Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

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

Comment Archives: stories

Re: “10-year-old is seizure-free after one year of cannabis oil

I'm so grateful to Dr. Okaka for healing spell he cast on me now I'm free from cancer. I'm Becky Brant and I live in LA USA, I was diagnose with breast cancer 3 years ago, and ever since i have done a lot of Chemo and Radiation that have not helped me, but only damaged my immune system and render me weak and helpless., few weeks late a friend of mine direct me to Great Dr Okaka who help her to cure her cancer with his spiritual power and now she is free from cancer. Then I also contacted Great Dr Okaka and I Am now here to testify that am no more a cancer patient, I have experience a total transformation in my health after Great Dr Okaka cast healing spell on me. For all cancer patient that lives in the Australia,Europe and America region, get your healing from Great Dr Okaka and be free from cancer. contact him on his E-mail: ( and his website:

Posted by Becky Cole on 08/18/2015 at 6:22 PM

Re: “Invasivorism takes a food fight to the field

Two terms

- Non-native: A species that was brought to an area unintentionally or intentionally by humans. Non-native species can be invasive, but not all non-native species are invasive.

- Invasive: A non-native species which spreads and starts wiping out native species.

Some examples

- Pheasant: This non-native species has only a small impact on native species and is not considered invasive.
- Pig/Boar AKA hogs: This invasive species is extremely damaging and out competes many native species for resources. In some areas they are so bad that people have been paid to hunt them.
- Russian Thistle: Invasive weed which wipes out native species and increases fire danger.
- Cheat Grass: Another invasive species which some wildlife cannot or will not eat, thus putting pressure not only on native plants, but also on native animals.

Posted by Dave H on 08/18/2015 at 3:13 PM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

teabaggers aren't going to vote for no stinking tax increase. we will continue down the short sighted save a penny today mentality road... and bumpy it will be. We need long term thinking that will increase both tax bases. Our property tax is stupidly low. if you teabaggers can't afford to live here...MOVE!!!

6 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by happyfew on 08/18/2015 at 2:41 PM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

Anderson recommends that the City “End the policy of special favors and giveaways to special interests ... and various Economic Development agreements." This includes the C4C stadium. City Leaders intend to use TIF to divert $300M of sales tax revenue to the URA in order to finance – via bond debt - building the stadium and its infrastructure. If the stadium is NOT built, tax dollars will not be diverted to the URA but will instead go into the General Fund, where they can be allocated to street repair. Not building a stadium would provide many millions a year, which would then be used to repave pothole riddled streets. However, foregoing a stadium and its attendant debt would not provide $50M a year for street repair – assuming that $50M of work can be contracted and completed within a year. Therefore, other budget cuts and/or a smaller tax increase – say 0.01% instead of 0.62% - will be necessary. Anderson’s report is worthy of serious scrutiny, rather than the dismissive snort given it by the mayor.

Also, since the stadium is to be built specifically for out-of-state never-been-to-COS-before TOURISTS, who are visiting here ONLY to attend an event at the stadium, would it not be appropriate for TOURISTS to pay for the stadium? But how to get them to pay for it? First, raise the LART tax. Second, tack on a $200 surcharge to every stadium ticket sold to a tourist. Or . . . don’t build a downtown stadium. Instead, hold events at the World Arena, which was built not too long ago specifically to attract tourists and be an economic engine for the City.

7 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by curious on 08/18/2015 at 11:32 AM

Re: “Tame Impala, Wilco, Veruca Salt

Hmm. I agree with all three reviews.

Posted by spell_me on 08/18/2015 at 6:27 AM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

Curious Atta boy vote how you feel is right. To be honest I ant so sure ill vote yes. I agree we dont need a Stadium and the rest of C4C needs private funding. But still Im betting we gonna have us a Stadium the thing is with or without bad roads.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Rocky Smith on 08/17/2015 at 8:32 PM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

The Gazette article on Friday quoted Councilwoman Gaebler: "If this tax does not pass, the city will not have the funds to maintain its existing roads." This means, I hope, that if the tax does not pass, the city will not divert ANY sales tax revenue to the URA to pay for building a stadium. Surely, a prudent city govt, having at last acquired the wisdom that only adversity can teach, has learned to discern what needs doing and what doesn't. Therefore, a prudent govt would not permit any sales tax dollars to be diverted to economic development schemes - such as a downtown stadium - when there are roads that need to be fixed. Or ... would City Leaders take the money and build a stadium anyway, just to teach the citizens that OUR tax dollars belong to THEM, to do with as THEY please.

dreamwevr - A sales tax is the fairest method of taxation because 100% of the people will be subject to paying. Many people who don't own real property or a business or stock etc favor raising taxes because somebody else pays for the benefits they partake of freely. Having to pay a tax increases one's awareness of what govt is spending money on and encourages one to think about what role(s) govt should perform. As for "those who would be hit the hardest by a sales tax increase", the lower income group will be the LEAST impacted by a sales tax increase because basic items, including food and medicine, are exempt from sales tax. Also, those with the least amount of disposable income can further reduce the impact of the sales tax by reducing the dollar total of their discretionary purchases. Living below what one can afford and saving the difference is the proven method of accumulating capital, a practice which has enabled millions to move up the economic ladder.

Rocky - Thanks for the local history lesson. Agree with you. Unless the mayor kills the stadium proposal, I'm voting No on a sales tax increase.

9 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by curious on 08/17/2015 at 7:55 PM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

What did you expect Suthers to say? "Damn, you caught me!"

This city is floundering in indecision - unable to acknowledge it is poor, and unable to leverage the ideas it takes to instigate change. It shuffles money around from need to need - but never addresses anything on a permanent basis.

The question is what kind of city we want to have - a retirement community like Mesa Arizona, or a hipster culture like Denver. Either choice will displace thousands in the long term, but making no choice condemns us to unending discord.

So which will it be? Higher taxes and a younger demographic, or lower taxes and an older demographic?

1 like, 7 dislikes
Posted by UCanSeeClearlyNow on 08/17/2015 at 6:05 PM

Re: “Gay tolerance divides Skorman, Bach in mayoral debate

You know, Merl was a really talented guy. He used to get drunk, eat a shit load of brawtwerst and beans and he could fart greensleeves out of his asshole with out even tryining. I mean, no wonder he was an executive VP at APRIA. Who wouldn't appreciate that kind of talent (Small penis or not?)

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Jim Sims on 08/17/2015 at 5:58 PM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

What's clear is that the city has been squirreling away funds (likely for C4C) that should have been spent on roads and other city needs.

11 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by LivesLocally on 08/17/2015 at 5:50 PM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

People here it is in a nut shell. About 20 or 25 years ago a whole bunch of people with money bought up the old buildings south of downtown. They ran off the industry that was there because it was ugly and they were not making any money. They bought a woman mayor but we voted down there plan to build a convention center (we got a park). So then TABOR kicked in and there stuck with it. Well they bought the last mayor moved a bunch of money around got an approval from the State and left us with bad roads and drainage. This new Mayor a fella that has spent his life in Politics is trying to please the citizens by showing us a way to pay for roads without hurting the deep pockets that help him get into another office. Thats whats happening. Now were going to get a Stadium the Broadmoor will take over the day to day operations it will sit there more then its used just like the World Arena. And guess what we have no one to blame but ourselves this city keeps voting in one party, keeps listening to money, wont allow another voice to be heard and round and round we go. The State dont care they got what they want in Denver The city leaders dont care they dont live in the neighborhoods that are in the worst shape or they have no set time to be somewhere. So we have a choice vote down the tax and live with what we have or vote in the tax demand that is what its used for and for them to prove thats what its being used for. Then screem and yell until Denver heres us and VOTE OUT the fools that keep screwing us. Stop listening to the money thats controlling the pulpit, stop spending money on the Broodmoors BS (like the Gazette) and for goodness sake get some fresh folks in to run this city. Demand this TIF crap stop and get on with the city taking care of the citizens. We have enough stores, we have enough fast food places, we have enough Walmarts, we even have enough parks and trails. Fix what we have then move on to all the happy happy crap that does nothing but make money for people that have money. We have allowed this we can stop this.

15 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Rocky Smith on 08/17/2015 at 4:37 PM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

It is unlikely that St. Louis building a new stadium to keep the Rams from relocating to California is an "investment" in the city's economic future, as proponents claim. (See Liberty's link above). The belief that stadiums are economic engines persists despite voluminous data proving otherwise. St. Louis is, in fact, buying itself a $1B status symbol.

Our City Leaders believe that Pikes Peak is an inadequate status symbol. But unlike St. Louis, COS has no major league sports team and no need for a stadium, and certainly not for a status symbol that will last 30 years rather than millennia. And so the newest hurdle in the Stadium Resistance Movement is how to prevent the State from forcing citizens to pay for stadiums in their city without a vote, or pay even when they voted No.

11 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by curious on 08/17/2015 at 2:46 PM

Re: “ACLU prez vs. cake bills

Maybe you would not want a cake from me if I did not like the rules....

Posted by Jack Abbot on 08/17/2015 at 1:48 PM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

This thread includes a whole lot of information, but there is still something I don't understand. Opponents of the sales tax increase keep saying it will hurt the middle and lower classes. Even in the story above, the CPA says "leaving more money in the pockets of citizens, including those who would be hit the hardest by a sales tax increase." Yet, the Americans for Prosperity state a flat tax as one of their Four Principles of Optimal Taxation. According to their website, "Since sales taxes are flat and do not discriminate on one's ability to pay, they have proven to be the least destructive to economic growth." I don't get it...

Posted by dreamwevr on 08/17/2015 at 1:13 PM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

50 Million a year = 1 interchange (…)

Sprawl is an expensive mistress.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by rt on 08/17/2015 at 10:16 AM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

The nonbinding Resolution appears to be primarily an effort by Council to placate citizen disapproval of using tax dollars to build a stadium without a public vote. Because so much tax money must be forthcoming from the citizens - more than $300M, including stadium infrastructure - the decision to build or not to build a stadium should be made by the citizens, not by Council or City Leaders.

Building the stadium involves 2 bedrock issues that need to be resolved before planning goes any further. (1) Do the citizens want a downtown stadium and (2) If yes, do the citizens want to pay for it using their tax revenue. A discussion large enough to attract the attention of ALL citizens needs to occur NOW, not LATER, when contracts are signed and construction commences. The Gazette can be relied upon to do nothing to facilitate a public discussion that would lead to a public vote. Is there a media entity in COS that thinks the stadium/taxation issue is important and that it will therefore take a leadership position in gathering the facts from all sources and presenting them to its readers?

12 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by curious on 08/17/2015 at 8:56 AM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

Councilman Pico: "This has nothing to do with C4C."

One must take exception to this. Until Council says forcefully, by binding ordinance that NO TAXPAYER DOLLARS, no matter how they are laundered (URA, parking enterprise, stadium authority, etc...), will pay for C4C, asking for a NEW TAX, is a problem to citizens. Council specifically left the possibility open for TIF financing in their January resolution which would directly reduce general fund dollars and then, in August, Council is asking for more dollars to carry out general fund functions. This has EVERYTHING to do with C4C and voter trust.

20 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Liberty for COS on 08/16/2015 at 9:29 PM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

Curious: Regardless of what Council and they City Attorney say about a large-area TIF: Former City Attorney Chis Melcher in conjunction with the Denver Lawyer, Jason Dunn (who received $100K bonus for getting the politically appointed state Economic Development Commission to approve the C4C plan) put together the entire C4C plan. They thought a TIF over 90% of the City was not only legal and doable, but was how they planned to pay for the stadium. This TIF over 90% of the City is what was presented to a state agency as the “base financing” for the stadium. If Council and the City Attorney are now saying that was a fraudulent claim, they have an ethical responsibility to correct the fraudulent claim with the state. Otherwise, perhaps, instead of Helen Collins under an ethics probe, it should be the City Attorney and Council who knowingly are allowing approval of state funding based on a financing method that is not legitimate. About $84 million of City sales tax TIF dollars in the “zone” and about $42 million of County sales tax TIF dollars in the “zone” were the means these two high-dollar lawyers presented to the state in addition to about $60 million of additional City sales and property tax TIF from the SWDT urban renewal area to provide funding for the stadium.

A couple of points that are important:
1) There is nothing in state law that limits the size of an urban renewal area. In fact the size of urban renewal areas, in practice, has much more to do with developer plans than “blight” boundaries. This is why, in practice, it is the developer who wants to “redevelop” an area with taxpayer help who pays to conduct the “blight study” to designate the planned area as blighted.

2) Besides TIF in a 90%-of-the-City C4C district, the City’s C4C financing plan called for TIF in the South West Downtown Urban Renewal Area. However, to collect TIF dollars for a meaningful period in SWDT, the City will have to “restart the clock” on the SW Downtown urban renewal plan. By state law TIFs can be collected for up to 25 years, but the SWDT area was put in place in 2001. So…look for a brand new SWDT urban renewal plan and TIF with an area plenty big enough to collect millions of City sales and property and divert them from the general fund for a stadium and C4C infrastructure. This can and likely WILL all be done with a simple majority vote of the pro-C4C Council in the next year.

3) The City has used taxpayer dollars to seek outside council about “stadium authorities” that could also be put in place for a large area TIF. According to meeting records and this Indy article, the City paid Denver Lawyer, Craig Umbaugh for such legal work. It has never been published or made available. ( )

4) Regarding a lawsuit…a judge in St. Louis recently voided a city ordinance guaranteeing a vote on a stadium there. The judge stated that the law requiring a vote “was too ‘vague’ to enforce and that it conflicted with a statewide statute.” Sounds like Council’s “stadium vote promise.” (Full story at:

Keep in mind that Colorado Springs City Council’s “promise” is not even an ordinance—it is a non-binding resolution. Council rejected a proposed ordinance requiring a public vote that would have teeth after receiving tremendous pressure from those who will benefit from a publicly funded stadium.

17 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Liberty for COS on 08/16/2015 at 9:14 PM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

Councilman Pico, your commitment to a vote for TIF is appreciated, even though it represents a minority of Council. Please persuade your colleagues. Your assertion that the stadium is the only C4C project requiring TIF financing is incorrect. In order for state dollars to flow to the museum or the stadium for the 30 years, $129 million worth of infrastructure must be completed by 2023. In the C4C application, SWDT TIF from City sales and property taxes and City public parking fees pay for these improvements. These are precisely the types of C4C expenditures citizens should be watching carefully that will be slipped onto a Council consent calendar.

16 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Liberty for COS on 08/16/2015 at 9:05 PM

Re: “Suthers plays defense on tax hike

Rocky Smith, the funds were spent on the road maintenance projects they were allocated for.

Yes, the PPRTA site was hacked and is temporarily down.

Yes, all funds in the proposed sales tax can be contracted out and spent on road maintenance, none of it will be diverted to anything else.

This has nothing to do with C4C.

The Council is certainly not "packed" with C4C members. I remain committed to your vote prior to any TIF zone or any other way of spending your money. Only the stadium would require any such funding.

4 likes, 10 dislikes
Posted by Andres Pico on 08/16/2015 at 7:36 PM

All content © Copyright 2015, The Colorado Springs Independent   |   Website powered by Foundation