Richard McKeown: Of course the city staff sees no need for raised medians, because they have zero concept of General Palmer's vision or why they were installed in the first place. Six lanes on North Nevada through the North End is a stupid idea, undoubtedly. Best to leave it as is, but Suthers is too stupid to understand that sometimes the best thing to do is nothing.
Carl Silverman: You can have your fruits and nuts. I'll gladly make up for your vegetarianism with a medium-well steak smothered in mushrooms and onions.
Susan Tomblin: Ask yourself: Do you want the nuclear codes stored on an unclassified email server in a closet somewhere, just for the convenience of a career felon? Yes, Trump is bad, but Hillary is just as bad. That's why SANE people vote for Gary Johnson.
Len Bentley: Your definition of Ineptocracy is correct. So is your diagnosis of the real problem. The solution is Gary Johnson and the Libertarians, now playing at an election booth near you.
Steve Snyder: What is behind the anti-69 movement is simple common sense. We can't afford it, delegating medical decisions to an unaccountable board in Denver is simply a bad idea, worse than ACA, and 69 as simply giving oneself cancer to cure hypochondria. As for 70, the minimum wage is only a good idea if you like to see taxes and prices and unemployment go up and the valuation of skills and experience go down.
Gina Douglas: The only candidate who apologizes is Gary Johnson. That makes him the best candidate.
Sorry, HazyHurts, but I'm choosing Gary Johnson, along with the voters in this country who, unlike yourself, have a brain and haven't overdosed on the Stockholm Syndrome Kool-Aid (comes in red and blue colors).
The rest of your rant is your usual recycled nonsense that you've been spewing for two decades.
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
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.
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 town already has a daily newspaper that 'edits' comments by dictating which story readers will be allowed to comment on. Not to be confused with 'censorship', of course.
Do you guys edit any submissions? O wad Judd wondrinn.
A solar powered light rail down the middle of Nevada ave. from UCCS to PPCC, going right through CC is perfect! I despise guys who buy a house in the neighborhood I grew up in, and start yappin about powerful friends...wretch! Go home jerk, the real one, way over there. Oh yeah, if you live by Safeway, you ain't OLD NORTH END...which is a new term anyway... Used to be UPTOWN! Before that it was little London. Whatever...you got skinned if you bought in after the nineties...lemme guess you came west in a Toyota in 2006...First National Bank Uptown was at Boulder and Tejon. Downtown was at Pikes Peak. The tejon trolley tracks are still in the asphalt connecting uptown and downtown.
Congratulations to the CS Indy and Matthew. You're both great for the Springs. Keep up the great work.
Hurray for Matthew and Colorado Springs😁
That's a phrase for the downtown crowd to justify collecting taxes citywide and dumping a lopsided portion of them downtown: police resources, park and trail resources, highway projects, museums, etc. It makes you feel better about pouring your tax dollars into the downtown area despite the overlooked needs of your own neighborhood when you hear "languishing core of the city," doesn't it?
The core city is languishing? My "sprawl" neighborhood is languishing! No library, no YMCA, no bike trails, only the tiniest neighborhood parks. The nearest shopping is not friendly to walkers or cyclists. The closest "open space" is closed off to the public. The core city looks much better to me. And is more expensive for smaller/older homes.
As a disabled vet with a retired wife and a damn good insurance plan I've been skeptical about ColoradoCare. I voiced some concerns and received a very intelligent, compassionate, personal reply from Bill Semple from the ColoradoCareYES management team that allayed some of my concerns. After doing the math on what part of my income would be taxed and how much CC would save me, and how beneficial it would be to "the least among us", to borrow from the Christian philosophy, I've decide to vote for Amendment 69.
I left the VA HealthCare system years ago after they made some inexcusable gaffes with my health. I have paid for my own insurance ever since. I have lobbied for single-payer health insurance for veterans modeled after Tri-Care since 1989, and I was in favor of a national single-payer plan during the debate about the Affordable Heathcare Act (I refuse to be baited into calling it Obamacare).
If I were injured or to fall ill while, say, in France, even as an American citizen I would receive free (that's right - FREE) health care that would not forward any charges to my insurance carrier or to me. My earlier post about the conversion of not-for-profit health insurance to for-profit health insurance stands as my primary argument for ColoradoCare, coupled with my savings, and the end of health-related bankruptcies.
Oh, and swing state votes are 10 times as significant as solidly red/blue state votes. If you want Trump to win the split the vote here. If you want another option then swap your vote with someone in a state that's already solidly held and you'll do no damage. Call someone in New York or California and have them vote for Johnson for you, and vote for Clinton...because the alternative is (and I'll do this again) TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE!!!
When Richard Nixon was president the health care insurance system was converted from a not-for-profit system to a for profit system. On one of the Nixon tapes the question was asked how that conversion would work and the reply from the CEO of Blue Cross/Blue Shield was heard to reply that BC/BS would continue collect premiums but in order make a profit they would deny service to members. Nixon replied "that sounds like that would work", and the for-profit industry was off to the races. There is about a 30% disparity in the amount that is collected that goes to bonuses for CEOs and profits for shareholders and the amount that is paid out for actual care. The biggest problem for providers (doctors, nurses) has always been the insurers. There is no reason for them to take less - they actually could do better under ColoradoCare, but that's a guess.
To summarily compare ColoradoCare to other poorly run government health care systems (the VA comes to mind) is inaccurate and unfair and smacks of Reaganesque "the government is the problem" rhetoric. Government can work for the people - no - SHOULD work for the people. We simply cannot allow continued mismanagement and cronyism, and we do that by un-electing the schmucks and electing statesmen/women.
Banning Lewis has not been developed because it is in a floodplain, and will require close to a billion dollars in mitigation to be safe for development. As soon as Norwood, the Mayor, and City Council figure out how to shift that financial burden to the taxpayers, development will begin. Until then developers will just have to keep building on landslides. Plenty of corporate welfare as it is, at least TABOR offers some protection for the average taxpayer.
Exactly right. Not a level playing field. Developers with a metro district mil levy get to pretend they're a quasi government entity and get tax-free municipal bond interest rates and after they establish a 20, 30 or 40 mil tax for 40 years for the entire area by having a "special" TABOR election whereby only the developer votes in the election. Then they get to get a sweet loan and are treated the same as a City borrowing money thereby reducing up front investment and risk while guaranteeing that the future residents will make those loan payments with their tax assessment or else get a lean on their property. Meanwhile, because the developer didn't have to make the same out of hide initial investment as those without those benefits, he can offer the property at an artificially low sale price. Most would-be buyers don't see the massive mil levy until they're at the closing table. City Council has created a complex web of an uneven playing field all over the City. They can then use those loan proceeds to build sub-par roads which the City takes over maintenance on a after a 2-year warranty all the while making payments from residents who had no say in a mil levy that's 8-fold of the City mil levy.
Regarding disdain for TABOR, would you prefer to have corrupt politicians under influence of their campaign financiers deciding how much of your money they'll take and distribute as corporate welfare?
The issue is these clubs are illegally "selling" recreational cannbis. The city of Colorado Springs prohibits the sell of recreational cannabis. They are having people "donate" $25 to them and in return getting weed. Or having people "buy points" 1 point = $1 and they can then use their points to buy cannabis. Hence why they are an issue... People "donating" for cannbis don't need a medical card like the city requires to buy within the city limits.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation