Columns » Letters

Old North End streets, MMJ plant limits, land swap, and more



Editor, 235 S. Nevada Ave., CS, CO 80903 • email:

If your comments are mailed or emailed to us, we'll consider them for publication — unless you request otherwise.

Please include your name, city of residence and a daytime phone number for verification.

To ensure a diversity of topics and viewpoints in print, the Independent gives priority to letters that are 300 words or fewer. We reserve the right to shorten longer letters, and to edit all letters for clarity and factual accuracy. Please include your name and city of residence with any submission.

Narrowing streets

In mid-July 2015, Boulder replaced two vehicle lanes on Folsom Street with wider, buffered bicycle lanes and a single vehicle lane in each direction.

By Sept. 24, city staff had recommended and city council had voted to roll back the right-sizing of Folsom Street, citing a "steady beat of opposition" from the public.

Councilor Lisa Morzel said, "Never in my life have I seen so much adverse reaction to something the council had done. I felt that by keeping this in the way it was designed, it was really hurting bicycle safety and progress for bicycle safety in this community."

Boulder's plan projected "right-sizing" four streets. Within a week of opening the "right-sized" Folsom Street, Boulder announced the suspension of plans to "right-size" the other three streets.

Has Old North End, Colorado College, Downtown Partnership or our City Council consulted with Boulder authorities about their problems, and considered how much adverse reaction might be expected to the latest efforts to reduce ease of access to downtown Colorado Springs? Or shall we continue to operate as if the experience of others is of no value?

— Malcolm McCollum

Colorado Springs

Growing pains

The comment by DEA agent Tim Scott likening "home grows to meth labs" and "Colorado to Afghanistan" is the epitome of arrogance and ignorance. Then he has the audacity to add, "There are no good citizens in these homes."

This is a perfect example of our government's ignorance and old-school thinking.

That a professional agent would think such archaic thoughts, let alone express them in public, is a testament to the leaders of the failed war on drugs and the billions upon billions we waste every year pursuing innocent citizens for nothing more than growing a plant that provides relief for our loved ones.

My wife has MS. I grow her meds so I can control the purity of her medication.

We have raised three wonderful children, we attend church every Sunday, both my sons serve our country in the Navy and we volunteer in the community. But according to Scott, that behavior doesn't qualify as being a "good citizen."

Thank you, Nat Stein and the Independent for again exposing the stupidity that we as "no good citizens" are up against.

Due to my distrust of our government and agents like Mr. Scott, my name is...

— Mr. Anonymous

(Editor's note: We rarely publish letters without naming the author, making exceptions only for potential legal or personal security issues, as in this case.)

Cruz and Cory

Indeed, it is no surprise that Sen. Cory Gardner of Colorado has endorsed Ted Cruz. If no one understands this — let me explain some simple facts.

Gardner is simply trying to curry favor with the hedge fund and Texas big-oil backers of Cruz, so he can tap into the money stream from both sources. Gardner is already owned lock, stock and barrel (pun intended) and tapped into the Koch brothers and big oil, and is simply "hedging his bet" (also pun intended)!

Mr. Gardner does not care one iota about the people in either his former congressional district or Colorado. For example, I sent an email to his office a few weeks ago regarding the story on 60 Minutes as to how insurance companies do not pay legal and legitimate beneficiaries of insurance policies, and unlike inquiries to Sen. Michael Bennet's office, I have not even received a "stock reply" — probably — like my [sic] congressman, Doug Lamborn, Gardner checks the voter registration lists and does not reply to Democrats or Independents! Shame on you, Mr. Gardner!

— James M. Hesser

Colorado Springs

The real poop

To Timothy Goodwin, "Crappy reality": Does a bear shit in the woods? That's a common saying. Poop is natural and at times acts as a fertilizer for many plants and also food for insects. Are you upset when a deer shits on a trail? How about a bunny?

Far from that point, you said, "The Broadmoor will do a lot better job," concerning what? Commercializing a natural place like they did Seven Falls? Personally I feel as if they are taking over Colorado Springs. Making a place for the "rich" and excluding the poor. Or should I say the actual residents of Colorado Springs. Only to benefit themselves and not our community. Like most instances in life, money doesn't solve everything.

— Alyssa Newhouse

Colorado Springs

Slip-sliding away

I was prompted by the recent Gazette article about landslides to pull out a copy of a 2003 map of landslide-susceptible areas. After I finished making sure that I live away from any landslide risk, I started looking at other areas.

One is the parcel owned by The Broadmoor adjacent to Bear Creek Park. The area just south of Bear Creek Park on the east side of Cresta is significantly susceptible to landslide. It looks to me like at least part of The Broadmoor's parcel is in an area at risk for landslides. (See "Hiking the paper trail.)

I don't have an exact location or shape of that parcel, so this deserves verification. I wonder how this impacts the value of that property?

I would think it would be very risky to build high-density housing on, or even adjacent to, a landslide-susceptible area.

So, perhaps the Broadmoor lot is less valuable than advertised.

— Charles Rollman

Colorado Springs

Inevitable outcome?

Railroading: To rush or push through quickly in order to prevent careful consideration," according to Webster, but to one critic "it's like being run over by a fast-moving train." Both aptly describe the proposed Strawberry Fields land swap.

Over the years residents assumed those majestic canyon walls rising just outside town had been preserved long ago as a public park, open to residents and visitors alike, forever. The original deed, obtained when the land was purchased by citizens and dedicated as a park in 1887, did indeed contain a provision that it should never be sold. The partners in the current deal are getting around that restriction by maintaining the deal is a "swap" not sale.

While several "community meetings" have drawn hundreds in opposition, many have come away saying neither the city nor the hotel has been forthcoming with details about how the property would be used, specifically the portion that would become exclusive venues for guest amenities requiring catering and shuttle traffic. Site plans have not been provided; appraisals are conflicting and incomplete.

Despite these unanswered questions, and 5,000-plus signatures on an online petition, the deal is on track for approval — recommended by the Parks Advisory Board — and heading toward the May 24 showdown with City Council which, by all accounts, will close the deal.

This would leave hanging the essential question: How can you as public officials vote to swap/trade/barter/whatever land that isn't yours? Our public parks belong to all of us and cannot be dispensed with in any form without our permission!

— Roberta McIntyre

Colorado Springs

Add a comment

Clicky Quantcast