Advertisement

acornwebworks (Kendall Simmons)

Follow

Comment history

Wicked Broadband pulls request for $300,000 loan guarantee

I'm not sure why you think "Montgomery may just prove to be a tad bit smarter than the commission" since, after all these years...and lost lawsuits and IRS problems...he apparently *still* can't get a bank loan without a guarantor.

Citywide 1 GB fiber *will* be a good thing for Lawrence. But should we believe that Montgomery should be our first choice for making it happen??? I think we should pass on believing *that*.

January 29, 2015 at 9:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kobach pushing bills to limit ballot withdrawals and to allow straight-party voting

We constantly hear complaints out of Topeka about "the Feds" having too much power, yet those same folks want to take all the power from our local government...our communities...and embed it at the State level. So it's not like they're against "centralized power". They just want the power centralized in THEIR hands.

There *are* times that local rule should override so-called "home rule"...and I think this is one of them. Indeed, I wonder how many folks realize that "home rule" doesn't mean that local communities get to rule but, rather, that the State does...and that the State is currently trying to take even more power away from us, from our towns, from our communities.

My god. Think about it. Partisan SCHOOL BOARDS??? In communities of only a few hundred people??? Why on earth would ANYONE think that the State should be able to, much less actually tell, Kansas communities that their SCHOOL BOARDS have to be chosen based on partisan politics?? That's insane.

These are OUR local schools. These are OUR friends and neighbors running for the school board. They are supposed to be responsible to *us*...FOR OUR KIDS...not to some political party.

January 29, 2015 at 8:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kobach pushing bills to limit ballot withdrawals and to allow straight-party voting

What on earth is "archaic" about the Kansas system of voting for individual candidates???

And "streamlined"??? Really??? It took me just a couple of minutes MAX to fill in my choices on the last ballot because I'd paid attention to the candidates and voted accordingly.

I do admit that I left two blanks...both for judges whose performance I was unfamiliar with.

Voting by party is LAZY voting....and too many voters are lazy as it is.

Plus, like it or not, all candidates for any one party are not automatically the best candidate for a particular position.

Yes, I realize that SUPPOSEDLY Kansans would be able to mark their vote for one party, then go through the ballot and mark for a candidate of another party for a particular position. But...assuming that's even in the passed bill...do you really think that the ballot will be as clear as possible that that's an option? (As opposed to hidden in small print somewhere.) Or that most voters will know that's an option?

Kobach's argument that fewer votes are cast the lower down in the ballot one goes is actually pointing out a GOOD thing. That means that voters aren't voting for candidates they know nothing about. Indeed, they are actually casting their vote when they leave a spot blank. And their vote is "no".

January 29, 2015 at 7:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Commissioners concerned that Wicked Broadband is trying to manipulate process ahead of key vote

We *have* a family-friendly city. Seems to me that what you really mean by "family-friendly" are just "name brands".

And, no, they will *not* "create jobs and keep the revenue in our town". What they really will do is create temporary decent-paying construction jobs, move the minimum-wage permanent jobs from one restaurant to another, and take the profits away from locally-owned restaurants and deliver it to out-of-state corporations.

For example, of the three "family-friendly" restaurants you named...Cracker Barrel, Oliver Garden and Denny's? Only Denny's has franchises. Zonkers doesn't franchise, either...but we already have locally-owned places like LOL Family Zone. But *you* want to give incentives to those name-brand, corporate-owned, minimum-wage-paying businesses to come to Lawrence and think *that* is sound financial decision-making...why???

Heck, one main reason for the push for fiber here is because *that* looks like it's actually an effective selling point for bringing good-paying jobs to Lawrence.

January 27, 2015 at 7:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Commissioners concerned that Wicked Broadband is trying to manipulate process ahead of key vote

It's not "so necessary". It's that this has already come before the commission and changes have had to be made. (Do you forget the initial $1 million guarantee request?) So this is just part of the process. Indeed, why does the vote have to be delayed??? This issue has been going on for months and months.)

Simple. Because they wanted to understand the ramifications of Montgomery's proposal, particularly the common carrier portion. (And, on that alone, they should vote NO. )

Considering the 3-2 split in votes among commissioners, how can you think that a decision one way or the other had been made??? Plus it should be more than obvious that the whole 1,184 votes thing was in hopes of being leverage on any commission votes on the Wicked proposal held BEFORE the election so as to avoid a "no" vote. And *that* is why the email was questionable.

(By the way, did you miss Chad Lawhorn specifically saying that "Montgomery told me that if Wicked’s proposal fails to win a ‘yes’ vote from Schumm, that “I can guarantee those voters won’t vote for Bob Schumm.” Or Schumm saying “I want to bring fiber to the city in the worst way. It could create a whole new subset of entrepreneurship in the city. I’m just not convinced a loan guarantee is the way to move it forward”?)

January 27, 2015 at 6:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Commissioners concerned that Wicked Broadband is trying to manipulate process ahead of key vote

"The people of Lawrence" generally agree. But Mr. Montgomery doesn't.

January 27, 2015 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence voters overwhelmingly approve keeping local option budget at 33 percent

Why would they even notice? It's the same rate as last year, so the only increase would be if their property valuation goes up.

January 27, 2015 at 5:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Lawrence voters overwhelmingly approve keeping local option budget at 33 percent

Well, my husband and I both voted yes...and we own 3 houses in Lawrence. Frankly, we didn't even notice the slight increase last year, so I doubt we'd notice any decrease. Plus it's a decent cause.

January 27, 2015 at 5:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous