Narrow Search

Comment Archives: stories: News: Last 7 Days

Re: “41 percent of Suthers campaign fundraising comes from Broadmoor zip code

Gold spoon Johnny?! Say it ain't so.

Posted by Ganzo Bonzo on 01/22/2019 at 11:44 AM

Re: “Pinned Down

I was there when this happened she was my best friend and like a sister to me when nobody could calm her down I could Parker will be missed but not forgotten

Posted by Danielle Martin on 01/20/2019 at 10:57 PM

Re: “CSFD fails to meet its response standards across the city

AMR leadership is crap and they care less about the employees or the citizens they serve. AMR only cares about profits and minimum staffing levels by working there crews non stop. It is the reason why they have a high turnover rate.

Posted by Chad Stone on 01/20/2019 at 1:30 PM

Re: “Parks protection ballot measure has lots of problems says city attorney

Ms. Massey's document is based largely on what ifs. So here's a what if to consider. What if public lands were inviolate? What if, once established and dedicated, a park or open space was literally untouchable? Do you think that the City of Colorado Springs would suddenly disappear off the map? Has Denver? Had North Cheyenne Canon Park been inviolate, what would have happened when Phil Anschutz came knocking on Chris Lieber's door with a great land swap deal in hand? (To be clear, this is a guess. I am not privy to the particulars). If North Cheyenne Canon Park had been protected by law, Mr. Anschutz would have been sent on his merry way with a, " Sorry, we can't do that", perhaps quite miffed (in the way of any thwarted billionaire) but in truth, none the worse for wear. According to the Colorado State Court of Appeals, the transfer of Strawberry Fields was legal. It was also executed in a fashion which was immoral, lacked integrity, and carried more than a hint of corruption. If something is immoral, lacks integrity and is corrupt .... should it be legal? It is said that you can't legislate morality, and that may be true when it comes to human interactions. But the land does not have free will. If it is to be protected at all, then we must do it. Laws should be in line with reality. That is what was attempted here. This isn't over.

9 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Mur on 01/18/2019 at 2:23 PM

Re: “City to annex 183 AFA acres

Ever been to the current USAFA museum? The place is nothing but a dusty old relic of the 1960s. Hard to imagine what they could fill the new place with that would be any better.

Posted by ConcernedCitizen on 01/17/2019 at 9:21 PM

Re: “Father of inmate says he raised red flags to jail personnel about his son’s mental state

It all comes down to money. Nobody wasn't to fund mental healthcare in this country.

5 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Katy Lynn Davis on 01/17/2019 at 1:29 PM

Re: “City to annex 183 AFA acres

I attended the hearing. It's clear that the whole annexation issue is a ruse. The Air Force asked for this property to be annexed. The city did not initiate this request. The Air Force did. . There will be no property tax on the Visitors' Center property. The road connecting to the new city annex will remain a private road controlled by the Air Force and the Air Force will have jurisdiction over free speech activities at the location. .

0 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Gopher on 01/17/2019 at 10:29 AM

Re: “41 percent of Suthers campaign fundraising comes from Broadmoor zip code

The man needs to go!

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by Audrey Hatfield on 01/16/2019 at 7:17 PM

Re: “City to annex 183 AFA acres

This might answer boomer47's question about ownership. The city says the Academy owns the property and will lease it to the developer. Here's the entire explanation from the city about "True North Commons," the development's label, apparently:

"This project includes applications for annexation of approximately 183 acres with associated zone change, master plan and concept plan establishment. Although the proposed annexation does consist of 183 acres, over 125 of those acres are dedicated per the master plan for open space. The overall developable acres will be just over 57 acres. The United States Air Force is the applicant and property owner for these applications and will ultimately remain the underling property owner. USAFA will enter into a contract with the developer (Blue & Silver) in an Enhanced Use Lease which is separate and independent of any city processes. Under the Enhanced Use Lease, the property will be subject to typical property and sales taxes as if the land was privately owned.

"The United States Air Force Academy petitioned the City for annexation on October 23, 2018. This annexation meets the Colorado State Statute requirements for an annexation being heard before a municipality. Since that time the developer has prepared the land use applications required by the City and these have been reviewed by all applicable City agencies. In addition outside agencies including the United States Fish and Wildlife, the Army Corps of Engineers and Colorado Geologic Survey have reviewed the proposed items. All agency comments have been addressed and the proposed applications are moving forward to public hearing.

"All development that will be proposed in the future once annexed will be required to follow the City standard process for development which will include meeting all standard criteria for Stormwater."

But merely annexing the property doesn't add it to the tax rolls if it's owned by a tax-exempt entity, such as the Academy. I would guess that the 57 developed acres will be subject to taxes, whereas the balance of land designated as open space would not be taxed. Hope this helps.

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Pam Zubeck on 01/16/2019 at 3:10 PM

Re: “City to annex 183 AFA acres

Kudos to you, Joel. That's how many have felt for years about how this city operates and how the taking of future revenue from these projects is why this city can never get ahead. We are always told how "growth is good" - right! and then ask for more taxes to fix our roads, etc. Why the taxpayers always have to help these developers with their projects is beyond me. If the city wants to declare undeveloped grass-land/prairie as "blighted", then they need to start paying more attention to many of our "blighted" residential neighborhoods and declare them blighted also and get something done (i.e. sidewalks, curb & gutter, dead trees, weeds, etc, etc). Many areas of the city are falling apart.
What I'm curious about though is that I understand the city being able to annex "private" property, but the USAF property is deemed a federal reservation just like Peterson, Fort Carson, etc and they don't pay taxes to the city. Is the USAF selling this property to the developer?

6 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by boomer47 on 01/16/2019 at 9:53 AM

Re: “City to annex 183 AFA acres

Annexation is just step 1. Why? Because the City, County and PPRTA cannot collect sales taxes on USAFA property.

Step 2: Declare the entire area as blighted. This triggers State law in place to deal with urban blight situations. It has been twisted to allow open space to be declared as blighted. Under the law, once declared by local officials as blighted, the area can be designated an urban renewal area. Taxes collected in urban renewal areas under state law are allowed to bypass the City, County, PPRTA and even D20 School District coffers.

Step 3: Hijack the many millions collected in City, County, PPRTA and D20 taxes and transfer them to the Colorado Springs Urban Renewal Authority or URA. This agency serves as a conduit or what I call a money laundering agency to take public funds and transfer them to private development interests. The URA will transfer dollars and even get municpal bonds (debt) to assist the developer. So, tens of millions in local tax dollars will be collected to assist the private profit center development.

Far fetched? Hardly. Colorado Springs City Council just approved $51.9 million collected as City sales and property taxes to be transferred the URA (and then to private development interests) for building private development in SW Downton (http://www.informcos.com/cscctif.html). The El Paso County Commission approved the transfer of $44.5 million in County sales and property taxes to the URA for that same private development (http://www.informcos.com/bocctif.html). The D11 School Board approved the transfer of $119 million in D11 school taxes to be transferred to the URA for that same private development. This new USAFA annexation project will transfer tens of millions more in local tax dollars to private development.

The City sales tax office and the County Tax Assessor appear to be working overtime to collect sales and property taxes from citizens for private development. These public hearings are for show. Every city council member already knows how he or she will vote. And my guess is that they would not be conducting the dog and pony show of public hearings if there was not a majority in support.

12 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Joel C. Miller on 01/16/2019 at 7:21 AM

Re: “41 percent of Suthers campaign fundraising comes from Broadmoor zip code

What else would you expect from Little Johnnie Suthers (aka Mayor Anschutz)?

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by John Spengler on 01/15/2019 at 11:18 PM

Re: “41 percent of Suthers campaign fundraising comes from Broadmoor zip code

You were expecting something different? The situation of who controls Colorado Springs/El Paso county couldn't be more obvious, and has been that way for decades. No "conspiracy" here, now move along.
(i do hope the sarcasm is completely clear)

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by gregaj7 on 01/15/2019 at 6:52 PM

Today | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun | Mon
Close-up Yoruba religion

Close-up Yoruba religion

Mondays-Fridays, 10:30 a.m.-5:30 p.m. Continues through March 29

All of today's events | Staff Picks

All content © Copyright 2019, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation