curious 
Member since Jun 24, 2011

click to enlarge sylvester_jpg-magnum.jpg

Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »
I comment using the name "curious" in order to focus attention where it belongs - on the comment and not on the person making the comment. Citizen of COS since 2003 Family members have lived in COS for more than 40 years

Recent Comments

Re: “Banning Lewis Ranch: Residents weigh in with letters to City Council

If it's not apathy, then it's ignorance. How many people even know that the Council is proposing to amend the annexation agmt?

4 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by curious on 02/13/2018 at 3:35 PM

Re: “Reader: Stick to the original agreement

According to a comment on the BLR Q-A website (link below) the Annexation agreement does not permit a vote of the citizens. The authority to amend the agreement is vested in Council. But . . . I don't want to amend the agreement. I want the Council to rescind, cancel, kill the agreement.

The terms of the 1988 agreement make it crystal clear that City Leaders 30 years ago agreed to annex the prairie ONLY if doing so cost the city NOTHING. But now Council is salivating at forcing taxpayers to pay all or most of the $1 Billion infrastructure costs. I understand Nor'woods motivation to stick the bill to the taxpayer, but I don't understand Council's willingness to empty the public purse in pursuit of GROWTH.

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by curious on 02/08/2018 at 4:03 PM

Re: “Reader: Stick to the original agreement

I haven't been reading the Gazette in the last couple of months so I'm unaware of what coverage our local NYT is giving this, the biggest issue put before the Council and citizenry in the past 30 years. Maybe the public doesn't care about the transfer of revenue that will go into the developer's pension fund, nor will the public care if taxes are raised, as long as they're raised only on the "rich"and not on themselves. It will take a publicity blitz to arouse the indignation and condemnation necessary to stop Boss Tweed and his enablers, our myopic City Leaders. Zubeck's in-depth article is the first of what will hopefully be a series of articles to knock some sense into the Council.

How much development incentives can COS afford? BLR, while the biggest, is not the only development project being considered to remake dinky ole COS into a Big Shot, able to steal the Broncos away from Denver and put them into that stadium Nor'wood wants to build on one of its properties to "jumpstart" development downtown. City Leaders ALSO want to "revitalize" SW downtown, where the biggest property owner and developer is, once again, Nor'wood. And too City Leaders want to spend mega dollars redeveloping the area along S. Nevada and 5 miles north on N. Nevada. Infrastructure incentives are expensive. In the case of University Village, the shopping center on N. Nevada across from UCCS, the city will receive NO sales tax revenue until the 30-year bonds for construction costs are paid in full, by which time UVC may be passe and in need of "revitalization." All of this development is great for the developers, but how is any of this of benefit to the citizens and taxpayers?

1 like, 1 dislike
Posted by curious on 02/08/2018 at 2:58 PM

Re: “Reader: Stick to the original agreement

Talbott's letter is just what I would have said had I written a Letter to the Editor. The 1988 annexation agreement, which calls for the developer to pay the cost of ALL infrastructure, and which was upheld by a Judge after Nor'wood bought much of BLR, should be RESCINDED. This land mass, way far out on the eastern plains, would increase COS footprint by 20%. BLR is TOO BIG for COS to absorb and still be able to service the existing 80% of COS, which has not for many years not received the attention it needs.

City Leaders can't abandon the Holy Grail, namely that through growth COS will be a formidable rival to Denver. COS will NEVER outrun Denver, so stop trying to do the impossible. If Nor'wood wants to spend its own dollars on developing BLR, go ahead. But don't corrupt Council with the fantasy that having present citizens pay any portion of the $1 Billion cost of infrastructure that Nor'wood is legally required to pay for is a good deal for anyone except Nor'wood.

Regarding incentives being conjured by Council to appease and entice Nor'wood to proceed with fattening its profit margin, utility rate payers paid for SDS to bring water to BLR. THAT multi-million dollar investment should be the one and only incentive Nor'wood gets. Contact Council - all of them - and let them know what you think of this swindle in progress.

5 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by curious on 02/07/2018 at 2:19 PM

Re: “City faced with changing the rules on Banning Lewis Ranch to spur development

This is an excellent piece of research and reporting by Zubeck. Hopefully, all the unanswered questions and revenue projections will be allotted ALL the time needed for examination before the Council gives its approval to Nor'wood to turn its $28M property acquisition into a $280M profit generator. Nor'woods proposal is NOT a good deal for the City or its current taxpayers.

As to "Where is the water?", COS Utility rate payers provided the water for BLR when they built and paid for the SDS pipeline. Isn't that ENOUGH of a giveaway to BLR developers? Of course not. Nor'wood is incapable of developing a project at a profit without HUGE taxpayer subsidies.

The projection over 30 years is for 175K people living within BLR. This is too big for COS to absorb without going bankrupt. It would be better for COS to NOT annex BLR and let the developed area become its own town. Let it keep all the projected revenue and pay all the costs of infrastructure and maintenance. Let BLR do what Falcon did and be independent.

Further, a couple years ago the Judge ruled that the developer(s) - not existing taxpayers - were to bear ALL the costs of infrastructure. Nor'wood threatened to appeal the Judge's ruling but instead is pressuring City Leaders to give him what the Law would not. Growth is not the answer to economic prosperity. Especially growth such as that which Nor'wood wants.

8 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by curious on 02/01/2018 at 3:58 PM

Re: “AFP donates to committee opposing Colorado Springs' stormwater ballot measure

Invest COS, the "vote yes" committee, has raised $311,290. The Koch brothers contributed $15,000. So . . . why are the whiners whining about the Koch brothers helping the financially challenged underdogs in this contest between the citizens and the bad dog developers and their political allies?

1 like, 0 dislikes
Posted by curious on 11/01/2017 at 4:18 PM

Re: “AFP donates to committee opposing Colorado Springs' stormwater ballot measure

The 'opposition' is the citizens who are fed up with govt taking our money in taxes and fees and then redistributing it to their political allies who are undermining our personal liberties, those liberties guaranteed to us by the Constitution. I wonder if you know just what the Koch Brothers are doing in the political playing field with THEIR OWN money. In supporting anti-progressive/socialist schemes, they are doing all in their power to see that politicians, judges, and others in positions of leadership uphold the Constitution. And, BTW, the Koch's donated zero dollars to Trump's campaign because they don't like him any more than you do.

2 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by curious on 11/01/2017 at 2:04 PM

All Comments »


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2018, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation