Narrow Search

Comment Archives: stories: Columns

Re: “TABOR author on question 1A

So I'm to believe a convicted felon? Doug Bruce is a moron! End of story!

6 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Holmes on 11/04/2017 at 7:27 PM

Re: “TABOR author on question 1A

Thanks Mr Bruce for writing the piece. On my own I had figured out this was something to vote no on. Many dont realize I-25 is not a local issue. (Though the traffic issues are local!)
The underlying point is that politicians are merely, illegally, grabbing more money. Its like giving heroin to an addict, they always want more and will lie, cheat and steal to support their habit.

Dave :-)

8 likes, 9 dislikes
Posted by William David Beadles on 11/04/2017 at 3:46 AM

Re: “TABOR author on question 1A

Interesting to note that the guy supposedly selling his snake oil to the gullible had his charity cleared by the IRS in the original tax trial but the TABOR hater judge in Denver would not allow the fact into evidence!

It's not the job of citizens in Colorado Springs to fund I-25. We should not be overriding the State Constitution with a local vote! Vote "NO" in November.

8 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by RM Lady Liberty on 11/03/2017 at 8:55 PM

Re: “TABOR author on question 1A


Yup. That's him. Still selling his snake oil to the gullible.

7 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Bill W. on 11/03/2017 at 3:54 PM

Re: “TABOR author on question 1A

Isn't this from the guy found guilty of money laundering, attempted bribery, and tax fraud then violated his probation? Yeah... no thanks.

16 likes, 7 dislikes
Posted by Sheri Powers on 11/03/2017 at 2:17 PM

Re: “Inequity in city’s parks and open spaces must be addressed

I'm not finding the Leon Young Pavilion at South Shooks Run Park on Google maps - what are some streets near to it?

5 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Stain K. Hensley on 11/02/2017 at 2:46 PM

Re: “Inequity in city’s parks and open spaces must be addressed

Pretty sure when they convinced us to approve Lotto in Colorado (1982), parks and rec. was one of their selling points. Colorado legislation is consistent in one area: lies. Next one is marijuana sales tax. Pretty sure I haven't met one school member that's reaped the benefits of this tax either. In fact it seems there's more ballot additions asking for more school funding (i.e. 11, 3, 2) this year than in years past. The only benefit I've seen from marijuana sales is an increase in local crime and ease of access for young folks (especially minorities). Do an article on these ideas. I like your articles, they raise awareness, but I'd like to see action; awareness only goes so far.

7 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Silky Johnson on 11/02/2017 at 12:54 PM

Re: “Reader: I'm confident I'll be voting "no"

Please research Walter Burien and CAFR before casting a ballot for that "Fee". The systems of governance (municipal corporations) have been lying to the populace about taxation for way too long. The CAFR reports all the commerce and investments involved. Taxation could be eliminated, if the CAFR funds are used instead.

Posted by gregaj7 on 11/01/2017 at 3:28 PM

Re: “Reader: I'm confident I'll be voting "no"

Vote NO if you want Pueblo and Pueblo County to take COS to court, as they should, for not living up to COS' obligations to address stormwater problems that affect Fountain Creek from COS to Pueblo.

We in the Arkansas Valley are tired of Springs voters who continually vote to shortchange themselves and everyone downstream on the stormwater problem.

I shouldn't say "We" however. I live in COS now, and I voted YES!! Freeloaders be gone!!

5 likes, 8 dislikes
Posted by Russ Johnson on 10/30/2017 at 6:06 PM

Re: “Reader: I'm confident I'll be voting "no"

The focus of the EPA and CO Dept of Health lawsuit is on the Citys failure to follow its own rules when approving and overseeing developer stormwater infrastructure. In one case, the lawsuit details an $11.4 million shortcut provided to developers (see entire lawsuit complaint):
The Cottonwood Creek DBPS estimated [a] total cost reduction of approximately $11.4 million (January 1992 dollars) by eliminating the proposed detention ponds and associated fees, and reducing the Cottonwood Creek Drainage and Bridge Fees. [charged to developers]

Much more at

9 likes, 5 dislikes
Posted by Joel C. Miller on 10/30/2017 at 3:43 PM

Re: “Reader: I'm confident I'll be voting "no"

Thank you, Mr Rusinak.

9 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Joel C. Miller on 10/30/2017 at 3:40 PM

Re: “Reader: I'm confident I'll be voting "no"

oh ya um big fat NO!!!!

10 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Jay Whynotaskme on 10/30/2017 at 1:52 PM

Re: “Let’s fix stormwater now

An except from 2015 EPA report cited in the EPA lawsuit that speaks to how seriously the City takes stormwater issues:

"Of the 105 projects on the CIP [Capital Improvement Program] list, it appeared that four stormwater oriented projects were included and slated for funding in 2015:
Companion Drainage Projects $412,000
Drainage Basin Planning Studies $150,000
Emergency Drainage Repairs High Priority $500,000
Infrastructure Damage Repair $80,000."

Though the City couldn't seem to find a high enough priority for much stormwater spending in 2015's Capital Improvement Budget, here's what the City DID find funding for on that list (taken from 2015 Budget):

Downtown Streetscape Project $864,000
Museum Exterior Renovation $299,550
Museum HVAC Upgrades $200,000
On-Street Bikeway Improvements $411,970
Summit House Design $1,500,000
Fire Station Bathroom Remodel: $517,625 (2019)

6 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Joel C. Miller on 10/30/2017 at 12:07 AM

Re: “Where the hell is Kekistan?

While leftist Antifa babies and righty confederates get salty when their precious flags are burned, it takes a whole lot more than just burning the Kekistan flag to make Kekistanis salty ;)

1 like, 3 dislikes
Posted by Kekistan Ambassador on 10/28/2017 at 11:29 PM

Re: “Let’s fix stormwater now

With ten days to go (as of this posting date) and with only 9% of the ballots returned as of the 19th - - do you think the stormwater measure will PASS or FAIL with the voters in a low turnout election with multiple tax measures on the ballot?

Posted by Robert Gentry on 10/28/2017 at 2:19 PM

Re: “Let’s fix stormwater now

issued needs to be addressed but charging $5 to large and small is not right, fee doesnt have to be
exact proportion, but some fairness , set Tier levels of property , such as small $2, medium $4, large $6, huge 8
small - apts, medium lot size to 5000, large lot size to 10,000, huge over 10,000 .

2 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by apathetic on 10/28/2017 at 10:54 AM

Re: “Reader: Manitou needs an explination

Keep Manitou Weird Again! Also most elections are run this way, not really that crazy.

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by Matt 1 on 10/28/2017 at 9:51 AM

Re: “Twelve false claims about 2A

Man Suthers sure loves fees. I noticed he also must love him some Anschutz, odd his buddy at the Broadmoor doesnt get a big tax increase? You mean all of his land is exempt form our big city tax or fee or whatever they are trying to call it. So we get a rain tax and the Broadmoor and developers who owe huge portions of this city get nothing!!! Wake up people, odd the Gazette and the editorial staff is all for this tax ( oh yea they are owned by Anschutz/ Broadmoor) duh!

8 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by el jef'e on 10/28/2017 at 7:58 AM

Re: “Reader: Manitou needs an explination

Explanation can't anyone spell anymore?

4 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Shannon Simmons on 10/28/2017 at 12:34 AM

Re: “Let’s fix stormwater now

Issue 300 passed by the votes of Colorado Springs citizens. Issue 300 did not preclude collecting stormwater "fees." What it prevented was collecting those "fees" for stormwater and letting the stormwater enterprise use those "fees" to write big fat checks to the City to be used for whatever it wanted.

After the passage of Issue 300, City Council at that time was faced with two options:

1) "Keep the fees within the stormwater enterprise to do stormwater work (instead of collecting the fees for stormwater and passing the money on to be used for whatever the City government wanted); or

2) Disband the enterprise.

Ultimately, Council disbanded the enterprise because...what's the point of collecting taxes diguised as fees if you can't put them into a city slush fund and use them how you want?

Issue 2A is openly creating a slush fund. The mayor, Skorman and others are saying, "give us stormwater money and we'll shell game the money for whatever we feel like using it for."

14 likes, 2 dislikes
Posted by Joel C. Miller on 10/27/2017 at 2:31 PM

Today | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun
Geeks Who Drink Pub Quiz

Geeks Who Drink Pub Quiz @ Rocks Sports Bar & Grill

Mondays, 8-10 p.m. Continues through March 26

All of today's events | Staff Picks

All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation