en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/3869179 Comments by c152driver http://www.timescall.com/news/colorado-flood/ci_24217615/repair-plans-weld-county-roads-1-and-7#IDComment728330315 "Weld County Commissioner Doug Rademacher said that section of the road's maintenance is up to Boulder County and that he had not heard of any outreach." Oh great. Are Weld and Boulder counties going to fight over who fixes CR 1? This seems like more than a maintenance issue. Considering the importance of this road, it's disappointing that these two counties apparently haven't even managed to talk to each other about it yet. Wed, 2 Oct 2013 02:22:40 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/news/colorado-flood/ci_24217615/repair-plans-weld-county-roads-1-and-7#IDComment728330315 http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24064601/cdot-nearing-review-i-25-toll-lane-near#IDComment718445327 I'm all for managed lanes, but what kills this deal for me is converting existing lanes to managed lanes. Also, I'm sure managed lanes reduce congestion when ADDED to a highway, but what about when an existing lane is converted? That's a subtle but important distinction. I appreciate that the highway funding system is broken and that there aren't any easy choices. Unlike you, I think this idea in particular stinks enough to put it out on the curb for trash collection. Thu, 12 Sep 2013 01:09:09 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24064601/cdot-nearing-review-i-25-toll-lane-near#IDComment718445327 http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24064601/cdot-nearing-review-i-25-toll-lane-near#IDComment718342744 Thanks for the information and link, Katie. I had heard about plans for extending the toll lane on I-25 further north out of Denver. However, it was my understanding (perhaps incorrect) that this would be a new lane. I can support that. What I can't support is cannibalizing an existing toll-free lane and turning it into a tolled lane. That's a huge step backward. Can you confirm that were this proposal to proceed as described in this article that we would go from having three toll-free lanes in each direction between Longmont and Denver to two toll-free lanes? If so, what benefits would a Longmont resident who commutes to Denver see over the current arrangement? I'm not a traffic engineer, but I suspect that going from three to two toll-free lanes will actually increase congestion. The cynic in me suspects that this is the ultimate goal. Make the free lanes more congested and drive traffic to the tolled lane. Wed, 11 Sep 2013 21:04:52 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24064601/cdot-nearing-review-i-25-toll-lane-near#IDComment718342744 http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24064601/cdot-nearing-review-i-25-toll-lane-near#IDComment718149529 Also, I wish there were a link to more details about this proposal. Will they put a barrier between the tolled lane and the regular lanes? If so, where will the access points be? If not, how will they expect to enforce the tolls? I question how well this proposal has been thought through. Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:24:25 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24064601/cdot-nearing-review-i-25-toll-lane-near#IDComment718149529 http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24064601/cdot-nearing-review-i-25-toll-lane-near#IDComment718140881 It makes sense that Longmont would weigh in, considering how many people use I-25 to commute to or from Longmont. What doesn't make sense to me is why our city council would support giving up a portion of the highway we've already paid for and essentially reducing capacity on a highway that takes visitors and commuters to and from Longmont. Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:05:53 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24064601/cdot-nearing-review-i-25-toll-lane-near#IDComment718140881 http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24064601/cdot-nearing-review-i-25-toll-lane-near#IDComment718138730 I agree. Increasing the gas tax would be a much simpler and cleaner solution instead of these creatively annoying stop-gap measures. Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:01:23 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24064601/cdot-nearing-review-i-25-toll-lane-near#IDComment718138730 http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24064601/cdot-nearing-review-i-25-toll-lane-near#IDComment718138143 I can't support this measure. This is taking away a portion of highway already funded with our tax dollars and turning it into a toll road. I'd support a tolled lane from Highway 66 to Fort Collins if that's what it takes to get it built, but not converting existing lanes into toll lanes. It seems like the north metro is getting the short end of the stick again and I'm surprised and disappointed that our city council is supporting this effort. Wed, 11 Sep 2013 14:00:11 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/longmont-local-news/ci_24064601/cdot-nearing-review-i-25-toll-lane-near#IDComment718138143 http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_20315563/pilot-longmont-crash-didnt-see-other-plane#IDComment331919680 If you don't want noise or lights anywhere near your home, I'm afraid you're living in the wrong area. This area is no longer rural and is part of a rapidly growing urbanized area. Sometimes I don't like the noise that motorcycles make, bicyclists can irritate me from time to time, and there are various other annoyances that come with living in a populated area. But I'm not going to suggest that these people shouldn't be allowed to do their activities. The wide range of activities we're all free to partake in is one of the great things about where we live. If you moved to the middle of nowhere, I'm sure you'd find other things to complain about, such as agricultural smells and limited services. Life involves choices and compromise. Be careful when you want to restrict someone's activities. One day people might come after something you cherish. Thu, 5 Apr 2012 02:00:48 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_20315563/pilot-longmont-crash-didnt-see-other-plane#IDComment331919680 http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_20315563/pilot-longmont-crash-didnt-see-other-plane#IDComment331587000 How many bystanders have been killed / injured by aircraft vs cars in Longmont during the past, say, 10 years? Plane crashes get so much attention because they're relatively rare. If you're worried about someone getting injured or killed, you should be far more worried about cars. Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:30:59 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_20315563/pilot-longmont-crash-didnt-see-other-plane#IDComment331587000 http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_20315563/pilot-longmont-crash-didnt-see-other-plane#IDComment331582898 Most light aircraft don't have any sort of a black box. 7000 feet is about 2000 feet above the ground. It seems clear to me that the 200 feet / minute descent rate she stated was probably the best she could do. In other words, the aircraft at that point was unable to maintain level flight. Wed, 4 Apr 2012 15:23:46 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_20315563/pilot-longmont-crash-didnt-see-other-plane#IDComment331582898 http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_19946469#IDComment294458338 Because your ancestors were fluent English speakers when they arrived in the US, right? Fri, 17 Feb 2012 03:14:35 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_19946469#IDComment294458338 http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_19923066#IDComment288257320 Man, I didn't realize the line between right and wrong on this issue was so fine. Can you honestly tell me if there wasn't a list of private individuals who support marriage equality, you would have been okay with Mayor Coombs putting himself on the Mayor's list? Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:44:20 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_19923066#IDComment288257320 http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_19923066#IDComment288254014 I agree. Oddly, those who were busy criticizing Coombs are not criticizing Witt. That only makes it more clear that it was about the gay marriage issue and one's political leanings all along. Thu, 9 Feb 2012 21:38:53 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/news/longmont-local-news/ci_19923066#IDComment288254014 http://www.timescall.com/opinion/editorial/ci_19905071#IDComment286672289 So if I run into the mayor and ask him "Mr. Mayor, what's your position on issue x" he must reply, "As mayor of Longmont, I cannot take a public position on an issue until the city council votes on it." or perhaps going forward, if anyone asks him to state his position on an issue, he may do so as long as he ends every position statement with a disclaimer such as "The preceding position is mine alone and does not necessarily represent the position of the citizens of Longmont or the city council". That absurdity is what many of you seem to be proposing. The onus is on those who think the mayor breached protocol to point out a single published statement that indicates that the mayor's position on this issue was clearly represented as the city's official position. Wed, 8 Feb 2012 01:50:00 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/opinion/editorial/ci_19905071#IDComment286672289 http://www.timescall.com/opinion/editorial/ci_19905071#IDComment286512224 The editorial takes issue that the petition states "Mayors who sign on will employ tailored strategies for making the case for the freedom to marry in their communities" Is this editorial arguing that the mayor shouldn't be making the case for positions he believes in? I still don't understand the argument that the mayor is not supposed to take any position on any issue, or advocate for a position, without the consent of the council or citizens. That's ludicrous. As a member of the city council, I want him to have positions on issues, whether I agree with his positions or not. While I couldn't disagree with this editorial more, I am actually glad to see a TC editorial take a solid position on an issue. Most of the editorials seem to be purposefully written not to offend anyone on either side of the issue, or tackle completely uncontroversial issues such as "Which Super Bowl game is it again", "Sears store will be missed in Longmont", and "Puppies are cute". I might have made one of those up. Tue, 7 Feb 2012 21:23:20 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/opinion/editorial/ci_19905071#IDComment286512224 http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_19828075#IDComment276059222 I would express my disappointment in the mayor's position, but I wouldn't run around pretending that the debate is about whether the mayor is allowed to have an opinion on issues. Same question to you then. If the mayor put himself on the list of "Mayors Against Cyber-bullying" I doubt you would be here complaining. Be honest with yourself. What is your position on gay marriage? We can disagree on the issue but let's stop trying to use some other proxy issue. Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:13:29 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_19828075#IDComment276059222 http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_19828075#IDComment275464840 Let's try a logical exercise. Dennis Coombs is a mayor. Dennis Coombs supports marriage equality. Therefore, Dennis Coombs is a mayor that supports marriage equality. Nothing more. How do you make the logical leap that his position on the issue is an official position on behalf of the city? If he had put the City of Longmont on a list of cities that support marriage equality, you might have a point, but that's not what he did at all. Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:20:57 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_19828075#IDComment275464840 http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_19828075#IDComment275444754 Hats off to Mayor Coombs. This was a list of *mayors* who support marriage equality. It was not a list of cities or city councils which support marriage equality. Therefore, I don't think he's out of line at all. If this were the 1950's we'd be having the same debate about interracial marriage. I guess we shouldn't be surprised that bigotry is still alive and well. Fri, 27 Jan 2012 00:48:43 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/news/ci_19828075#IDComment275444754 http://www.timescall.com/news/elections/ci_19241320#IDComment215961097 What did we just pass? We returned the situation to the status quo that existed before the telecom lobby pushed through a state law in 2005 that prohibited cities from using their infrastructure as they wish. Even if you think it is a bad idea for a municipality to get involved in the telecom business, you should have supported 2A unless you think every decision a city makes should have to be put to the voters. If the city decides that there is no fiscally responsible way to put the existing fiber optic network to greater use, that's fine. But it is ridiculous that the city had to put this to the voters in the first place. Wed, 2 Nov 2011 20:48:28 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/news/elections/ci_19241320#IDComment215961097 http://www.timescall.com/opinion/editorial/ci_19240498#IDComment215837972 I agree with you to a large degree, but I think an opportunity was missed a few years back when there was a pretty solid plan for putting a new movie theater on the site. In my mind, that's one big unaddressed need in Longmont. I think the increased traffic a new theater could have brought would have at least slowed the decline of the area and could have provided a stepping stone to bigger and better things. Wed, 2 Nov 2011 15:20:19 +0000 http://www.timescall.com/opinion/editorial/ci_19240498#IDComment215837972