So then the G is kind of like the 'Archie Bunker' of newspapers?
Thank you Ralph Routon and the Independent. I have been following a blog being written and posted online by John Schroyer (former Gazette reporter) with great interest. But not knowing his background or circumstances beyond the blog, I've been cautious about giving one hundred percent credence to what I read there. Your description of the Clearing the Haze series matches his. I'm now convinced that we who are deeply concerned about Phil Anschutz's Gazette are all on the same page - that our suspicions are based on provable fact. I'd like to encourage anyone who is interested in the journalistic integrity of the news we here in Colorado Springs are receiving, to check out Mr. Schroyrer's blog. It's called "Phil's Gazette".
You can find it here:
What's happening to our news in Colorado Springs is not just worrisome .... it's alarming.
The Gazette is only concerned with part of the community. 40.31%, to be precise. Thus the disinterest in accuracy and journalistic ethics. Those items are not valued by their readers.
Registered Voters in El Paso County as of 3/20/2017
Colorado Democratic Party 94,289 21.54% Major Party
Colorado Republican Party 176,476 40.31% Major Party
Unaffiliated 157,349 35.94%
Not that there's anything wrong about that...the First Amendment applies here. But for those looking for balance and accuracy...the Gazette is not going to be your source of news.
As for me, I just don't read it because it's a) not a reliable source, and b) it aggravates my chronic blood pressure issues.
Good one Ralph.
"Uncle Ralph" has had enough! And good on him!
It is indeed refreshing to find a male in the local 'caspar milquetoast community' of spineless weaklings who have something besides warm whipped cream stuffed down their nutsacks who will actually stand up and say something when it's obvious something needs to be said!
While everybody else is huddled up at the El Paso Club or Plaza of the Rockies.
Ralph and Pam: couple of jalapenos stuck in the middle of the bland vanilla pudding!
Couldn't have said it better myself!
The problem with our transportation infrastructure isn't lack of funding, it's that we spend the funds we already have in an extremely wasteful manner: adding more miles of pavement, or extra lanes to a busy road, intuitively makes sense as a way to reduce congestion and travel times, but in practice building more roadway always invites more traffic over time ("induced demand") and so we get a very temporary benefit at very high cost. If the goal is to improve network capacity and average speeds within and between cities, we should not be throwing money at one of the least efficient modes of intra-city transport available and should instead be investing heavily in commuter rail, buses, and infrastructure that invites walking and cycling (the exact opposite of what we have now, infrastructure which imposes extra burdens on anyone not traveling via automobile).
So you know she bought educational materials but that isn't good enough.
https://www.lawessayshelp.co.uk/law-assignment.php">Assignment Writers UK
Who do you think will win in each district - and what importance do endorsements have on your decision on issues and/or candidates? A three minute quick -poll. Thank you
This is one of the first times I've done my research on my candidates before reading endorsements. I'll be interested to see how my opinion will be swayed between now and when I submit my ballot.
Just read the linked article provided by Jeff Hirtle about Fresno's stadium, which contained this chilling fact: "Stadium events outside of the Grizzlies initially were projected to generate $425,000 annually. In 2015, the amount was less than $10,000."
Regardless, City Leaders are proud of their beautiful stadium and consider it to be worthy of spending tax dollars to keep the red-ink stadium afloat while skimping on basic services that are the responsibility of govt to provide for its citizens. Stadium/event centers are not a profit center for any city that has one - instead, they divert tax revenue to debt service and maintenance. Stadium/event centers don't generate a profit for anyone other than the owners of nearby properties and the developer, who in the case of COS, is also the owner of numerous nearby properties.
Routon - and his fellow starry-eyed City Leaders who are determined to revitalize downtown so that it can compete with Denver - need to take off their rose-colored glasses and put on their thinking caps.
The Jenkin's stadium refuses to drop dead because the dreamers won't wake up. There are numerous stadiums around town that could host the Switchbacks, and building this minor league team a $300M dollar stadium - to be built by taxpayer dollars without taxpayer consent - for the few times the team would play in the stadium is infuriating. What is the matter with Jenkins? Is not the Olympic museum and the parking garage under his skyscraper condo building enough of a carrot to incentivize the development of his 19 or more properties in the area? Furthermore, sports enthusiasts don't go to stadiums to watch their teams - they sit in their Lazy Boys, with a Bud in one hand and turn on the telly with the other.
The mayor is right in saying that there are already far too many URGENT demands being made on taxpayer dollars, such as stormwater and roads and now we learn that the number of police officers needs to be increased to respond to violent crimes. There is NO tax money available to pay for Jenkins dream of a stadium, the purpose of which is to increase the profitability on his 19 or more properties in the area. If Routin wants a stadium, let HIM and others like him donate the $300M dollars needed to build it.
"Let's quit worrying about C4C and start getting basic services in order." Clara's comments are spot on. As are those of Miller and other commenters above. Thanks.
I'd welcome fewer opinions and blue sky proposals and a little more hard data on the demographics of the city and the planning forecast. The city is growing north and east, yet the constant conversation seems to be south and west. The motto is "If you build it, they will come." The question is: "Who are they?"
Why is the city growing -- military? New industries (unlikely when there is no immediate water source)? Tourist traffic? How does all this divide up? Where are the jobs going to coming from to pay for all the new houses -- or will the core of the city hollow out as population growth slows in the country and people move to newer areas?
The population is aging, which means more trips to the hospital. Yet the one hospital nearest downtown seems to be moving north to the top of a hill that the best driver has trouble with in bad weather. The county has moved social services far away from the center of the bus service that many low income people depend on. How will the majority of the population access any number of services -- flying there hanging off a drone?
There's a lot of wish fulfillment around. The planning to make the city work is piecemeal at best. Let's quit worrying about C4C and start getting basic services in order.
Naysayers? Naysayers to what- a bad idea? You bet. It's not that we "don't dream big", it's simply that this is a bad idea. It's a good article and I like reading the column- but my opinion is that it's a bad idea. A lot of people share this opinion.
I have an opinion of what we should do with the downtown area. My opinion is wonderful. Other people have opinions too, I doubt many are as good as mine but I'm sure it'd be a scale.
I'd love to hear other people's opinions on what to do with the downtown area. Actually, some might be better than mine! We've never had the opportunity to discuss this matter, as a city public to the public servants who represent us. The city dropped this proposal, somehow secured funding and got a few rubber stamps, and now what? Where's the money and what are we going to do with it? How many firms did we hire for design and price analysis- for what? This is all wasted money, to a bad idea. If there is money around for some project, get the public in now. Get a comprehensive input to make a unique project for our city.
Or- divert the money to get clean water for residents in our south-end.
About the only good thing to come out of the C4C proposal was that it showed how little could be done without public support.
Why put a stadium in the downtown area? We do not have a way to handle the traffic problems it would create, I25 is overcrowded as it is, and the downtown streets are impossible if anything is happening right now. There has to be a better choice that this, one that would have room for parking, while avoiding traffic jams. I know boosters want to draw people to downtown, but this isn't the way.
You forgot to mention one little thing about all of us naysayers: we are the ones who get stuck with the bill when all the best laid plans of those who "think big" collapse and fail.
Great article and a great idea.
Let's not give up. Please keep writing about this and don't listen to the nay sayers. They always think small.
Let's be like Palmer and Penrose and the others dreamers. It's in our original DNA.
I specifically asked this question 4 years ago and was told "NO". The culture of the campus atmosphere required the stadium to remain where it is. In addition I was told they were raising funds to make it larger on the AFA campus. It was also mentioned in conjunction with the new visitors center. We are not a sports centric town and we have the Broadmoor fighting us for convention space. Our strength is livability. Lets concentrate on several large downtown living projects. Designed as rent controlled living areas with access to bike-able schools, grocery stores and science museums.
It's a decent idea, full of typical wide-eyed wonderment. These great ideas, and mine, require buckets of "free" money from taxpayers elsewhere. That's the real game in America, getting someone ELSE to pay for what you want; our Federal budget has money and tax loopholes for every vested interest on earth.
Perhaps a better idea is to rearrange the access roads around Falcon Stadium to isolate and keep the stadium outside of the security perimeter of the USAFA so it may be accessed without the security hassles. Throw in an off ramp from the Interquest Parkway exit of I-25 that can be open for events to gain better access on game days. Put a roof over Falcon Stadium and call it a done deal. But that won't happen if the Air Force has to pony up the money for any of this, see comment above about getting free money.
In a state that rejected hosting an Olympic Games, ultra conservative and ultra cheap Colorado Springs isn't about to 'spring' for a damned thing, especially with TABOR still on the books.
If private money wants to do all these things, fine, have at it, but when developers and pols talk about 'free enterprise' what they mean is free money from taxpayers suckered yet again.
All of today's events | Staff Picks
Submit an Event
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation