Letters - Tuesday

City needs new ideas for taxes

Mayor Lionel Rivera's State of the City states "something as drastic as the complete shuttering of the Parks Department before the citizens . . . realize what a bad law TABOR is."

He's wrong. TABOR is probably the only reason Colorado and this city are not in worse shape. Every time that voters have been presented with a reasonable plan, they have responded by passing tax increases.

Council should provide the voters a proposal this November to fix the current funding problem. The sales tax needs to be reduced and replaced with property taxes that are less volatile. The dollar-for-dollar trade out should be based on tax receipts of 2005 or another year prior to the shrinking of the local economy. Our ultimate goal should be the elimination of local sales taxes so local merchants can compete against merchants just outside the city limits and Amazon.

The city will have to give something to ensure passage of such a ballot issue. I suggest the loophole of allowing fees to be increased or created without a vote be that trade-off.

Tim Haley, Colorado Springs

It's time for plus-1 benefits

It seems appropriate that a few of the points related to city benefits should be cited for further discussion.

I strongly agree with the last paragraph of the June 5 Our View, "Plus one city benefits," that this is a common-sense issue of compensation fairness, and nothing more.

The comment by Councilwoman Jan Martin, "I think it's important for this city to demonstrate to the community that we believe that everybody is equal when it comes to benefits from the city," should be blatantly obvious and accepted by the city authorities.

Certainly this should be understood to include the homosexual community.

Councilman Scott Hente focused on the benefits to businesses looking to locate in the city but ignored the basic goal of fairness to the community. His short-sighted attitude that any changes in the operation of the city are relevant only to the business component of Colorado Springs is skewed beyond reason. Note his comment, "This is not so much a social issue with me as it is a business issue." A person with this philosophy should not serve on the City Council.

And finally, Mayor Lionel Rivera, who has a history of standing against same-sex health care benefits, raises the argument of additional costs of the Plus-1 plan, a concern not raised for the health plan which is now in place.

The leadership in our city is overly focused on financial issues rather than on equality and fairness issues purported to be a major positive characteristic of our community.

Jerald L. Connelly, Colorado Springs

Too easy to fool city officials

Regarding Barry Noreen's June 4 column, "Plus one: Not just for same-sex partners," all I can say is, what a great idea. I want to be a city employee and I'll even pay my own salary. I just need that "plus-one" insurance.

You see, if I were single, I'd sell a "plus one" partnership to the highest bidder; $5,000 per month sounds reasonable for someone draining their estate on health care costs.

But even being married, I cannot imagine an instance where it wouldn't be much more beneficial to purchase private insurance for my healthy wife and take on a paying plus-one partner.

As for our naive city's managers, they'll never see it coming.

Ed Covney, Colorado Springs

Warning about Hollywood science

Thanks to The Gazette for having the nerve to present some true facts on the global warming nonsense perpetrated by Al Gore (a lawyer) and Bob Woodruff (a mainstream journalist) and all those scientists who jumped on the bandwagon without an extensive analysis of the method for collecting the data that was used ("Global warming or faulty data," Our View, June 2; "‘Earth 2100' great for a good laugh," Our View, June 4).

As a Ph.D. in cloud physics who studied weather modification under a distinguished professor and researcher at the University of Denver, I do have some qualifications to discuss the issue. One thing I learned (and even a basic researcher should know) is to make sure that all bases are covered when collecting data. If the collection method is suspect, then any simulations generated from such data are suspect.

Once Hollywood (with its penchant for jumping up in arms over any issue that brings publicity) jumped on board, I recognized that more real scrutiny was needed. Too bad our mainstream journalists did not dig deeply into the issue before their gloom and doom messages reached the public.

Thanks again, to The Gazette for at least looking at some real facts. Keep up the good work.

Robert C. Schaller, Ph.D., Colorado Springs

Fake grass won't work in parks

On its face, artificial turf sounds like a good solution to making our parks green year-round. What many people don't know is that rubber particles are used to make the turf look natural. Because of that, the parks would become off-limits to people with latex allergies and their families. Latex allergies are common enough that they must be reported with drug and food allergies.

I could keep myself, my children, and grandchildren safe by simply staying away from the park. Our level of reaction is mild to mid-level. Others wouldn't be able to be near the parks. I know one lady who cannot be in the same room with latex balloons because her allergic reaction is so intense that it could kill her.

Artificial turf was a good idea to broach, but should be dropped as a solution.

Merrie Rancourt, Colorado Springs