bethlang1998 (Betty Bartholomew)


Comment history

Letter: Kasold ‘diet’

I drive through the new roundabout along Wakarusa and through the intersection at Harvard/Kasold with equal regularity and I actually wouldn't mind a roundabout at the latter. I don't think it's got enough traffic - and I drive through there at rush hour - for a light system (which are annoying in most of Lawrence anyway with how much deference they give to certain directions of traffic rather than being on demand), but the four way stop it has now definitely needs replaced. Frankly, I think any four way stop with more than one lane coming in from any direction needs to go away since six to eight cars all trying to figure out who gets to go when causes issues.

I know we in the US are loathe to have roundabouts put in, but they really do help smooth the traffic flow in these intersections where stop signs don't work too well but there's not enough traffic for a light to work well, either.

September 3, 2015 at 10:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU Parking going paperless, stickerless

If you've looked at the campus master plan, parking is going to get more and more unavailable as more buildings are built on top of lots (why level an area if you can take one that's already leveled?). Raising prices is one way to make people think harder about whether or not they need to drive to campus or where around campus they might be able to park and bus from. And since none of the maintenance fees for parking lots comes from any of the tuition money or other state dollars, money has to be brought in for it somehow. It's not like the labor or material costs have gone down. Then, too, going back to the master plan, it calls for building more garages to make up for the loss of lots, and again, since the money can't come from tuition or other state dollars, rising parking costs are going to make up some of that. Unfortunately, that's the reality of parking on campus. (Going to the open forums is good for perspective, by the way.)

August 18, 2015 at 9:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU Parking going paperless, stickerless

Actually, you'd just go in and add the plate for the borrowed car.

August 18, 2015 at 8:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Neighbors concerned about stalled construction near Peterson and Monterey; city, KU transit system named tops in state; a bus hub question for Centennial Park

But in a lot of the places where the transit hub is downtown, that's also still approximate to the center of town. With the directions Lawrence is growing, our downtown is no longer the center of the city. For me to get where I need to go using buses, I would have to ride a bus completely across town to get to downtown, then across town again to get to my destination, at nearly right angles to each other. That's hardly an efficient method of getting around. A centralized hub would eliminate that problem.

Beyond that, my only thought on the system is that it needs some public parking along the routes so that people who don't live on the route(s) they need might only have to drive enough to get to a convenient pick up lot then let the driver deal with rush hour traffic on the main roads.

August 10, 2015 at 12:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Opinion: So, Donald Trump is number one?

That there are people out there who support Trump does not surprise me. That nobody is reporting on what that says about the rest of the Republican field does. If they had any candidate who actually spoke to the majority of their base, Trump would not be leading. Instead, they are so splintered they can't manage to unite the party behind any one or two options, leaving this idiot in the lead. So on upside, there is 83% of the party who don't support him. The bad news is those 83% can't agree on anybody to beat him. Which is why the Republicans are going to have a difficult time taking back the White House.

July 19, 2015 at 6:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas residents now have higher taxes but less gun regulation

I have always thought that was one of the most grammatically incoherent pieces of the constitution. According to Wikipedia, there are two versions of the second amendment.

The first, in the handwritten copy preserved in the Archives, uses the extra commas making it actually read, "A well regulated militia [...] shall not be infringed," as the two parts set off by commas are explanatory and could just as well be left out.

But the article states that another version that was ratified reads, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," which in popular reading confers the right for individuals to own guns.

But one could make the argument, given the way things were worded in the Constitution and the Declaration, that "the people" refers to the collective and the amendment to being able to raise a military force and not to individuals having guns just to have guns, in which case having guns just to have guns would fall to each state to decide.

In either case, it seems to me that the purpose was to be able to have an armed force to defend the country, or else why bring in the militia wording?

Sadly, we can't go back and ask them for clarification, or explain that we have a huge military force, or are allies with Britain, or that there are guns that shoot hundreds of rounds per second, or the lessening of the need for hunting for food... All sorts of things they didn't/couldn't foresee when they wrote it that might have resulted in different wording.

I also wonder what they would think of our reluctance to make changes to the Constitution when the need arises given that they gave us the tools to do so, or of us being satisfied with living by rules written ~240 years ago by men who couldn't imagine how society might evolve. I mean, hats off to them that most of what they wrote has stood the test of time, but we should at least be open to writing in clarification where needed as society changes.

July 6, 2015 at 10:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansans react to same-sex marriage ruling

That there is any question of "what kind of recognition" will be given is absurd. Any recognitions and benefits given to marriages recognized in Kansas prior to Friday should now be automatically extended to same-sex marriages. Not that difficult of a concept.

The only difficult part should/will be getting any software updates made that need made - we saw how that titles and regs update went a few years ago; Kansas is not a tech hot spot for a reason.

June 28, 2015 at 11:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Talk of a new dog park and a $10 per year dog license requirement for Lawrence; Quonset hut debate in East Lawrence on hold; city manager search update

Here's an idea to raise funds: Actually fine people who are walking their pets off leash and/or not picking up their waste. Holding the leash in your hand while your dog isn't on it doesn't count! (I don't care how well trained your dog is off leash - put it on.)

Or how about this: Every time I catch a dog that isn't mine using my yard for a restroom, I get to charge the owner a user fee and I donate half to the city. Win-win for me and the town.

June 19, 2015 at 11:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas representative faces hearing over 'racist' remarks

Since I'd forgotten about this story, my thought process was , "What did she say that was racist? ....Oh...She's under a hearing because she called others racist. Yeah, that makes sense. In Kansas."

For goodness sake, suck up that you were called racist and move on. Or maybe examine why you were called racist. Either way, trying to get her in trouble because she said it is a waste of time, but what else should we expect of our current crop of time wasters?

June 19, 2015 at 10:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas Legislature planning to ease controversial welfare restriction

So with the lingerie exclusion, does that mean if your kid has outgrown their underwear at the same time as you happen to be on TANF, you can't buy them new underwear with the card? Or if a woman gets a monthly stain she can't buy new underwear? Or if her underwire busts on her last bra she can't get a new bra? They lean toward pretty broad exclusions without many clarifications, so it seems like that would be the case.

I'd think people would just be taking cash out of their TANF accounts to get around some of these restrictions.

June 5, 2015 at 10:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )