phaser4500 
Member since Nov 14, 2009


Custom Lists

  • Zip.

Stats

Friends

  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »

Recent Comments

Re: “Board games

-"The mayor notes that since its purchase for $76,500 in 1943, Memorial has never provided a financial return to the city."

That would be because Memorial is a non-profit - why would they return profits to the city? Sorry city council, but The benefits of having Memorial city owned do not come in a monetary form that you can exploit!

-"Utilities and all the other things we get involved in are distracting us from governing the city," Small says.
You mean you want to get rid of the Utilities and Health system that this city obviously wanted city owned - something you knew when you ran for office. If you don't want to be involved in the entities that your citizens voted for, then maybe you should step down?

Or should we continue to point fingers at the only entities within the city that have managed to support themselves through these tough times? We should sell off what remaining assets we possess because our council has failed us? Maybe I'm missing something?

Posted by phaser4500 on 11/29/2009 at 7:01 AM

Re: “Letters

The current tax structure is based off the number of citizens paying taxes within the city. A city infrastructure should not exceed its citizens. If I'm not mistaken the city council made several tax concessions (waived taxes and fees) for developments to build houses and communities within our city that are now under utilized due to the recent lack of growth. The idea behind this was to encourage population growth and increase the number of "taxees". Since this did not turn out as planned, and those communities did not grow; it is now the burden of the current citizens to pay for those now empty and vacant communities.

Anyone who makes fun of the party of "NO," should consider how our recent tax hikes were spent, and should also understand that 2C did not dictate that the increase in taxes be allocated to anything specific (city workers, parks, etc...). Instead we would be giving them the freedom to use those funds any way they chose to balance the budget. Since the city council has so far proven they cannot handle tax increases in a way that pleases the citizens paying those taxes, why should they be trusted with more money?

Maybe if 2C at least specified how the money would be allocated, it would have received a few more votes? Or even better, the city council explain the reasons we’ve had budget shortfalls (bad economy, or whatever), and kind of like tabor, promise to reduce or eliminate the tax increases when they’re no longer necessary to sustain our city’s basic infrastructure.

Posted by phaser4500 on 11/14/2009 at 12:05 AM

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

All content © Copyright 2017, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation