Dana Duggan 
Member since May 31, 2013


Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Spotlight on dark money in Colorado Springs city election

Let's see....so, CSF backed Suthers vigorously promoted the Broadmoor Land Exchange, and CSF backed Bagley, Bennett and Strand also backed the Broadmoor Land Exchange which the Gazette Editorial Board also vehemently supported. Pico voted yes after Broadmoor exec Jack Damioli said, "If this land exchange goes through, you have my word going on record that we will live up to each and every one of the obligations we have set forth in this proposal and ensure that a positive vote is recognized accordingly." Now, Pico is getting support. Jill Gaebler voted no, and she is getting lambasted by the Gazette with no money from CSF, and Skorman opposed the land exchange, and he is also getting lambasted by the Gazette and, it appears from this reporting, by relatives of the Gazette leadership. Additionally, the Gazette ran an editorial from Phil Lane of CSF but refused to run an editorial from Greg Walta, co-founder of Together for Colorado Springs? In the words of my favorite Republican, "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power" - Abraham Lincoln

13 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dana Duggan on 03/16/2017 at 9:56 PM

Re: “Colorado Springs parks report shows good value

Hahaha. Good question @Joel. Should have added "in theory" ....

3 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Dana Duggan on 01/13/2017 at 5:44 PM

Re: “Colorado Springs parks report shows good value

@SANDMARC, the invitations were sent by the Parks Department. The meeting itself was also controlled by the Parks Department. It was their meeting, and per a letter signed by Suthers and Bennett, it was their study. Also, there are rules which prohibit gifts to public officials. If they did not pay for the catered event, then that is a gift. These rules exist so that the powerful cannot exert undue influence on public officials, and one entity does not control a city. That is good public policy.

4 likes, 1 dislike
Posted by Dana Duggan on 01/13/2017 at 4:14 PM

Re: “Colorado Springs parks report shows good value

Comical and a big, "Duh!"... is the Broadmoor the new headquarters for the taxpayer funded Parks and Recreation Department? Planning the next chunk of historic parkland they intend to give away while assuming a behemoth liability?

15 likes, 3 dislikes
Posted by Dana Duggan on 01/12/2017 at 5:57 PM

Re: “Save Cheyenne loses bid for ballot measure on Strawberry Fields

You hit the nail on the head regarding the Incline. The people, especially the Incline Friends, are in for a rude awakening. They will have to charge to have a hope to fund the ongoing liabilities and maintenance. The Incline Friends members have been played like a fiddle. So much for unfettered access. Donate to the legal case. www.savecheyenne.org It is our only chance of stopping this nationally precedent setting case to commercilialize our precious parklands. Keep the Incline free and stop Anschutz from buying our historic parkland.

8 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dana Duggan on 12/05/2016 at 5:39 PM

Re: “Battle over Strawberry Fields continues in court and, maybe, at the ballot box

Jim Davies, think you started it: "How can Pam Zubeck still get the details of the exchange wrong? Incredible...", and then proceeded to make a case. The Incline is not mentioned on the petition as the opponents are opposed to commercializing historic parkland. If the City wants to take on that behemoth of a liability, they are free to do so. Clearly, the Bmoor is willing to unload it. Who wouldn't be, from a business cost/benefit analysis? It is undevelopable land which brings great liability risk with it and generates no income....actually, all the animals featured in the change.org petition are, in fact, in Strawberry Fields. Just saw a bear munching on tree ivy a few days ago. It is teeming with wildlife -- it is a corridor which abuts National forest and nearby water sources. Don't recall hearing Muscoco being covered in trash, but Strawberry is NOT as was asserted. The appraisals, which I think is what you call assessments, required 4 open records requests to get, and even the Mayor ended up publicly suggesting the Council focus on total acreage as opposed to value. What? Or, how about the fact that one cannot get a bank loan on Restricted Appraisals -- so much for soundness of that methodology. Let's move on and let the people decide. It is our land.

6 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dana Duggan on 11/04/2016 at 9:43 AM

Re: “Battle over Strawberry Fields continues in court and, maybe, at the ballot box

Jim Davies: The Independent did not erroneously insinuate that apparaisals had been completed by the City in the beginning of the Broadmoor Land Swap. In fact, they clarified that baffling issue which required 4 open records requests to get. The Independent did not take a poll which was taken down when it showed 85% of the city opposed the land swap. Regarding the Incline, the Independent DID question the wisdom of taking on a liability which has cost the City about $5 MILLION dollars over the last 3 years and which has no cost/benefit analysis not to mention an engineering report and which will be an ongoing liability in perpetuity due to the Laws of Physics and Mother Nature. The Independent DID report that the Barr Trail easement was already included in the Crag Land Exchange Act and the Land Swap both. Odd. Surely, you are not opposed to the people having a vote on the fate of their parkland? Denver has had this provision in their City Charter for 61 years...with much more restrictive, general language with no exceptions. Time for Colorado Springs to catch up. Let the people decide.

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Dana Duggan on 11/03/2016 at 2:11 PM

All Comments »


Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation