Narrow Search

  • Show Only

  • Category

  • Narrow by Date

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


Comment Archives: stories: Columns: Between The Lines

Re: “Stepping aside: Routon moves to retirement role

Thank you Ralph for a great run. I've enjoyed the Indy since moving to the city 12 years ago. I'll miss you and Rich Tosches but Pam and Adrian will do a great job going forward, as they have all along.

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by OldCrank on 10/19/2017 at 11:35 AM

Re: “One last shot at a downtown stadium

It looks to me, Ralph, that taxpayer dollars are being well-spent on infrastructure at the moment, particularly in downtown Colorado Springs. Suddenly we 're seeing our shabby downtown getting a much-needed facelift. If developers want to kick in funds to pay for a sports stadium elsewhere in the city (on the North Side for instance) let them have at it. But to spend taxpayer money on an ugly stadium that will benefit who exactly? I think Suthers made a wise choice in allocating funds to road repairs and other much-needed public works that benefit us all. The downtown area is starting to shape up and we like it.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by karinkdf82 on 09/05/2017 at 5:21 AM

Re: “Polling convinces city leaders to decide now, not later, on stormwater issue

It is decades past due for taking a responsible approach for our stormwater issues. We cannot continue to wait for the perfect solution. Yes I agree the fee structure as stated in this proposal is not equitable and as a member of Council - Mr. Murray, - I would urge you and your fellow council persons to work to find solutions that include requiring developers to pay their fair share - and that includes in areas of new construction in old established neighborhoods. In OCC I have lived in this house almost 40 years and never had groundwater seep into my garage - but since a new monster home was placed on top of an unstable hill behind me the alley was a river and I had water on the floor of my old stone garage in one of the severe storms of about a week ago. This problem is not going away and we need to start sooner not later as we already were making progress when this community pulled the plug on the previous Stormwater Enterprise.

3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by rms on 08/21/2017 at 3:50 PM

Re: “Polling convinces city leaders to decide now, not later, on stormwater issue


"You do realize these systems must be maintained like our streets! Don't vote for this blank check!"

You are long on criticism but short on solutions. Going "back to the drawing board" is not a solution. It's an empty and cynical attempt kick the can down the road.

If you have a better solution, tell us what it is. If you're only interested in discrediting those who have proposed a solution, you're just obstructing.

By the way...of course "these systems must be maintained." Everyone gets that. There is NO possible solution that would NOT require maintenance. To imply that there is one is disingenuous.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Bill W. on 08/21/2017 at 3:19 PM

Re: “Polling convinces city leaders to decide now, not later, on stormwater issue

If you believe any solution works or is the right solution you can vote for this proposal. However, its equity and parity is totally out of synch with what occurred. Developers made tremendous profits off our city's inability or unwillingness to hold them accountable to known stormwater stances. Take the time to read the EPA's lawsuit and it will be clear the citizens were not the primary beneficiaries of these costs. We can take responsibility for roads and bridges and our own driveways but the differences are more than $5 per dwelling and $30 per acre when adding up the total damage vice profits. The citizens are clearly bearing the brunt of this situation and this should be called the "developer's tax" rather than a stormwater fee. Go back to the drawing board, re-balance this measure and present a fair and equitable plan. That has less to be determined (TBDs), slows future development until we can correct our current problems and demonstrates how future costs will be allocated between citizens and commercial interests. You do realize these systems must be maintained like our streets! Don't vote for this blank check!

5 likes, 4 dislikes
Posted by wpmurrayIII on 08/20/2017 at 10:07 AM

Re: “Polling convinces city leaders to decide now, not later, on stormwater issue

What do you think? Will voters approve the proposed storm water fee in November? A one question anonymous QuikPoll. Thank you.…

Posted by Staci6 on 08/16/2017 at 6:53 AM

Re: “Looking back on four decades in the Springs

"You'd think that would be a longer list from a period of "just" 40 years in a city as large as Colorado Springs. "

I agree.

While those you mention have certainly been a positive influence, there seems to be a general disinterest in maintaining or improving the city. Until there is a willingness to invest in our future, the next 40 years may be as stagnant as the last 40.

I give credit to the Mayor for trying to change the culture, but the problems are not just cosmetic. The underlying infrastructure issues are downright scary. I wouldn't be surprised iff the stormwater funding ballot issue fails in November. If that happens, there is no way for the city to meet its financial obligations ($420M in the next 20 years) for fixing the stormwater mess. And, sadly, that's not the only expensive infrastructure problem the city is facing.

When I came to Colorado Springs in the late 1980s, I was proud to live here. A lot has changed since then, and not for the better, in my view.

Posted by Bill W. on 08/05/2017 at 7:53 AM

Re: “Pikes Peak Summit Complex still worthy of higher cost

It makes no difference how much is spent on the Summit House. A one year warranty for a $50M project? Hopefully someone will guesstimate $10M a year for maintenance cause it'll be needed. Who will pay for that?

Posted by Gary Casimir on 07/26/2017 at 3:20 PM

Re: “Pikes Peak Summit Complex still worthy of higher cost

So half a million people visit this summit with those who drive paying the Park Service and those who Cog paying the broadM. Seems like a decent return for tax payers as long as donations pay the majority. A trade of state taxes LART for admission to the summit. Why doesn't someone detail out who pays for what? Since the broadM benefits I'd hope they are donating towards their attraction build. How is it maintained? Who runs the shops / cantina up there? It would be nice just once to read something that asked all the questions the people have. Like who is the builder? Who is paying for what? Don't journalists know that a positive presentation is how ideas are sold?

Posted by TruB on 06/28/2017 at 2:34 PM

Re: “Pikes Peak Summit Complex still worthy of higher cost

What percentage of those "6 million visitors a year" are here for recreation purposes vs. business, Ralph? When ANY public project's budget doubles, seemingly, overnight, I think the citizens (who will, ultimately, be on the hook for this thing) need to raise their level of healthy matter how nice and "sustainable" the new "attraction" will be.

So, if we "beleive you that the price will be worth it", and it turns out to be another fleecing of the taxpayers of Colorado Springs for the betterment of a small grpup of 'connected' local businesses, are you going to write a check to make it right? I didn't think so...?

0 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Jeff Hirtle on 06/27/2017 at 9:58 AM

Re: “Pikes Peak Summit Complex still worthy of higher cost

Sounds to me like we need to get a few more people involved in the bidding process.

Posted by UCanSeeClearlyNow on 06/22/2017 at 7:38 PM

Re: “Region must be proactive on transportation, and here's how to do it


3 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by apathetic on 06/15/2017 at 7:56 PM

Re: “Being Olympic City USA: It's more than just a museum


Taxpayers curious to know more about the Olympic museum and Frank Aries are advised to research it -- my blog has lots of information about it.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Spydra 1 on 06/14/2017 at 9:42 AM

Re: “Region must be proactive on transportation, and here's how to do it

I have been saying for years that a continuous light rail from the Springs to Denver, even Ft. Collins, would be huge. Think of concerts, events, games, connecting to UnionStation, also with a connection to the airport. More jobs, less I25 congestion. It'd be great for University students to commute to Denver, too.

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by rosi on 05/22/2017 at 8:24 PM

Re: “Region must be proactive on transportation, and here's how to do it

Gee wiz. "like solving obesity with a bigger set of pants". We need to stop the backwards thinking of the well-intentioned older generation which refuses to consider the innovations of the newer age. Wasting millions of dollars on an infrastructure which is already outdated- bad, bad idea, but the norm for COS. How about a common sense idea like a light-rail? How about actually moving towards an awesome solution to the problem? How about recognizing Denver and the region as one of the fastest growing areas of the country, and moving to address the issue like a modern city would? Gee wiz the leadership and influence of this area are simply as backwards as can be.

8 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by KyleJS on 05/22/2017 at 1:45 PM

Re: “Region must be proactive on transportation, and here's how to do it

Hmmm - she lied to voters on the PPRTA ballot issue about it sun setting and that it would require NO paid staff. If anyone really looked at the PPRTA they have hidden how they over estimate the cost of a project so it will always come in under budget and then move the excess funds to the next project. She tricked voters into removing term limits so that our ballots now need to list that voting no means yes. She turned her back when Maketa gave her a complaint. I've got no idea why Ralph thinks she should be allowed in a position to lie to the public again.

18 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by TruB on 05/21/2017 at 7:27 PM

Re: “Region must be proactive on transportation, and here's how to do it

This position appears to be a 'working' position. However, if among criteria considered for this job, a 'high coefficient of Schmooze' is top on the list - - then Mr. Routon is correct: Mrs. Clark would do.

Has thought been given to calling for a true administratively skilled person for this position and assigning the 'Schmooze' role to the Chamber which they do well and removing the EDC from their purview and forming a new EDC with those who can actually get the job done?

20 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Richard Wehner Fiscal Realist on 05/17/2017 at 11:22 AM

Re: “Region must be proactive on transportation, and here's how to do it

Trying to fix the Front Range transportation problem by building a wider I-25 is like trying to fix obesity by putting on a larger pair of pants - if we don't address the problem of over reliance on a single, highly-inefficient mode of travel, then it doesn't really matter who leads the effort, it will be a temporary solution at best.

18 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by David E on 05/17/2017 at 11:06 AM

Re: “Region must be proactive on transportation, and here's how to do it

This position requires one with strong administrative skills, not a narcissistic political gadfly.

31 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Robert Gentry on 05/17/2017 at 6:11 AM

Re: “Olympic Museum and ... what else in southwest downtown?

NOTHING will work well, if at all, either downtown or anywhere else, until we get rid of TABOR. As long as it's in effect this city will be a dump and planning is just a dream state.

It seems the main reason for building all this stuff downtown is because the local in-crowd of big-money movers and shakers own the land down there, i.e., the Mayor's up to his eyeballs in crony capitalism for his GOP financiers.

Better to distribute these attractions around town to spread out the traffic hassles since there's no money for roads or transit thanks to TABOR. Let Gray LIne run tourist buses between the attractions like they do in "major" cities for the tourist trade.

The USAF has at least $100B in annual tax dollars and thus no shortage of money to rehab their existing stadium or build a new one - where it's currently located, not downtown. Stop pimping downtown.

Build mid-rise or taller residential towers downtown so people can finally have a walkable city instead of having to drive to everything. Downtown is parking constrained, you can't get near Jack Quinn's or other eateries and shopping without fighting the hassle of parking.

Build residential towers and put a major supermarket on the ground floor of one and you'll revitalize the downtown. If you want to see how it works, just take a junket to Crystal City, VA, right across the freeway from National Airport. I know, I lived there, worked there, used the subway stop in the basement and WALKED to everything.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by OldCrank on 04/26/2017 at 1:15 PM

Today | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun | Mon | Tue
Rev Up Your Digital Marketing Efforts

Rev Up Your Digital Marketing Efforts @ Library 21c

Wed., Dec. 13, 12-1 p.m.

All of today's events | Staff Picks

All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation