gaf 
Member since Oct 15, 2010


Stats

Recent Comments

Re: “County consultant terms C4C 'of great importance'

Claiming "1.5 million new visitor days" without giving a time frame for those days??? That is garbage data. It throws out a "really big number" without giving context. You don't do that if the giving the context supports the project.

One of the few specific statements they make is that "the museum has the 'greatest prospect' of bringing in new tourism money." That means that the one project that will require additional public money (and provides the greatest risk of failure)--the sports and events center--will not be the biggest draw.

Commissioners, let's see the full report, as limited and incomplete as it is.

8 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by gaf on 03/06/2015 at 6:24 PM

Re: “Making, and believing, the hype

Indy, another question you should have asked of Laugesen: The editorial states "...nearly 25 percent of registered voters...demanded a recall."

He gets the 25 percent by two errors. First, he used the 16,000 signatures rather than the 10,137 verified signatures. Laugesen will give the same nonsense argument on that that he gave you earlier. However, he also used the number of "active voters" (about 69,000) rather than the number of "registered voters" (over 83,000). Even using the 16,000 signature number you get 19 percent of registered voters, not "nearly 25 percent." And using verified signatures from registered voters compared to the number of registered voters gives 12 percent.

Laugesen either doesn't know the difference between registered voters and active voters, or, well, he knew the number was false. Does he want to acknowledge ignorance or mendacity?

8 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by gaf on 08/21/2013 at 9:56 PM

Re: “Douglas Bruce will probably get away with this one ...

Doug Bruce financed the campaign for himself and the other members of the Reform Team. They all lost. No officials that got elected were financed by Bruce.

One error in the article: Colorado Ethics Watch did not file a complaint with the city. Rather, they wrote to the then mayor and vice-mayor to point out that Bruce and the Reform Team were in violation, and asked the city to investigate and, if appropriate, prosecute. The city punted--sending the letter on to the state. The SOS, seeing that CEW's letter was a letter, not a complaint, asked the city if they intended this to be a complaint filed by the city. They city replied, yes (or, is seems, more like, uh, well, I guess....). That eventually led to the lawsuit--which could have and should have been avoided had the city simply taken responsibility for enforcing its own rules from the beginning.

Posted by gaf on 04/02/2012 at 4:42 PM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.
 

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