Good thing Mr. Lamborn DIDN'T get this committee post. During Lamborn's tenure he has voted to cut the SNAP program which some of our young military families and retirees depend on. He has voted to cut Women's, Infants, and Children's funding which some of our young military families depend on. He supports Concerned Veterans of America which is an AstroTurf organization funded by the Koch Bros that wants to privatize the VA plus requiring veterans to carry their own medical insurance. He doesn't really care about our military personnel and their families.
He is funded by the oil & gas industry, real estate interests, and the military industrial complex. His legislative accomplishments are mediocre to say the least. He has had far better opponents challenging him yet refuses to have honest and open debates. He's quick with a talking point that has very little substance. He's detrimental to those who vote him in especially military families, veterans, and military retirees.
He's called the President derogatory words yet will stand next to him for a photo-op. He refused to attend a State of the Union. He is not a deep thinker. So the question is: "Why is he returned to Congress when there are much better people, Republicans, Democrats, Independent, Libertarian, etc., that the people of CO5th can send to Washington?"
Pisst! Don't tell anybody but Mr. Lamborn is a Socialist. He has his universal medical which you don't have. He has his salary for life if he retires from Congress along with his free medical which you will have neither.
Obviously this agreement was not negotiated with the citizens in mind. Why isn't the city negotiating rates. The customers should not have to go to Comcast's customer service, which is notoriously bad, either in person or on the phone to some foreign land, where English is a third language and they read off script which makes no sense to help you solve your problem.
What other cable providers were invited to bid on this franchise agreement? Com Hem, Canal Digital, Cable Belgium, J:Com. Was it really opened up to other cable providers?
What are the current gross revenues? What are the anticipated gross revenues? How much over the next 10 years will Comcast invest in the infrastructure? Who will verify the numbers? Do we take them at their word? Will the city perform an audit? Will a independent 3rd party perform an audit and their numbers published for
all to see? Are the citizens getting the best deal?
How will this affect the Broadband expansion in the county and will Broadband be expanded in the city?
What about streaming video? Isn't that latest and greatest thing? If that's the case, why would we need Comcast?
Bottom line, technology is changing so fast, this agreement will be obsolete in 10 years or less and the city will be stuck with another diminishing revenue stream.
For once, the city should look to the future, not be an also ran, not grant the 10 year agreement, tell Comcast to take a hike, and get a company in here that will be good for the community or allow CSU into the frae.
If the city wants to get into the Cyber Security business it better have the infrastructure to support it. At what cost will Comcast supply that infrastucture and how long will it take them to complete? Is Comcast the right company to provide latest technology at a competive price?
The city has made some bad decisions in the past, i.e. Strawberry Fields , the Rosemont Reservoir to name a couple, and it"s time to stop making bad decisions.
Oppps! My bad. Tomcat
It's TF/A-18. Navy bird.
Kevin: The reason for the "strong mayor" was power not necessarily holding elected officials accountable.
What happened with the change from manager to elected mayor was a complete bastardization of the city charter, our constitution.
How did this happen? Simple. When a group of individuals, not familiar with the nuances of city charters, decided to change the charter they forgot that the charter is intertwined. Pulling out the manager portion and replacing it with the mayor's portion did not change the charter's effect in the rest of the sections.
In other words, were the council's duties changed to reflect the change? No they weren't. Council's duties remain the same with the same authority as before the mayor portion was added.
How do we know this? Per the charter, each change made to the charter must be voted on by the citizens of the community. There was only one change voted on-manager to mayor and nothing else. If the appropriate changes to the charter were made there would have been at least 3-5 changes requiring a vote.
As for the segment of the population that wants to sell CSU, the charter changes required will need to be made before a sale can be completed which will relieve the city and council of their responsibilities. Notice, I didn't say mayor because the mayor does not have oversight of CSU. The charter was never changed.
As of now, the city charter, our constitution, is not worth the paper it's printed on. It will take 2-3 years to clean it up and the most difficult task will be educating the public. Staffing a charter review committee with members of CSF, the RBA, HBA, will only make matters worse. We need citizens from all sectors of the community to take 2-3 years out of their lives to do the grunt work required to make the city charter whole. Do we have any volunteers?
Once again an entity of the city of Colorado Springs is in secret negotiations with the Broadmoor. Why would the city want to sell its water rights to the Broadmoor? Selling to another public utility? Yes. Selling to a private individual? No. If Bob Issac hadn't pushed in 1979 for incorporating the Broadmoor into the city and purchasing Rosemont from the Broadmoor, would we be having this conversation? If Anschutz gets his way will CSU sever service to the Broadmoor? Why continue it?
Is CSU following the philosophy of Parks & Recreation? If CSU can't maintain Rosemont get rid of it? What do the rate payers get out of this deal? Shouldn't it be up to the ratepayers to decide to sell "their" assets? "When you need to sell assets, whether a individual, family, business, or government, you're in deep financial trouble." Does $2.5B qualify for "Deep financial trouble."
But let's cut to the quik. Sell the entire city to Anschutz since he's already nickel and diming the city administration, kicking Anschutz up a couple of notches of the "What individuals can own more land" category. The city government can be disolved and the city renamed Colorado Springs brought to you the Broadmoor, an wholly owned subsidiary of the Anschutz corporation. The city's perimeter can be fenced negating anymore fencing being built by the Broadmoor. Filling potholes and repairing bridges would not be high on his priorities.
The pesky city charter can be dispensed with along with mayor, city council, and staff. The police and fire departments can be contacted out. An Anschutz board can be appointed to oversee the daily operations. No more self-aggrandizement committees on what they think the city should be.
What would be upside of selling the city to Anschutz? No property and sales taxes because there would be NO city government. Anschutz can impose his morally bankrupt economic and political philosophy on those who are left. He wants a libertarian life style. Now's his chance. After a few years he can join the economic/political successes of Kansas, Indiana, and Wisconsin.
What's the word: Would care to share the "Bigger Picture" with rest of us?
All Comments »
All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation