from office by following the process outlined in chapter 19 of John Locke’s “Second Treatise of Government.” I outline the reasons why Obama should be removed from office and Locke’s prescription for putting the old form of government, i.e., our constitutional republic, into new hands in a short book, which can be downloaded at

3 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Kevin Groenhagen on 07/24/2014 at 8:11 AM

Re: “Is the C4C resolution a contract?

Anita, thank you for your factual response. I appreciate your research and dedication to understanding the facts.

Everyone else, I apologize. I had a weak moment and spoke too soon. I thought that we might have a meaningful dialogue here. I now see my mistake and realize that not much can really come from this forum. If you would like to come out from behind your screen names and talk, please do. I will be at the next C4C meeting, 8/19 5-7p at the new library. It will be a good opportunity to learn more about the project and voice your concerns. We can even chat face to face. Otherwise, this will be my last post unless I have another moment of weakness. Cheers!

1 like, 8 dislikes
Posted by Justin Burns on 07/24/2014 at 1:21 AM

Re: “Is the C4C resolution a contract?

Here are some facts about City for Champions (C4C), all of which are available through Colorado Open Records Act requests from the City and the State:

The State of Colorado will contribute less than 20% of the total cost of the projects.

The State contribution is not guaranteed—if there are times when the sales tax collected does not exceed a baseline, the State will contribute nothing.

90% of City cash registers will collect a portion of City and County sales tax in order to help pay for the projects—not just cash registers around the projects, or cash registers involved in the tourist trade.

The City and County sales tax increment financing (the money taken from the cash registers) will occur for at least 30 years.

The downtown stadium alone will cost approximately $200 million in local public funding.
Mayor Bach has stated that he doesn’t know who will own the stadium, but a board he appointed would choose the owner.

The Colorado Springs Urban Renewal Authority (CSURA) would be the financing arm of C4C and would make the debt payments. Because the sales tax would be diverted to the CSURA before it reaches the General Fund, a public vote on C4C is not required. If the money went into the General Fund and then went to pay the debt, a vote would be required due to TABOR. Mayor Bach is circumventing a vote by having the funds travel through the CSURA.

These sales tax dollars collected for C4C would be funds not available to pay for Police, Fire, Parks, Roads, etc.—items for which there is a genuine government role. If you 1. look at the sales tax brought in from last month versus that month a year ago 2. consider the growth between the two years and then 3. take out the portion that would’ve gone into paying for C4C, that would amount to about $150,000. $150,000 in one month to pay for C4C instead of going into the General Fund to pay for core functions. And the growth between last year and this year had nothing to do with C4C, but if the projects had already been built, that growth would've been attributed to the projects.

Mayor Bach has also told the State that in addition to City and County sales tax dollars, he’s willing to use our Parking Enterprise, PPRTA and the Southwest Downtown Urban Renewal Area funds to help pay for C4C.

Citizens deserve a vote on C4C.

17 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Anita Laydon Miller on 07/23/2014 at 9:15 PM

Re: “The shadows know

Mr. Snider and Ms. Jan Martin nailed it. This is the same group that keeps renaming itself because of past failures. These people are desperate to feel like they have actual influence in the City when they do very little except write donation checks, serve on boards, and get drunk at another Regional Business luncheon. Colorado Springs is bullshit and very little action. The sense of power of a few is pathetically reinforced and encouraged by reporters of both local papers. Collaboration and improvement isnt wanted. They maintain their positions and influence because they feed the dysfunctional relationships of local officials while still getting the City and Utilities to give money for their budgets and projects. Fools.

8 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Academygrad on 07/23/2014 at 8:12 PM

Re: “Taking the 'fed' out of 'freedom'

Sorry, Dave. I thought your comment implied it was explicit. Good elaboration.

Posted by Mr. K-- on 07/23/2014 at 7:43 PM

Re: “Taking the 'fed' out of 'freedom'

"The Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review."

Did I say explicitly? No, I said "via". However, since you went there, "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;" Now, while it does not explicitly say "judicial review", it pretty well describes exactly that.

And please note that Marbury was not the first case of judicial review. Marbury was the first case where judicial review struck down a law.

0 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Dave H on 07/23/2014 at 7:29 PM

Re: “Is the C4C resolution a contract?

Mr. Burns, you claim, "I seldom ever call people out, as you can see from my comment history, unlike yours Mr K." If you look closer into my comment history you will discover that I call out those people who start by calling me or other contributors out, as you did with Mr. Murray.

I do not recall ever seeing any of your comments before this one, and I have not bothered to delve into your comment history, so this is only the second comment of yours that I have read. In it you whine, "I went to Joel's town hall. He's was pissed. He's upset that C4C wasn't 'approved' by him and I assume, can't take any of the credit. Thus, it's a bad idea?!?" So now you are two for two as far as calling people out in your comments. Exactly what do you mean by the words, "seldom ever"?

You say, "I like the fact that you're well read and know quotes from dead people." Too bad you do not take the time to try and understand the quote. When you accuse Joel Miller of only wanting to be able to "take any of the credit," it actually says nothing about Councilman Miller, but speaks volumes about your sincerity--or lack thereof.

15 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Mr. K-- on 07/23/2014 at 6:07 PM

Re: “Fed up!

Peggy Littleton is one of the politicians that give Colorado Springs it's reputation as a haven for right wing loons. In any other jurisdiction she would not have been elected dog catcher, but COS loves the right wing fringe dwellers, they hate gummit, but do everything in their power to ensure that the flow of federal dollars that keep El Paso County afloat continue.

23 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Peter Lotto on 07/23/2014 at 4:59 PM

Re: “Is the C4C resolution a contract?

Mr. K (whoever you are?) and Gary. Let's take a minute here to level-set. I am not childish nor blind. I have lived in this community since 1997 and have seen the rise and falls of our community. Furthermore, I am a contributing member of society and give as much and as often as I can to our community.

C4C is currently proposed as a Tax Increment Finance project (TIF). We have had several of these type of projects recently. In fact, I personally am a property owner in the Lowell Neighborhood, one of the urban renewal (TIF) funded projects.

I am not a beacon for developers. I did not participate in the promotion of Copper Ridge or the Vineyard Data Center Park, two other recent TIF projects. Personally, I liked the idea of University Village because I selfishly wanted another Costco and the possibility of Trader Joe's coming to town. Both the Costco and Trader Joe's are a soon reality but the Powers interchange, Nordstrom's and the data centers have yet to be materialized. None the less, these projects have all moved forward, similarly with little to no citizen involvement. Fact is, University Village is behind in their TIF payments but will soon catch up and everyone will call it a success. It is a success. The fact that I don't have to wait at that smelly, old Comcast office to get a new DVR was totally worth it! Yet, you mention the breaking of tax payer backs?! The only back-breaking I see going on is that from people buying tons of mulch from the new Lowes or shooting guns that they got at the Bass Pro Shop.

I like the fact that you're well read and know quotes from dead people. I seldom ever call people out, as you can see from my comment history, unlike yours Mr K. Before Bill Murray was in office, he tried to disrupt one of my meetings as Chair of the TPAC (Telecommunications Policy Advisory Committee to the City). He thought that Google fiber was the next best thing to sliced bread and was appalled that we didn't have gigabit internet speeds in our city. I applauded Mr. Murray for his enthusiasm but helped him understand that that was not a realistic target for us to focus on. We were already in process of responding to the Google RFP along with 560 other responding cities.

I believe that Mr. Murray is a smart man and has great intentions. Same for Joel. I also believe, though, that both of their actions are negative and counter productive. Here you have two smart men that can tear apart ideas till the cows come home, but we have yet to see them contribute any positive or alternative proposals on how to move our community forward. I went to Joel's town hall. He's was pissed. He's upset that C4C wasn't "approved" by him and I assume, can't take any of the credit. Thus, it's a bad idea?!?

C4C is a big deal and here's why. 56% of the city's general budget comes from sales tax. That being said, what are we doing as a community to increase sales tax revenue streams? The local population can only buy so much. In order for us to increase sales tax, we need the population to grow, incomes to rise or draw new visitors to the area. The RTA money ($120.5M) that has been "awarded" to C4C is designated to specifically increase out of state visitors to the area. In order to get the money, we have to accomplish that one goal. Colorado Springs has some good things going for it. The Air Force Academy, The Olympic Movement, UCCS (Crags health history) and downtown. These are all areas that we can focus on and grow. The objective of C4C is to draw visitors to Colorado Springs and have them spend money. This will then have a cause/effect impact upon our airport, hotels, roads, street lights, parks, etc... Good stuff!

Developers are such an easy target in this town. The problem is that we all live in one of their homes, shops in their stores and drive on their roads. What would we do without developers? William J Palmer, Spencer Penrose, David Jenkins, Jeff Smith, Gary Erickson, Vince Colarelli, Earl Robertson and Phil Anschutz... Big or small, Colorado Springs loves to hate them. Perhaps, though, without developers Garden of Gods may not have been a garden after all???

Here's some more good reading for you guys before you respond. I gotta run but look forward to hearing your heartfelt responses.…………

3 likes, 14 dislikes
Posted by Justin Burns on 07/23/2014 at 4:55 PM

Re: “Taking the 'fed' out of 'freedom'

Dave H, you are mistaken. The Constitution does not explicitly give the Supreme Court the power of judicial review. Chief Justice John Marshall, in the case of Marbury v. Madison, ruled a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 unconstitutional, reinforcing the doctrine of judicial review, which had only been a theoretical power before.

According to Wikipedia, "Historians mostly agree that the framers of the Constitution did plan for the Supreme Court to have some sort of judicial review; what Marshall did was make operational their goals."

The irony of the situation is that the provision the court struck down would have expanded the power of the Supreme Court.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Mr. K-- on 07/23/2014 at 4:49 PM

Re: “Is the C4C resolution a contract?

MR Burns... you forgot about the associated debt. The city can't even afford to keep the streets in fair condition, but you think we should spend 120 million on a stadium that nobody wants and will fall quickly into bankruptcy?

No way the citizens want this project, only Bach and his developer buddies that will reap great profits from the land that they scored prior to the project. Why do you think that they will not put it to a vote?

17 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Are you kidding me ? on 07/23/2014 at 3:31 PM

Re: “Taking the 'fed' out of 'freedom'

"Who gets to decide what the U.S. Constitution really says?

A legal scholar would tell you that's the job of the U.S. Supreme Court. "

When it comes to legal precedent, the US Supreme Court is generally the correct answer -- ironically a power given to them via the U.S. Constitution, the very document they are supposed to interpret and apply.

However, it is really the people of the United States who are the final arbiters of what the Constitution actually says.

0 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by Dave H on 07/23/2014 at 3:27 PM

Re: “Here's Peggy

"Littleton and her fellow commissioners have been vocal supporters of gun rights; "


2 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Dave H on 07/23/2014 at 3:16 PM

All content © Copyright 2014, The Colorado Springs Independent   |   Website powered by Foundation