Comments on: City can’t find data used to justify USOC deal

By: FactFinder

FactFinder — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 01:34:47 +0000

What? My “honest” city government “lost” documents and information pertinent to a decision to disburse $53,000,000 in public funds to a project to subsidize the USOC with luxury office space? With no supporting documents?

Well, I must say I am just stunned.

If the economic projections Bamberger made or didn’t make (take your pick) turn out to be “wildly optimistic” do you suppose he will refund the fee he took or didn’t take, (take your pick)?

It’s kinda like having integrity, or not having integrity, take your pick.

By: John Whitten

John Whitten — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:01:46 +0000

Opinions are like noses and crazy family members: everybody has one.

At the end of the day, Mr Bamberger knows who signs the checks, so the information is going to be what the city , or the mayor, or the council, or all of the above, want. The guy form Texas A&M is right…. the information will support a particular political position.

The city conveniently can’t find the supporting data…maybe somebody better check Heimleichers moving boxes before he leaves town…….

And, once again, the mayor is not talking.

Streeter has finally gone public with what some of us have suspected all along: that she has an agenda that may include moving the USOC out of here, to Chicago or someplace else supported by her friends and the other Board members that engineered her appointment…..and the city is playing right into her plan…..if any part of this deal fails, she can move the USOC and it’ll look like its the city’s fault……and, unfortunately, she’d be mostly right……….

Jan Martin has apparently hitched her political star to the mill levy increase. She is absolutekly right to push for it….the town needs it, the issues it address’s (albeit only partially) have been coming for a long time, way before the USOC deal. Even the press is on board……

But, whether we like it or not, the political fallout from the USOC debacle will carry over to election day. The sad reality may be:

-The mill levy won’t pass because council can’t be trusted to do the right thing with the money;
-If Badboy Bruces initiative has any chance, it’s because council can’t be trusted to do the right thing with the money;
-Candidates for city council may tell you that they should be elected because the current council can’t be trusted to do the right thing with the money……

And when police and fireman are being laid off, there’s no money for basic city services, and downtown Tejon Street looks like a war zone, its hard not to believe it…….

Its all about credability…real or perceived…..one small step toward regaining credability would be to have a couple of other council people join Heimlicher in the resignation parade……

By: Sean Paige

Sean Paige — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 02:24:25 +0000

Just one more thing, John. You cite a “Cato Foundation” study in this story but I’m unaware of such an organization. There is a libertarian think tank in Washington called the “Cato Institute.” Maybe that’s what you meant. You probably got it mixed-up with the Heritage Foundation, which is conservative. No biggie. It’s a mistake any newsie could make. I know the right-of-center world in terra incognito to most media types, but just call me next time you stray into such unfamiliar territory. I’m there to help sort it out for you, if you ever need me to. Solid story, otherwise.

By: ES

ES — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:46:59 +0000

in my 30 or so years as an adult, I’ve lived in big cities and small, and read the newspapers in all of them. The main difference between, say, the newspaper of Artesia, New Mexico, and that of Seatlle, Washington, wasn’t so much the political point of view – it was the lack of blind boosterism in the latter. What distinguishes a real, grown-up newspaper, it seems to me, from an advertising rag, is the motivation and skill on the part of its reporters and editors to pursue information, wherever it might lead. In that sense the BJ is an actual newspaper – and, unfortunately, the daily of record, in Colorado Springs, is sometimes lacking.
Besides. You don’t have to be a part of the CSBJ to have substantial reservations about the deal the city made with the USOC – just walk down the street and ask your middle-class neighbor.

By: James A Speer

James A Speer — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 21:26:24 +0000

It’s hard for me to figure out what John’s angle is in this story and the recent series on this topic by CSBJ?

1. Is it to provide a critical voice in the face of the Gazette’s easy endorsement of the Council’s action to retain the OSOC?

2. Is it to defeat the retention of the USOC? If so, why?

3. Is there serious conviction on the part of Hazelhurst and CSBJ that retaining the USOC in the manner in which the Council has proceeded will have a negative economic impact on the city? If so, what is the basis for that certainty? If the base data for the Bamburger report is missing or unavailable, is there other data that John and the CSBJ are using to justify their opposition?

4. Is the purpose simply to require a public accounting of the basis on which the Council has made its decisoin?

I have enormous respect for John Hazelhurst’s work and I like him personally. And I am pleased that CSBJ provides and alternative voice on important public questions, but it is beginning to feel like the CSBJ is just playing the role of the spoiler in a very high stakes game for the economic future of Colorado Springs.
-Jim Speer

By: owleye

owleye — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:33:11 +0000

I’d like a Bammer on the costs to this community’s tax base because of ALL the real estate owned by non-profits in this town. Of the total leaseable square feet in the county, what is the ratio of payors to non-payors. How does that compare with similar-sized communities? What is a reasonable percentage for our community to absorb — what can our public treasury afford to give away. What do we taxpayors get in return? Why is an office building, now on the tax roll (though apparently delinquent), more valuable to our community when it is removed from it? I get the cache of Michael Phelps swimming a few laps at the OTC; cool to know Apollo and that sweet soul patch is spinning some turns on the World Arena ice. Are a bunch of pencil-pushing bureaucrats really that important to our community’s self-esteem to be brusing ourselves in this fashion? Somebody, please, make this stop …

By: Sean Paige

Sean Paige — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 19:52:32 +0000

More good reporting by Hazlehurst. Kudos, John. Would have been nice to see this brought forward before the second deal was approved. But given that the city moved from announcement to approval in just a week, there really wasn’t time for this sort of in-depth analysis.

Another point worth making is that the Bamberger estimates (I believe) take into account the executive offices and training center, though no one ever said the training center was in danger of leaving town. I assume the economic impact of having a number of USOC top execs decamp to some other city would be small, relative to the whole. But that point was consistently ignored or glossed over by the cheerleaders. This is obviously an inflated estimate, done as part of a sales job. But as anyone who sat through the one town hall meeting on USOC understood, most on this City Council had the rubber stamp at the ready and weren’t interested in picking nits.

Here’s more of my take on the issue: http://www.locallibertyonline.org/paige_blog.php?blogid=1562.

Thanks

By: RJF

RJF — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:49:03 +0000

I have read Bamberger’s Reports and find them to be “less than insightful.” PROVE the so-called $11 million economic impact of the State Games! It has to include “pass along” dollars with multipliers of AT LEAST two or three. No way that glorified track meet with 65-70% of the participants coming from the Front Range could even come close to generating $11 million in a seven day time period.