The matter of open and transparent local government may well be one of those things that exist in the eye of the beholder. The real test will come at the council vote. If I am not mistaken, a composite average of all polling done to date is looking like:
With opposition appearing to have consistently run at this level, one might be hard-pressed to see how the land exchange could be approved by council if public input or opinion is truly to be considered as part of the 'public process'.
Well said Rocky. How is it that Butterworth was given 10 minutes speaking as a "citizen"? Jackie's credibility? Hummm, over 5000 signatures opposed and growing, letters to Murray 40/1 against? Shame on the city for working behind closed doors for a year. More, shame on the city for dividing the open space community that has conquered mountains together. PUBLIC LAND BELONGS TO THE PEOPLE.
Thanks, Rocky. I agree, it is sad and angering that we have to put in our own money to fight the city. If you click on Dana's link, the first thing you will be a personal message from Richard. This is a UNITED fight. Thanks.
There it is folks donate your money to fight the people that are using your money to give away your land. Damn what a crying ass shame. Dana I appreciate your passion and yes ill throw in some money to fight some of my own money but ill look into with who first. Ill see if I can bump in to Richard in the next few days and ask him.
@Rocky Smith -- Yes! It defies credulity. Time and money. Precious resources to the vast majority of the public. Take a second and click to give: https://www.generosity.com/animal-pet-fund…
When is a news article not a news article? .... and when is a poll not a poll?
Same answer to both I suspect.
Wow this city is bat crap nuts anymore. Big money is going to be spent over this and its tax payer money. The Council defending it, the Court costs, the time then if it turns out an election. All to give PUBLIC land away. Give my ass were paying to hand it over to a fella that has more money then the whole city budget combined.
might want to ask about Holland Park...you know...that big hospital going in on Centennial may have issues down the road.
Yes, they did, Mr. Groth. But that is not a sufficient enough reason to designate USL D2 over NASL. As a singular example, 12 USL teams(over 40% of the league) play in stadiums that lack the capacity required for D2 teams by the USSF.
USL killed NASL in the Open Cup last year!!
My apologies. I attributed some comments by Mr. Rife to Mr. Melchett (?). The commentator regrets the error.
Readers, I will address both Mr. Turner's and Mr. Melchett's (?)replies here.
Mr. Turner stakes much of his conclusions here on the rapid expansion of USL. As anyone who is well informed about US sports knows, expansion is not a reliable indicator of financial stability. History is strewn with examples of leagues who expanded their way out of viability, including the original NASL, who's demise is, in part, widely attributed to over expansion.
But aside from that, Mr. Turner seems to imply that the expansion is a by-product of the popularity or the business models of the respective leagues. What he fails to mention is that it is more expensive to field a division 2 team than a division 3 team. The financial and infrastructure commitments, as set down by the United States Soccer Federation (the governing body of soccer in the USA)are much greater for the NASL than the USL (minimum stadium size for D3, 1000, minimum stadium size for D2, 5000; minimum financial worth of principal owner for D3, $10 Million, for D2, $20 Million) In short, one of the main reasons that the USL is expanding faster is simply because it is cheaper.
And in Mr. Turner's comparison of iconic teams, he compares NASL teams to MLS teams. Hardly relevant to a discussion of NASL versus USL, especially when you consider that the USL reserve teams of the MLS teams he names (Seattle 2221 fans per match, LA Galaxy 969, NY Red Bulls 595) have lower per match attendance figures that the bottom attended team of the NASL (Edmonton 2889).
The most telling argument AGAINST USL getting D2 status over NASL is mentioned almost as an aside in Misters Turner's and Melchett's (?) comments, but never expanded upon. It is that, for all practical purposes, the USL is a Reserve League.
21 out of the 29 USL teams are contractually linked by players and formal financial arrangements to MLS clubs. Mr. Melchett (?), 9 USL clubs, over 1/3 of the league, are not even eligible to compete in the US Open Cup, because they are either primarily owned by and/or controlled by MLS clubs. Most major soccer playing countries do not designate their reserve team leagues as D2.
Mr. Turner, your conclusion to make the USL the Division 2 league over NASL is the rough equivalent, in your native country,of your making the FA Premier Reserve League the D2 league over the Football League Championship.
Keeping the NASL at D2 status helps to insure that there remains a healthy competition between leagues, clubs and players, as opposed to a league that is, by design, for the most part noncompetitive against the D1 league, MLS.
Facts are indeed facts. But the way they are chosen and presented are the difference between a fair presentation of the merits of each side and a biased case designed to convert readers to your conclusions rather than give them the tools to form their own. As a result, it is left for me (and perhaps others) to present the other side.
See? I told you it would take another article to debunk yours.
We have many of these wonderful old trees on our property in Florissant. We feel quite honored to be their caretakers. https://sites.google.com/site/tihsreed/
Interesting exchange. Mr. Turner's article is certainly not the first opinion piece out there suggesting that USL is on an upward trajectory and NASL is not (Mr. Kerrsen, to misquote Shakespeare, "methinks thou dost protest too much"). The difference is business models. The NASL--perhaps overly mesmerized by the imagined power of the name "New York Cosmos"--has made the decision to try to position themselves to someday challenge MLS for top-tier status. Huge potential payoff there but right now NASL's growing challenge is simply to maintain second-tier. USL on the other hand has hitched its wagon to MLS--brilliant move for establishing credibility and financial stability (although there is a longer-term risk in behind saddled with a reputation as an MLS "farm league"). As for on-field quality, USL's clear dominance over NASL teams in 2015 Open Cup play was pretty telling. We'll see in 2016 if that was fluke or trend. Bottom-line, I'm a fan of both leagues...but if I had to bet money on which league has the brighter future, right now USL wins hands-down.
Mr. Kerssen, thanks for your comments. I appreciate you taking the time to share them. I'm sorry your not happy with the 'bias' I display in my piece. I would call it less of a bias and more of a position, that the USL is on the rise and the NASL stagnating, or on the wane. That you didn't care for the facts I used to support that position doesn't make those facts any less valid.
One point of contention you had that is worth addressing, yes, the USL has lost teams over the same 5 year period. However, the majority of those were Caribbean based and folded following a failed effort to expand to that region. The sole survivor from that venture transferred to the NASL. The facts I presented remain the same. In 5 years the NASL has expanded by 3 teams.
It may not be 'fact' but it can certainly be argued with confidence that the US soccer icons of old no longer hold their sway over fans. The younger demographic in particular appear far more interested in the Red Bulls, Sounders and Galaxies of our soccer landscape - and this coming from someone who doesn't particularly care for the MLS. The USL has that strong connection to the MLS. The NASL does not.
However, I'm not suggesting for a moment that the NASL isn't a viable league, or that it shouldn't have a place in the professional soccer pyramid. I just don't think based upon stats, growth patterns and future potential, that it's place in that pyramid is above the USL any longer.
Readers, Mr. Kerssen is a first time comment contributor to this paper. You can enjoy online more of his thoughts regarding the NASL and his home town club, Minnesota United, who will be leaving the NASL for the MLS in 2017/2018.
I like that i can grow my own stuff an know whats in it.
I am sorry to have to make these comments, but this is one of the most ludicrous and poorly researched articles on the current professional soccer scene that I have ever seen. It is comprised of biased arguments filled with cherry-picked facts. The two most egregious are the comparisons of relative league stability and attendance. You mention the NASL's team losses but fail to mention that USL has lost 7 teams in those same 5 years with another "on hiatus" for the coming season. You choose the "traditionally popular" NASL teams attendance figures and compare them to the best figures you can find from USL. But you fail to mention that The NASL averaged 5913 fans per match, compared to the USL average of 3369 fans per match. By the way, the lowest drawing team in the NASL, FC Edmonton, averaged 2889 fans per match in 2015, while in the same year, the USL had 11 out of it's 24 teams averaging less than Edmonton with 4 USL teams averaging only in the hundreds. Or to put it succinctly, nearly half of the USL averaged less fans per match than the lowest drawing NASL team. To completely rip apart this article would take an article just as long. Readers, you have been done a disservice by Mr. Turner's article. Mr. Turner, you owe your readers a fairer and more accurate article then the one above.
Rael and others have pretty much covered it. ONLY violating your written policy (not to mention the Constitution) 3.2% of the time seems an inventive excuse (or, what the Academy calls "Quibbling"). What if cadets ONLY violated the honor code on 3.2% of their tests? Would that be acceptable? If we accepted ONLY 3.2% of our officers committing sexual assaults? Sadly, though, it goes beyond that because those 3.2% of the appearances that violated policy only did so in ONE, well-chosen, and seemingly premeditated direction. Instead of reaching out to other communities, the Band's view of diversity was to include Catholics with the evangelicals. I'd sure like to know if ANY of their appearances were even to majority African-American or Hispanic congregations, or if they kept it light--sticking to the suburban, white, evangelical, and upper-crust Catholic congregations that will produce the cadets that will fill the two primary sections of the Cadet Chapel. That is, when they don't take the Sunday bus to NLC.
Clearly it took considerable NLC resources especially people’s time to set the concert set up, and then support the production. Ask the question, “Why did NLC do this?” All the likely answers lead to their mission of advancing the evangelical Christian agenda. So the USAFA band implicitly lent the imprimatur of the USAF to that ideological crusade.
Two troubling things, the juxtaposition of the NLC symbol and the USAF symbol on the ads and flyers, and use of the word “Partnership.” The USAF needs to come out and disavow any partnership with the NLC. By juxtaposing the symbols the NLC is intentionally trying to equate the USAF with the NLC.
It would be better to not have a concert in a big church sanctuary out of convenience, than to promote the NLC agenda.
I guess I need to clarify my 'addendum' somewhat... the AFA statement says: "...The USAFA Band presents an average of 500 performances a year; in the last 15-16 months 14 community concerts have been held in church venues: 3.2% of its total performances." What's missing here is the religious diversity... Churches only? Were the proffers to perform at synagogues, mosques, gurdwara's, Hindu temples, or any other religiously affiliated institution turned down or, if the band plays only on request, were there no religious institutions other than churches making requests? Or, are there other non-Christian religious institutions not reported in the AFA's response? Somehow, having the 3.2% of religiously-affiliated events reported being 100% Christian again, raises 'Establishment' questions.
All content © Copyright 2016, The Colorado Springs Independent
Website powered by Foundation