June 19, 2014 Updated: June 19, 2014 at 8:35 am
5th Congressional District primary
We deserve a congressman who represents our interests and understands our needs. Bentley Rayburn's opponent attacks him for not having a voting record - something only a career politician would find important. Bentley Rayburn has a record: as a leader in the military, a leader in education and a leader in our community. We are best represented by a veteran and a leader than by a politician. It is time we elect a true leader. That leader is Bentley Rayburn.
Nathan Paisley, Colorado Springs
Pay the piper or dance for free?
If the IRS audits your return, and you can't produce a receipt from four years ago, you have to pay the piper. But apparently, if you're former IRS Exempt Organizations Unit director Lois Lerner, and the IRS "loses" two years of emails, you get to dance for free.
Gordon Beck, Security
Condemning City for Champions
The editorial of June 17 by The Gazette champions the rights of property owners. This seems like a contradiction to the Gazette's position on the proposal for the City for Champions. As I understand the proposal for the City for Champions, it would encompass the area southwest of downtown Colorado Springs business district. This area has some private business owners who do not want to sell their properties. It would be necessary to condemn those properties. Condemnation of property is used in the case of public safety and welfare. I do not see a safety issue and do see weak financial reasons for the proposed City for Champions. Under these circumstances I would never be for condemning properties to make way for the City for Champions.
William F. Esch, Colorado Springs
We just want to play ball
My two sons, aged 7 and 9, play in a summer baseball league. Recently, while practicing at a District 20 elementary school ball field, their team was kicked out by District 20 security. The team practiced at this location for weeks prior, without incident. Baseball leagues like these are staffed and coached by volunteers. Sponsors help with the expenses of securing quality equipment and fields for games. The people involved are pillars of the community. But apparently, taxpayer-funded institutions such as District 20, aren't keen on partnering with the community to keep kids healthy, active and out of trouble. I challenge anyone representing District 20 to provide a good reason why the public, especially an organized youth baseball team, can't use the district's unfenced and unlocked park facilities.
Liability and safety concerns are red herrings, as elementary school playgrounds are as dangerous, if not more so, than baseball fields, and I don't recall the last time local kids were kicked off the swing sets by school security. I was also taken aback at the manner in which the security official approached the situation. He drove his District 20 security SUV onto the outfield (seemingly oblivious to the potential of damaging sprinkler heads and other irrigation equipment) as if to make a show of his authority and of the urgency in which the team must be removed from the field. It seems like the institutions that have taken it upon themselves to aid in the upbringing of our children would be more open to sharing with the very same children, what we as taxpayers have given them.
Joel Watts, Colorado Springs
Is this a dysfunctional city?
This is a familiar scenario. A conservative politician campaigns on a platform of "No new taxes," then, once becoming part of the system, learns that the organization really does need more money. Remember President George H.W. Bush?
Do we live in a dysfunctional city? There is much wealth in Colorado Springs. We certainly can afford to keep up with city necessities such as stormwater drainage, bridges, streets, parks, and mass transportation. This is somewhat like having neighbors who refuse to paint their houses or take care of their lawns.
Who would want to bring his or her business to a dysfunctional city?
James Schneiter, Colorado Springs
A costly experience
In light of recent hailstorms, and contractors soliciting via phone, walk-ups, and mailers, we would like to warn homeowners of potential problems with roofing contractors.
After a hailstorm last August, we signed a contract for a new roof with the "final contract price of $13,512." The contract also contained the language, "(Contractor) has the right of first refusal on any approved work awarded by the customer's insurance company. All approved work shall be amended to this contract."
The contractor then contacted our insurance adjuster to approve more work, and amended our original contract to a $77K roof and full-house window replacement. In addition, we assumed this same licensed roofing contractor would be doing the roof work. Instead, he subcontracted the work to another roofer and billed us a 20% profit/overhead fee (again, after the above-mentioned negotiated contract price.)
When we decided to not replace the windows, and refused to pay the 20 percent fee, the contractor sued. As fighting this in court would have been costly, we took our attorney's advice and settled out of court.
We advise you carefully consider with whom you contract your hailstorm repairs.
Scott & Brenda Greening, Colorado Springs