Renaissance (Matthew Herbert)


Comment history

City makes surprise payment on Rock Chalk Park infrastructure fees

The amount they fundraise is less important than the sources of the money, since even "Big spenders" in a local election are only dealing with about $15,000. The sources of that money however do matter, and is of course public record. See for yourself.

December 10, 2014 at 8:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

City makes surprise payment on Rock Chalk Park infrastructure fees

We have reached a point where taxpayer money is spent so freely and carelessly that a commissioner can "forget" to put a $1.09 million item on the agenda. Don't ask for transparency in local government- DEMAND transparency in local government. Have you registered to vote yet? If this doesn't encourage you to, I don't know what would.

December 10, 2014 at 7:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Neighborhood group asking city to slow down on downtown grocery store project; update on city's quest to get Google Fiber-like Internet service

The idea of guaranteeing a $300,000 loan to Wicked is a bad idea on two fronts. First, from an economic perspective, it makes no sense to guarantee any loan to a company that will not allow it's financial records to be evaluated. Step one of ANY loan process is for the underwriters to examine financial records to ensure the stability of the borrower as a means of best guaranteeing loan repayment. Secondly, from a governmental perspective, the job of a city commissioner is to create a level economic playing field for businesses to operate within. Offering a loan guarantee to one private business flies directly in the face of this practice. The reasons to reject are plentiful - the commission simply needs to pick one.

December 9, 2014 at 5:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Bad idea

Thank you. Since I left off the http:// above, the link freaks out when clicked. Here is the correct link

December 4, 2014 at 9:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

LHS teacher, Rock Chalk Park critic files for Lawrence City Commission

not sure why it added a bunch of junk to the end of it when clicked.

December 4, 2014 at 9:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Bad idea

The city commission made the correct decision in not granting this deal to Here@Kansas LLC. A project that cannot stand on it own merits is not a project for the city to dive into. It would have been very simple for the project to scale back ever so slightly and provide adequate parking for the housing they desired to be built. However, the out of town developer behind the project assumed that the commission could be pushed over, having already been granted an 85% tax abatement on the property. Neighbors throughout the community should hold a reasonable expectation of the city that their property will not be turned into a giant parking lot in the name of over-development of an area. KU intentionally overselling their lots has already created enough stress on those roads and neighborhoods. Protecting neighbors in their property rights and fighting against tax abatements are two causes I have pledged to champion and I would love your support in these causes.

December 4, 2014 at 6:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Handmade stationery and gift shop opens downtown; city considering offer for portion of Lawrence Venture Park; builder asks city to waive development fees

what specifically was the context of the concern of the neighbors with regards to the demolition of the property? If the position of the neighbors is to preserve the building as a historic structure (I believe the building was constructed in about 1890), wouldn't the addition constitute a significant enough non-period specific architectural change as to render the building in no way "historic" anymore? If the concern of the neighbors however is that the builder desires to build a duplex which where a single family structure was previously, it would seem that the proposed compromise in no way resolves this underlying issue. I'm really hopeful that the LJW can print the original reasoning behind the change for without it we have a solution without a problem.

December 1, 2014 at 8:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Stand confirmed

When it comes to picking a favorite restaurant, "agreeing to disagree" is perfectly acceptable. When it comes to granting human beings equal protection under the law "agreeing to disagree" ceases to be an option. You either afford a fellow man (or woman) equal protections under the law or you're wrong. You have equal protections under the law to publish such comments undoubtedly, just understand that in this instance you are on the wrong side of history

November 30, 2014 at 8:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Pathetic act

people that have no respect for the property of another have an unbelievable sense of entitlement. Without knowing the individual responsible, it would be of no surprise to me to find that the individual responsible did not have to personally pay for their own car and thus was quick to destroy the property of another. I can remember as a former KU student myself sitting through classes and being able to tell which students in the class were paying their own tuition and which weren't. Those with daddy's checkbook in pocket were quick to read newspapers all throughout class (this was pre-play with cell phone days). Those who worked hard to afford college were much more likely to take the experience seriously.

November 29, 2014 at 8:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal )