Recent Comments
Re: “Nor'wood pledges "Vision Plan" for public spaces in Banning Lewis Ranch”
I'd love to see parties go down the road described by the resolution, but aren't we reminded every time we sign a contract to buy a new car, a house or even a time share not to rely on any promises made by the seller that are not spelled out IN THE CONTRACT? The resolution represents a step in the right direction, but in no way does it give the council a clear conscience over amending the annexation agreement as currently proposed. All residents of the city over the next 100 years deserve better.
And, for the record, I am not a sustainable growth advocate. I apologize if I somehow gave Pam Zubeck the wrong impression. Growth is not sustainable. I'm a sustainability advocate. And I am resigned that the city is not in a 12-step program to recover from growth addiction, so our only hope is we might get a more forward-thinking annexation agreement.
I don't expect this to happen, but the city would be better off purchasing all of the ranch and converting it into open space, parks, solar power generation and local food production. Financially we would come out way ahead over the path set up by the proposed amendment. It will cost us hundreds of millions of dollars.
Re: “Colorado Springs Utilities says it has enough water to share”
Here's my complete thought: The city would be smart to NOT turn Banning Lewis Ranch into another 70,000+ homes thirsty for SDS water. Instead, supply the outlying water districts which already have homes with that SDS water. Then get out of the growth business. We have hit the wall on water supply vs. demand in Colorado. Time for a game change.
Re: “City faced with changing the rules on Banning Lewis Ranch to spur development”
Thank you so much to the Indy for providing this level of coverage. Pam Zubeck is a community treasure! It would appear the city thinks we can make up for our losses from pricing development at a loss by doing more of it. Trouble is, if you double a loss, it doesn't become a profit. Just imagine the enormity of the infrastructure backlogs in thirty years if we elect to do it the way we've done the other areas of growth.
Re: “Banning Lewis Ranch amended annexation agreement released”
It really would be a great public service to have the specific changes outlined, with the existing agreement provision set against the proposed amendment provision.
Re: “Banning Lewis Ranch amended annexation agreement released”
It would appear the city and county are competing to see who can be the biggest loser. Growth hasn't been profitable for the city or the citizens in modern history. Very profitable for developers, and this is how they make that happen.
Re: “Banning Lewis Ranch: $49 million in tax revenue over 30 years”
The idea that development of BLR will "add $41 billion to the city's economy" is presented as though that is a benefit. It means nothing. That is $41 billion being spent. It doesn't mean our air is cleaner, our traffic runs more smoothly or the average accounting clerk in town is earning more money or is happier.
Dr. Teresa Woods goes to Denver
Layer your landscapes for better compositions
Denver Teacher Strike
Improve your photography with practice
Manitou Springs Fruitcake Toss
Fine art vacation photographs
Inspiration meet s fabrication for an engineer turned artist
Best wedding pictures of 2018
Photographing Colorado landscapes through your car window
Wild Goose Meeting House flaunts classic cocktail offerings
Contact
Colorado Springs Independent
- 235 S. Nevada Ave.
- Colorado Springs, CO 80903
- (719) 577-4545
The Paper
Re: “Radio Ha Ha to support KCMJ 96.3”
I think your source for this story may not be reliable.
1. KCMJ started streaming in 2014
2.It's been broadcasting for 2.5 years.
3. It's frequency, whenever it IS on the air, is 93.9 FM
Just FYI