Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

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

Comment Archives: stories

Re: “Proposition 105: GMOs

How could anyone be unsure of this issue? The big corporations did their own study at the beginning of the GMO craze. Their own guy came out on stage, said that he was positive going into this study that GMO was completely harmless, but that, after all the testing was done it proved unequivocally that GMO crops will kill us all. I saw that press conference myself but they clearly had that video, the study, and the guy disappeared. There is not one single good reason in existence to oppose GMO labels. The big corporations - Monsanto - don't want the labels and will do anything to convince people that labeling is not the answer. They aren't going to stop using GMO's, even though the crop yields are actually worse. So, labeling, and therefore, avoiding all GMO products is the only viable answer at the moment.

10 likes, 6 dislikes
Posted by Kelly Alexandre on 10/22/2014 at 9:04 PM

Re: “An interesting twist in the GMO debate

Thank you for that unbiased and truthful info. We just want to know what is in our food. We have the right to not be guinea pigs in this GMO food experiment. There hasn't been sufficient long term studies to prove them safe for consumption. Over 75% of food in grocery stores would have a label so consumers would have a choice.

3 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Tracey Privitera on 10/22/2014 at 9:04 PM

Re: “More on stormwater measure

In an attempt to counter misinformation about the Stormwater issue facing voters, the Stormwater Task Force co-chairs penned an article in the Oct 12 Gazette. After reading that article and attending the open forum sponsored by the El Pomar Foundation on 16 Oct, let me also try to clear up some information starting with the fee vs tax issue.

In their article, the co-chairs referred to a Colorado Supreme Court case, Bloom v. Breckenridge, as precedence for proceeding with the Stormwater Fee instead of some other tax. After searching for and not finding that case, I came across Bloom v. Fort Collins, 1989. In this case, the City of Fort Collins established a “Transportation Utility Fee” based on the linear frontage of developed property adjacent to a city street which is “reasonably related to expenses incurred…” by the city to maintain roads – as if there is a relationship between the frontage of developed property and the amount of pot holes that occur. The ruling also states that “mathematical exactitude is not required…” and it is basically up to the city and its legislation how it chooses to assess and collect said fee.

Following that logic, a city could assess a fee for using all the traffic signals. Someone could devise an “average usage” formula involving the average number of times a person transits through an intersection controlled by a traffic signal. Since this could be a fee and not a tax, it could be implemented without voter approval and perhaps added to all vehicle registrations for those residing in the affected jurisdiction – say City of Colorado Springs. These precedents are dangerous.

What the Colorado Supreme Court didn’t do is clearly delineate what is normal mandatory city infrastructure that should be paid for through operating budgets and collected taxes and what are clearly voluntary “user fees” with a DIRECT relationship between the user and the service provided. An example of a direct, voluntary transportation user fee is the E-470 Toll Road. If I choose to use that road instead of using I-225 to get to DIA, I pay the associate user fee. Otherwise, I can avoid that fee by using alternate routes. The key to fee versus tax should be individual voluntary usage versus mandatory provision of basic infrastructure. Drainage is a basic infrastructure – particularly in our area with such changes in elevation through the region.

Some who support the PPRDA also believe that, based on the Colorado Supreme Court decision, the funding mechanism MUST be a fee. The court case is not directive on assessing fees….it is permissive. That means, if a city can “reasonably” draw the relationship between users and affected infrastructure, the city CAN assess a special fee. The city can ALWAYS choose to fund that infrastructure by taxes; however, choosing a fee system, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled, is not a violation of State Law. Again though, the focus should be on voluntary user fees versus taxes for mandatory infrastructure. Some argue “why should we care?”…it is a small amount of money either way.

Colorado gives taxpayers direct input into the assessment of taxes through the Tax Payer Bill of Rights (TABOR). The PPRDA Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) provides for a board of directors consisting of 11 elected officials who are APPOINTED by their respective jurisdictions (except for the Mayor of Colorado Springs who is a de facto board member). This Board has the power through Super Majority to change the allocation of funds (55% capital, 35% maintenance, 10% emergency), albeit for only one year, but without direct consent of the voters. The IGA also allows for the IGA to be amended with the agreement of all parties except for addition or deletion of parties and/or territory. That means that, without direct consent of the voters, ANY OTHER PART of the IGA can be amended with the agreement of all parties – not board members – including the fee structure. This is NOT direct input from the citizens of the affected areas into the functions of the PPRDA; rather, it is indirect appointment along with the many their many other duties. For the citizens to have a direct say in how to fund PPRDA, a tax method following TABOR should be the preferred solution. This, however, is not being offered for a vote.

Drainage is vital piece of basic infrastructure. I agree with the regional approach. I agree that it needs to be fixed. I don’t agree with the funding mechanism selected. Drainage is so important that it should be considered a basic part of city and county infrastructure to the point that it is funded and protected out of operating budgets and collected taxes and controlled directly by the voters - and NOT by a special fee. I do not want the precedence set in El Paso County or the City of Colorado Springs that we permit the use of fees for basic infrastructure.

6 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Jim Czirjak on 10/22/2014 at 8:40 PM

Re: “Marijuana 'incidents' on the rise at Manitou Springs High School

People who have kids in Manitou and think their kids will be free from the devil weed REALLY need to step away from their keyboards and talk to their kids. As a nearly-40-year-old woman with no kids, I should not know more about Manitou's teen drug use than their parents.

14 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Judith Posch on 10/22/2014 at 6:57 PM

Re: “UPDATE: C4C Downtown stadium: 10K or 8K seats?

After last nights meeting, I'm thinking we could go even larger than 10K. This decision should not be done by speculation alone. I know that the business plan is in the works but I believe that the business plan might even be bigger than some suspect! I am very excited about this project. It has teeth!!

1 like, 3 dislikes
Posted by Justin Burns on 10/22/2014 at 6:06 PM

Re: “Marijuana 'incidents' on the rise at Manitou Springs High School

They are taking 1 months stats and using full school years to compare the numbers... #ReallyBadAtStatistics... #thatsNotHowThisWorks...

15 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Erin Ford on 10/22/2014 at 4:43 PM

Re: “Against a downtown city stadium? Sign here

see for alternatives to a downtown stadium

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by wpmurrayIII on 10/22/2014 at 2:51 PM

Re: “Best Of Colorado Springs 2014 Vol. 2: Welcome and Winners Index

Best local author....

Posted by Writer-Shelly Goodman-Wright on 10/22/2014 at 1:48 PM

Re: “Calling the shots

"one thing I do not question is my duty to protect this boy ..."

The irony of the juxtaposition of this statement with what follows-- allowing a scalpel to be raised to his healthy, normal genitals to rip, cut, crush, and slice off parts -- is astounding. Sorry if that comes off harsh, but It would be derelict not to point this out.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by TaillessFox on 10/22/2014 at 12:06 PM

Re: “Petitions launched on stadium question

If I remember correctly, the monuments on the Pioneers Museum grounds are there because of private funds raised by the Pioneers Association in honor of those who came to the county in the 19th century. I don't think they have much to do with government.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Clara McKenna on 10/22/2014 at 10:20 AM

Re: “UPDATE: C4C Downtown stadium: 10K or 8K seats?

The downtown stadium proponents are hopeful of lining up 20 Olympic TRAINING events to be held annually in the Olympic stadium/event center. No committments have been announced. The number of events needed annually to be viable is 250. The downtown stadium will be competing with the World Arena, located 4 miles south of downtown just off I-25. The World Arena, built 15 years ago, was built on the premise that it would be an economic engine, and one which would draw tourists from hither & yon. Today, the WA is anchored by the Colorado College hockey team.

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by curious on 10/22/2014 at 10:14 AM

Re: “Best Of Colorado Springs 2014 Vol. 2: Welcome and Winners Index

Congratulations to Anthony Graham/ Broken Glass Photography!!! This guy... THIS GUY... has got to be one of the most talented photographers who has ever walked through our doors at Voodoo Leatherworks and between his talent, the love of his craft and his amazingly positive energy... he's just an absolute pleasure to work with on *any* project.

As for the Indy's comment that he may not be your guy for wedding photos unless your wedding includes bondage? Well... he's a damned good wedding photographer too,

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Mr_Thorns on 10/22/2014 at 9:52 AM

Re: “Petitions launched on stadium question

Colorado Springs is filled with the new age new world order agenda. The statue of the pyramid and the all seeing eye that sits in front of the city museum along the east side of Nevada should tell ALL citizens of COS were the mind set of our city government lies. Every word that is spoken is a lie.
Thank you Anita and Council Joel for standing tall and bringing the truth to light.

8 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Lilithia Montoya on 10/22/2014 at 9:46 AM

Re: “UPDATE: C4C Downtown stadium: 10K or 8K seats?

What are the projected events?

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Judy Owen Walker on 10/22/2014 at 8:14 AM

Re: “About those chickens


if U wanna have Doug Lamborn held accountable,

try to stop the parade of Democratic vanity candidates who pretend to run against him.
They suck the air out of the campaigns of conservative 3rd party candidates who could actually beat him.

1 like, 6 dislikes
Posted by Brian Scott on 10/22/2014 at 3:25 AM

Re: “Petitions launched on stadium question

What C4C Proponents are not telling you is that is Mayor Bach's way of bowing down to the United Nations Agenda 21

Take a look at this…

9 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by radical 1 on 10/21/2014 at 8:44 PM

Re: “Petitions launched on stadium question

@Ion Cscityhall......I notice you have an illuminatti symbol as your profile pic. Isn't there a connection between City For Champions and The United Nations Agenda 21?

9 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by radical 1 on 10/21/2014 at 8:38 PM

Re: “Petitions launched on stadium question

By all means let's keep Colorado Springs in the doldrums. North of Monument Hill the state's economy is thriving and downtown Denver is the heart beat of the economy. Down here in Conservative Colorado Springs we don't have even have a pulse. Keep it up Miller's you'll leave a sad legacy for our community.

6 likes, 18 dislikes
Posted by Solar Sam on 10/21/2014 at 7:47 PM

Re: “The stormwater question, the government's role, Manitou's pot vote, and more

If the builders had to pay for infrastructure as they expanded the Springs out east and to the north, where is that money now? Why wasn't it used for storm water mitigation?

And if we don't do the mitigation, then will the EPA come in and force this to be done? And if we don't do something, who is hurt by that inaction?

Those are the questions we should be asking!

We should also see to it that developers such as those in Banning Lewis and Cordera and other new suburban housing areas and those who develop shopping centers are paying a goodly amount as they are increasing the areas in the city and county that is paved.

And if we agree to fund storm water mitigation, are we sure this city council with whom I am severely disappointed won't use it for some pet project or spend it foolishly? How is that money to be sequestered?

And will this "TAX" continue ad infinitum? Or does it have a sunset provision?

Ask and answer those questions and then make up your minds - yes or no.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by HSabin on 10/21/2014 at 4:37 PM

Re: “The gift of falling leaves

Pine needles are great mulch in this climate. The soil is very alkaline and needs the acid. I find my roses love them.

Posted by Clara McKenna on 10/21/2014 at 3:59 PM

All content © Copyright 2014, The Colorado Springs Independent   |   Website powered by Foundation