boomer47 
Member since Nov 10, 2010


Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Bad dog owners, Gordon Klingenschmitt, wind farm debate, and more

Bob Wilcox - if the property owners want to do this and the land/property is out in an un-incorporated area, why do the county commissioners have to approve it? shouldn't those owners be able to do what they want with their own property. I'm with you on what you said, but don't understand the county commissioners role in making this decision.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by boomer47 on 02/04/2015 at 9:36 PM

Re: “Colorado Springs Airport could get a boost

So, what would the money be used for?

Posted by boomer47 on 12/04/2014 at 6:30 PM

Re: “Chipping away

A Real Conservative - what are you talking about! I don't know much about the FPPA retirement since PERA dominates the news, but a city employee in PERA pays in approx. 8% of salary and the city kicks in 14.6%. Some school districts will soon be paying over 20% of salary for each teacher/employee due to changes for PERA in SB1. The state may "manage" the system, but the employer has to pay in the amounts I stated - not the state. I will add about FPPA, however, that I believe the city was required to pay in several million additional dollars a couple of years ago for that fund to remain solvent. So I'm sorry, but PERA & FPPA pensions are a huge issue for the city budget. Oh, may I also add that I am a retired member of the Federal Civil Service Retirement System in which the employee and employer pay matching amounts into the system of approx. 7% each. It has always been that way, and unlike PERA, no one has ever “tinkered” with the contribution amounts or the original agreed upon vested payout of 50% of high-3 year average salary after 30 years of service. Unless you forgot, back in 1997-1998 the state legislature arbitrarily increased benefits for PERA retirees to 70% of their high-3 salary after 30 years (up from 50%) and also allowed them to purchase credits at very low rates if the employee didn’t have the necessary 30 years. While SB1 made an attempt to reign in those benefits for future retirees, thousands retired under the 70% rule, thus SB1’s need to raise employer contribution rates.

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by boomer47 on 12/02/2014 at 9:43 AM

Re: “The waterfall no one wanted

Pam Zubeck - a map showing the location of the preservation area in relation to both the townhomes at Pebblewood, the Pinecliff Townhomes, and the Chiaramontes' lot would have been useful. Also, right now it would seem that the city needs to block-off that curb/gutter drain up on Golden Hills Rd to stop rain water from going down the 18-inch storm sewer pipe which runs through the Pebblewood complex; of course, having said this, I don't know where that water from Golden Hills Rd would drain to if they did that.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by boomer47 on 08/07/2014 at 5:53 PM

Re: “The waterfall no one wanted

Clara McKenna - you left one out; Rockrimmon also has large areas of dolomite clay soil and homes were built in those areas anyway without having proper foundations. When this clay soil gets wet it expands and has wrecked havoc with hundreds of homes in that area. Neither this, nor the numerous mine shafts underneath that area stopped the city from approving development. City government has played a major role in alot of the problems homeowners currently have.

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by boomer47 on 08/07/2014 at 5:43 PM

Re: “The waterfall no one wanted

"This home went through foreclosure prior to the Chiaramontes buying it." - Pam Zubeck

Yes, but banks don't have to play by the same disclosure rules that we have to.

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by boomer47 on 08/07/2014 at 5:20 PM

Re: “Downtown gets more police, city backlog will require $1.3 billion, and more

"More cops downtown"

What good does it do to have more cops downtown (or anywhere else for that matter) in order to provide “a visible presence in the area” to deter crime if all they do is patrol, but don’t pull anyone over. If the police department is making a connection between motor vehicle activity and crime (and I support that thinking), then they should be writing tickets/citations to individuals for the following types of illegal vehicle activity: loud boom boxes; illegal exhaust systems (i.e., straight pipes, “cut” mufflers, “high performance” mufflers; no muffler at all); black window tint; black tail-lights and dark tint over the license plate, and worse then that - black HEADLIGHTS!! How on earth can a police officer not stop someone who is driving around with a vehicle that has the tail-lights & headlights blacked out is beyond me, this is a huge safety issue, if nothing else. "Drawing on the deterrent value of highly visible traffic enforcement and the knowledge that crimes often involve motor vehicles, the goal of DDACTS is to reduce crime, crashes and traffic violations." Well then, pull vehicles over and write tickets; make a statement. The city/police have allowed the above mentioned illegal activity to go on far too long. Also, the whole city needs attention on this issue, not just the downtown area! I haven’t seen a police cruiser on Academy Blvd or Flintridge Dr on a Friday or Saturday night, in like - FOREVER!! The street racing and noise from illegal exhaust systems at night is deafening. This city made a feeble attempt at doing something about street noise/noise pollution back in 2005, but has done nothing since; now it is totally out of control. Why don’t we try to improve the quality of life in this town for the taxpayers; a side benefit might be that businesses would consider relocating here.

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by boomer47 on 08/18/2013 at 10:06 PM

All Comments »

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