Thanks for sharing. I hope it will be helpful for too many people that are searching for this topic.
Google Maps Street View
I'm excited to see these buffered lanes go in - anything that makes the north end of our city a little less hostile to people (like me) who don't drive is appreciated.
Really very nice blog information for this one and more technical skills are improve,i like that kind of post.
Good article by John, but in highlighting a lack of diversity, he did fail to mention that, if elected, I would bring a voice for an underrepresented Latino community and others to the region. I have demonstrated that I will be a voice for all, and that is why in addition to broad Republican support, the 2 Democrat city council members that John mentions in his article have both endorsed me over their own party's candidate for district 4. Longinos Gonzalez
Great balanced story Stanley. Whatever you think of these amendments you show the distorting effects of money on the campaigns. Thank you
To a great full spectrum local newspaper I've seen, through much of Matt's past work, his eye for capturing a scene with a camera, his excellent story recognition and article writing ability and the editors brilliance to bring it all together to insure, I feel, the continued growth of our community's own Independent information hub. Congratulations to all involved.
And please accept my sincere sympathy and condolences for your loss as well. My wife had 18 months as well after her recurrence. They told her when the cancer came back that, statistically, she had 12-18 months. They were right...unfortunately. But she hung on as long as she could.
I loss my wife too to hep c she contracted from a transfusion after child birth in 1983. I was her care givers 24/7 for her last 18 months. Please accept my condolences for you loss.
Little Trump!!!! Hit the nail on the head. You should hear his kid talk about being a self-made man while working for his daddy. Same out of touch buffoons as the Trumps.
Thank you, Susan Tomblin. You got right to the point.
I no longer live in Colorado Springs, but used to live on N. Nevada and I still care about the city deeply.
If I'm reading the LTTE from Mr. McKeown correctly, the city is considering ripping out the median and installing 2 more lanes for traffic, one of which might at some point be for light rail?
Speaking as someone who works in the urbanism field, this is a CRAZY idea. Bonkers. I'm not talking about adding light rail, I think that would provide a high ROI if it connected UCCS to downtown. If done right, it would significantly increase property values along the route and be more attractive to those who don't want to own an automobile or use it for every trip. Provided land use intensified around the rail, especially on the far north end of Nevada, the city would see a solid bump in tax revenue. I differ w/ Mr. McKeown on turing lower floors into offices, or adding apartments or "granny flats" in the rear of now single family homes. Apartments, businesses to serve new people, and more density are not bad things. Done the right way, this is the traditional, organic way a city grows. Land around big community investments should be able to support those investments in the form of higher tax receipts. It's a win-win for property owners and the community alike.
A much better solution to adding rail along Nevada would be repurposing one lane on each side for the rail. N. Nevada has 4 lanes of auto only traffic. It does not need 4. There's no way traffic volume is high enough for that (perhaps there are some delays at "rush hours" but does it make sense to design an entire system around a few peak hours?) Even if it was, traffic is not a zero-sum game. It expands or contracts more like a gas than a liquid or solid (see: Induced Demand.) If you build more lanes for automobiles, you get more automobiles. If you repurpose lanes, the traffic disperses into the grid or goes away, or people choose times other than the peak to travel. Demolishing that median for rail would be providing the "carrot" of quality mass transit w/o the "stick" of discouraging car use. Keeping Nevada in it's current configuration & repurposing a lane for rail would also be substantially cheaper than demolishing the median and adding rail b/c the city would have one less lane for automobiles to maintain. Asphalt IS EXPENSIVE!
That median is a HUGE amenity to the surrounding neighborhoods. It softens the streetscape. slows automobiles (and quiets traffic noise), takes in pollution, provides shade for people and habitat for animals, and is visually pleasant.
Ripping out that median is anti-city. It's prioritizing the swift movement of automobiles over everything else. One lane of auto traffic each way is plenty. Taking the median out will have cascading effects. The city will not see a return on the investment of rail. It will devalue surrounding land values leading to lower tax receipts. It will lose valuable green space. It'll be on the hook for not only the maintenance costs of 4 lanes of auto traffic, but also the costs to run a now less valuable rail line. It will make Nevada a louder, less pleasant, uglier place to be.
Cities around the world are at a crossroad. They can continue on an auto-centric approach to planning (a world-wide EXPERIMENT of unprecedented scale), one that goes against millennia of accumulated knowledge on how to build cities, one that devalues the land around it at the same time is costs us dearly to build and maintain, or we can return to the values that make cities work for people first, using infrastructure that's already in place instead of building more that we can afford to maintain.
The cities that return to a people first approach will win the 21st century. The core of Colorado Springs is well-positioned to do so, with it's connected grid, walkable/bikeable streets, pleasant architecture, and parks/amenities. Ripping out the median on Nevada would be moving in the wrong direction and would lead to stagnation or worse for the surrounding neighborhoods.
"The source of this article is coendoflifeoptions."
That would make it the source of this discussion, as reprinted in a weekly newspaper. It's still not a source I have personally sought out or endorsed.
Thanks for your expression of sympathy regarding my source. Very gracious.
The source of this article is coendoflifeoptions.
"Your source has done you a disservice. The promoters of assisted suicide have worn out their thesaurus attempting to imply that it is legal in Montana."
I think you have assumed facts not in evidence. My source is not "promoters of assisted suicide." I have no idea what you are talking about. I have never researched the subject nor contacted a "promoter of assisted suicide" by phone, in person, by email, on the internet or in any other manner. Never. None. Nada.
My "source" is my late wife who died a freaking awful death of metastatic breast cancer. It came back to her five years after she finished treatment. It attacked her brain and spinal cord. I won't bore you with the gory details, but I will say this: I speak for myself, and I speak from the heart.
Perhaps you've also had a loved one die in your arms after extended agony. Perhaps not. But it is an unforgettable life experience to me.
There were no options at the time in Colorado for assisted suicide. I don't know if she would have used them if there were options. But the degree of suffering she endured at the end of her life was unspeakable.
I have no idea what the law is in Montana. Nor do I much care. I live in Colorado. It's on our ballot in November. And while I'm not an activist and won't lobby or work for passage of Proposition 106, I will probably vote for it.
I have seen unimaginable end of life suffering wreak havoc on someone I loved dearly. She told me that she didn't want to suffer any more, but there was nothing we could do about it.
I get your point. Life is precious. I agree. But we all die, and, in my view, we should all have choices that respect our beliefs at the end.
You stated that "we can all agree that Proposition 106 does not deliver." Please do not assume that your view is universal. I still don't agree with your statement.
Bill W, the difference between having a witness to "self administration" and no witness is that one honors individual rights and the other is non voluntary euthanasia. A promoter was once asked "why don't you just legalize euthanasia?" He said "the public is not ready to accept euthanasia."
Your source has done you a disservice. The promoters of assisted suicide have worn out their thesaurus attempting to imply that it is legal in Montana. Assisted suicide is a homicide in Montana. Our MT Supreme Court did ruled that if a doctor is charged with a homicide they might have a potential defense based on consent. The MT Supreme Court acknowledged it is a homicide in the ruling.
The Court did not address civil liabilities and they vacated the lower court’s claim that it was a constitutional right. Unlike Oregon no one in Montana has immunity from civil or criminal prosecution and investigations are not prohibited like Oregon. Does that sound legal to you?
Perhaps the promoters are frustrated that even though they were the largest lobbying spender in Montana their Oregon model legalizing assisted suicide bills have been rejected in Montana in 2011, 2013 and 2015.
Your source has done the public a disservice. Their ordinary bait and switch campaign is demonstrated by their selling "must self-administer" then they do not provide in their legislation for an ordinary witness of the "self-administration". This omission eviscerates the flaunted safeguards putting the entire population at risk of exploitation by the medical-industrial-complex, organ traffickers and predatory heirs.
Mtaas dot org
PS: Note much abuse has been documented in the Oregon assisted suicide system.
See the federal case of Thomas Middleton who was killed with the Oregon law for his assets according to the feds.
There are more details at http://dredf dot org/public-policy/assisted-suicide/some-oregon-assisted-suicide-abuses-and-complications/
Opposition to euthanasia comes from 95% of the entire spectrum of humanity once they learn how these laws can easily be administered wrongly against the individual. It is as simple as that.
The promoters have done the public a disservice. Their ordinary bait and switch campaign is demonstrated by their selling "must self-administer" then they do not provide in their legislation for an ordinary witness of the "self-administration". This omission eviscerates the flaunted safeguards putting the entire population at risk of exploitation.
Prop 106 is modeled after Oregon and is defined as an Oregon model bill.
For the one person who's pain can't be treated adequately, there are hundreds who fall into the category described by Ben Mattlin in his "Miracle Boy Grows Up: How the Disability Rights Revolution Saved My Sanity." He states: "The subtle pressures to go along - to avoid costly treatments - can easily lead to acquiescence, especially if the patient is confused. Believe me, we may say anything under the influence of pain or morphine or in the isolation of an ICU."
I wish the people pushing to give doctors the legal right to intentionally kill another person would listen to the voices of people who are disabled and who would be the first to be encouraged to "end it all."
In every state they push their agenda, Compassion and Choices (formerly called the Hemlock Society) tries to get the most extreme case of someone in pain and suffering. Unfortunately, laws do not only apply to a few cases, they apply to everyone.
Cathy Ludlum, who has a neuromuscular disease that took away her ability to move, has said: “No matter how many safeguards go into the bill [she was speaking of Connecticut's bill which was basically the same as Colorado's] , we [people with disabilities] are going to be the collateral damage.” . . .
I sure hope this is a program that will focus on people trying to help themselves and not just another handout. For a free place to stay there must be no drugs or alcohol on premises, no smoking indoors, and no pets- none of that should be expenses made by people who can't afford a home and are utilizing this kind of service. No co-inhabitants that aren't listed and co-inhaitants must follow all of the rules. Tenants should have to sign a waiver to unquestionably cooperate with random health and welfare inspections as well as random drug screens. Any violations of the basic rules would include a strictly followed, progressive series of actions that ultimately lead to eviction as well as involvement of child protective services for children involved. This would ensure that the housing is being utilized by people who have truly hit hard times and simply need a boost to get themselves back on track while keeping out drug dealers and people who are not ready to appreciate the effort this project represents.
If Mr. Williams expects to post his position and not be criticized for it, he is naive. The same goes for you. He put his thoughts out there. I responded. Politely. No name calling. No insults. No implication that he should not express his beliefs.
You, on the other hand, would have no one, myself included, criticize his position. This is not a forum for just one side of the issue. Mr. Williams stated his beliefs. I stated mine.
Prop 106 may be flawed. It is, after all, a "Proposition," most of which are flawed in some form. However, Mr. Williams arguments are also flawed. I'd appreciate it if you'd be as generous with my right to speak my mind as you are with Mr. Williams' right to do the same.
As a reminder, I advised all who haven't already done so to consider completing a medical directive. If one so desires, that medical directive can EXCLUDE any physician assisted suicide, no matter what the law says. There's room enough in this discussion for both sides, and I respectfully addressed the side supporting Proposition 106.
I'm sorry you're offended by my support for it, but you can't deny me the right to express it.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation