Favorite

Politics, politics, and more politics from this week's inbox 

SoapBox

The 2019 City Election is mere weeks away, and after that, the 2020 race everyone will be watching. It's no surprise, then, that this week's Indy inbox is flooded with thoughts from you, the constituents.

Editor's note: The following have been submitted by Indy readers, unedited, un-fact-checked, and presented in whole. Join the conversation in the comment section below, or via email to letters@csindy.com.

Apologize

Mr Mayor,

I was present when Ms Gaebler said that you don’t “care if one more 65-or-older person moves to this city.”

I have subsequently read that you called Ms Gaebler’s words “unfortunate.”

Using the word ‘unfortunate’ is a lot different from using ‘inaccurate’, so your comment comes across as validation that what Ms Gaebler said is true. I find this objectionable.

Ms Gaebler has appropriately apologized publicly for her comment. It would be equally appropriate for you to do likewise.
— Charles Rollman

Age discrimination

It sounds a little bit like age discrimination Ms. Gaebler. Do you not grasp how elitist, pompous and isolated your reasoning regarding the street changes matter sounds? Demographics probably verify that C.S. is a choice destination for many classes of people with or without a one sided, confused, bicycle mandate.
— Gael Bennett

Retirement community

In his response to Jill Gaeblers recent assertion that “The mayor will actually go further and say, I don’t care if one more 65 or older person moves to this city” Mayor Suthers said , “Many of the older folks contacting me think that of us as a retirement community. They don’t seem to understand...”

Wow. Way to win over a burgeoning demographic. I can think of one over 65 member of our community that we should rid ourselves of as soon as possible. He’s a 67 year old politician, born October 18, 1951, and he moved here from Denver.
— Donna Drialo

Dr. Chaps

Saw your piece on Gordon “Dr. Chaps” Klingingschmidt. I may have mis-spelled his name, spell corrector suggests “chitterlings” which is humorous on its own merits.

Anyway, I would suggest that anyone even thinking about voting for chitterlings should go here. Gordon doesn’t make an appearance until about 2:47 into the video which was originally on the Daily Show.

I realize that the Council election is non-partisan, but if someone is looking for a good, decent and fair candidate who operates on an even keel, Wayne Williams is looking for work and he has a terrific track record.
— Tim Haley

Eye of the beholder

Jim Hightower’s article bemoaning the “Uber Rich” rang a bit hollow for me considering he himself has an estimated worth of $2.5 million. Perhaps “uber” is in the eye of the beholder?
— Steven Woodcock

Yes on Issue 1

Vote YES on Issue 1 (Collective Bargaining for All Uniformed Fire Department Employees). Issue 1 is not a Republican, Democrat or Unaffiliated issue. It’s a public safety issue that impacts all of us. According to Colorado Department of Local Affairs, the population of the City of Colorado Springs increased by 46,394 between 2010 (420,714) and 2017 (467,108). Over the same period, the fire department’s alarm volume has increased from 48,000 to 70,000 and the staffing levels are the same as 2008. PlanCOS promotes more growth; yet, the Colorado Springs Fire Department budget has not kept pace thereby impacting staffing levels and equipment. In addition to voluntary overtime of 113,295 hours in 2017, there were 11,019 hours of mandatory overtime to meet our city’s needs. We as a country have paid a lot of lip service to first responders since 9/11, now it’s time to do something that will show our trust and respect for the people who risk their lives for us. By entering into collective bargaining with the city, the firefighters want to have a voice in such things as the number of fighters that respond to emergencies; the equipment and vehicles used for responding to emergencies; and matters related to health and safety of firefighters and residents. When wildfires rage, buildings burn, and traffic accidents and medical emergencies occur, we want the right number of firefighters to be on the scene promptly, with the right training, experience and equipment. Vote YES on Issue 1.
— Mary J. Talbott

Breaking the stalemate

This apparent contradiction is a way for Democrats to vote money for border security without voting any new dollars for a barrier and The President being able to claim that he has secured more money for a barrier on the southern border.

Part 1: Approve the $1.3 billion requested by the President and approved by the 2018 Senate and the 2019 House for border security as originally asked for in this year’s budget request.

Part 2: Include $1.6 (or more) in new money for port-of-entry security. The President in his 1/19/19 speech asked for $800m for humanitarian & $805m for drug detection and border patrol agents and 75 new judges and the Democrats have already proposed at least $1 billion for similar port-of-entry security spending.

Part 3: The package includes a provision where up to 50% of the new port-of-entry security dollars (from part 2) can be reallocated by the President when the following three conditions have been met: 1) The unspent 40% from the 2017 budget for border security becomes obligated as intended. 2) The 2,000+ unfilled border patrol agent vacancies mandated by the previous Congress are filled with trained border patrol agents for the southern border. 3) The 75 new immigration judges and half of the 2,750 additional border patrol agents (requested in part 2) are filled by qualified personnel for port-of-entry security.

The Dems would be voting for 100% of the part 2 monies going only to port-of-entry security and just the President (not Congress) would be reallocating these funds for a barrier when and if the three condition have been met. These three conditions address the Dem’s concerns of why new money should be approved when past allocation for fencing has not been spent and border patrol agent numbers have not yet been achieved even when spending hundreds of million on recruitment.

The Republicans and the President would be voting for border security money with a significant amount of the part 2 monies being secured for barrier fencing when the three conditions have been met.

— Rock Goldberg

Border drones

Why hasn’t putting a few satellites with heat detecting cameras, and other detection devices directly over the border to monitor all activity been offered as a solution? We have seen that the satellites can be zoomed to read license plates. They can be used to detect heat patterns of people, hiding, unseen by human eyes.

Guards can be dispatched to wherever signs of people sneaking into the country are seen. A wall will be a major expense that won’t be an effective deterrent, whereas the satellites would orbit for years.

While satellites are being built, set up drone operators, flying drones, equipped with heat detection cameras, over the border. The military already has remote drone operators, thousands of miles away from actual drones. Border drones will create good paying jobs for operators.
This just seems to be too simplistic a solution to not be being considered; what am I missing?
— Mark Stahl

Smell the shit

He said he would build a wall and Mexico would pay for it. He forgets the and part of that statement. I would have thought that most people would know better! Mexico was never going to pay for a wall!! Do you not think that He knew they wouldn’t pay for it? Trumps base needs to wake up and smell the shit that is going on. I commend Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer for standing their ground. Don’t point the blame for this situation to them or the Democrats. That is what Trump is hoping with his rhetoric; hoping the Democrats will be blamed for this stalemate and its effects on the people of this country. It is HE that has created this hardship!! It is HE that caused the shutdown of the government and holding individuals of this country hostage until he gets his way. Isn’t that extortion!?! We don’t need a wall; we need to look at the individual problems that correlate to this border and allocate funds to address those issues; NOT spend 5 or 7 billion dollars to erect a wall.

He has managed to ruin practically every relationship that was built with other countries. Let’s give him a standing ovation for that! He has managed to cause more division between nationalities within this country. Let’s give him a standing ovation for that! When he leads this country into civil unrest; he will applaud himself! I hope you know I am being facetious in saying … give him a standing ovation. He has done more to degenerate this nation and its values than to build it!!
We must help each other through this crisis. If you know someone being affected by this transgression give them a helping hand in any way you can… food, money, emotional support. We, the people, need to stand up for liberty and justice for all!!
— Johanna Stiles

Comments (4)

Showing 1-4 of 4

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-4 of 4

Add a comment

All content © Copyright 2019, The Colorado Springs Independent

Website powered by Foundation