citizen1 (David Reynolds)


Comment history

Letter: Property tax votes

Hi Melinda, it's late so I am not going to quote everything off the top of my head, but here is what comes to top of mind.

First we need to remember Businesses do not need to be in lawrence, they present us with opportunities. They are not going to change their business model to suit some progressive ideology.

Cracker Barrel wanted a store by the turnpike & we killed it because they wanted a large sign & it violated the sign ordinance. It's the turnpike for crying out loud, not 7th & Mass. Their sign is how they drive their business & sales taxes for the local community. Flexibility is not Lawrence's strength. Unless it is something we want.

American Eagle was driven away because they weren't the type of jobs we wanted...tell that to the families on unemployment or the "first job" opportunity to someone starting out. 640 (varies seasonally) employees in Ottawa. We have this "belief" that entry level jobs are careers & thus all jobs are to pay like hi-tech or professional positions. Most of us started out in these type of jobs. Personally I started out delivering "ice" on the back of a horse drawn cart & place it in the precursor to the refrigerator, the "ice box".

Sued Wal-Mart by trying to change the rules. Shame on us! We lost millions in retail sales tax revenue during the process & cost tax payers $100's of 1000's in attorney & court costs while losing the case. Why, because we don't like the way they pay & their benefits, and some displaced dislike for Walmart. If working at Walmart is so bad why did 100's of Lawrencians line up to apply for jobs when they opened? Sometimes we misguidedly project our personal biases on others inappropriately.

We ran off a developer (can't remember the name at the moment), & The Delaware Indian Project which was estimated to bring $50mm a year to Lawrence. All to save "prime" agricultural land. I guess when the economy finally dries up from actions by Washington & no growthers we all will need a communal plot to grow our vegetables.

Turned down a retail development south of K-10 & they asked for Nothing in incentives just approval. Luckily they are back.

Oh yes, we have our friend who provides all of the "learned studies" regarding retail space trying to restrict retail development.

Wal-Mart distribution is gone. About 900 jobs in Ottawa.

I am sure others can add to the list.

Yes others can provide all the positive rationalization for running those businesses off. Regardless the business community sorts thru all the fog and renders it's judgement...Lawrence is a hard place to do business. The question becomes is the effort worth it?

Yes we have had successes & we will in the future. But first we have to climb out of this ditch we have driven into.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but in the past we have acted so inexcusably & irrationally.

July 1, 2015 at 11:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Property tax votes

Just to demonstrate how disproportionate the property tax burden is in Lawrence. Our major employers pay no property taxes...KU, Hospital, City & County Government, Non-Profits, etc.They do not even pay sales taxes. Some like KU do not always even source their purchases locally.

What is really interesting about this situation is we support & cater to these organizations, and speak warmly about the jobs & benefits they provide the community.

Yet let a company that wants to provide jobs, & at least pay sales taxes, ask the city to meet the city's competitors for the companies services request tax relief...well that request is anathema to our sensibilities.

This is one of the problems Lawrence can't see the incongruity of its thinking & decisions.

As a result our economy suffers & taxes & fees rise.

July 1, 2015 at 11:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Property tax votes

Interesting points, but the city & county needs to look inward.

There is this tendency to say well we should be getting more support from the state or federal government. Maybe so & maybe not. Clearly we are all interconnected, and each branch (local, state & federal) needs to do their part. I am speaking about growing the economic pie; growth in the # of available jobs, new business start ups, existing companies moving to the county, etc. With an improved economy comes improved affordability

The feds aren't doing their part. There is 42.9% unemployment if you count the 93mm (29% of the US population) not even looking for work. What a waste of humanity. This is unacceptable! Yet we must support them through the benefits they get for just sitting at home. How do we pay for them & the wishes of a city commission?

Additionally, the recent misbehavior by the last commission regarding the recreation center has demonstrated the city is not a reliable partner in prioritizing and controlling costs. Clearly we couldn't trust them with the vote, so why not trust the people who are paying the taxes? The city still does not publish a readable cost vs income statement to know if the recreation center is paying for itself or is it an additional drag on the community budget? Hopefully this will improve.

To me the question is "What is our government doing at all levels to lower our cost of living & improve the economy, so we can keep more of the merger wages we receive in this town?

I understand why people want to be able to vote on property taxes. They are just trying to have a voice in controlling their costs so they can feed, clothe & shelter their families, and maybe with some luck, enjoy a few extras. Is that too much to ask? Costs in Lawrence are too high for most families. The number of families on "no cost or reduced cost lunches" is so high it is shameful. The preponderance of jobs in this town are clerical & in the entertainment industry & shops (most of them low wage positions).

Lawrence, over the recent decades, has been very anti-business. We have run off companies, and employment opportunities. The current chamber & city commission have an excellent opportunity to change this. The new Peasley Training Center is a major benefit to the community and employment opportunities.

We want everything & the citizens don't have the financial capacity to support everything. Why not let the folks paying the bill say what they are willing to support?

In spite of protestations of some above, the citizens should have this voice in approving tax levels.

July 1, 2015 at 10:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Ken, Thank you very much for your data. It's very interesting.

I am glad you provided the information you did, because what I asked for was proof of Man Made Global Warming. And as requested you provided data. The next thing is the mathematical analysis to draw the conclusion that the temperature & ice information data leads to the conclusion that warming is "caused by Man".

I am not asking you to provide that analysis.

What I requested, and you complied, was the only way I could get you to come face to face with the very problem the IPCC & the rest of the Global Warming scientists have to face to "prove" AGW..."STATISTICS".

You see they have to take the data and use a premise to show that "Correlation" leads to "Causation". That is why the IPCC uses the terms "Likely, Very Likely, 90% Confidence, etc".

THERE IS NO DIRECT MATHEMATICAL PROOF OF AGW! There is only a statistical analysis based on at least one assumption. That assumption is a "Matching Problem". What data do you match/compare in the graphs & what data do you correlate to try to determine a "causation". That assumption is "all of the CO2 man is dumping in the atmosphere is in excess of mother nature, the earth is warming, therefore the warming must be caused by man."

The problem is, is it correlation or causation.

Remember early on in these posts I said all I wanted was the truth? Statistics is a powerful tool & it can help find the truth or it can mislead.

Ken the truth is we don't know if AGW is real. We have an assumption & we have correlation of some of the data using graphs, we have statistical analysis, & the good news is we are continuing to study the issue.

If we are ALL honest with ourselves, we will admit we don't really know for sure if AGW is the culprit. History & mother nature will confirm or deny AGW.

This is the point in the discussion I wanted to reach & this is my final post.

I would like to leave you with a final web site. Again its purpose is two fold. First I hope you see the humor. I think we need a final laugh. Second it shows the problems with statistics & the issue of causation versus correlation.

Ken, I wish you all the best, it's been real.

June 20, 2015 at 12:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Ken right back attach-a...I have asked you to disprove my articles.

As I said before,The IPCC & the AGW Industry has a conundrum, admit the truth that they are "guessing", and risk being ignored, or "use falsified data or just leave data out" then "shade" the model results to gain an audience.

Prove that statement wrong Ken, I will say no more until then. Hades may freeze over, but I will not hold my breath while waiting. :)

June 18, 2015 at 10:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

One final thought regarding the whole AGW promotion. We all know that the AGW Agenda is Wealth Redistribution & Control. It comes in the form of Carbon Tax Credits, or rebates to the poor who will not be able to pay for the high cost of energy under the various proposed rules, or some other wealth redistribution scheme.

I was reminded of the following a while ago & I thought of the horrible impact the above policies will have on the USA & other Developed countries. Many of you have heard this before & possibly chuckled or ignored it as trivia. Please do not do this any more.

In the light of the AGW Agenda to put in place a huge wealth redistribution system please ruminate on the following.

"A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse over loose fiscal policy, (which is) always followed by a dictatorship."

We are currently $18.5 trillion in debt, we have spent $22 trillion on social programs since starting "The Great Society" (excluding Medicare & Soc. Sec.). How much more debt will the proposed AGW rules & wealth redistribution system cost?

The AGW proponents talk about the "Tipping Point" of the Biosphere. What about the "Tipping Point" of our Republic?

June 18, 2015 at 3:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Barb, you are doing the exact same thing Ken is doing.

You think you can try to kill the messenger by trying to demean them. Sorry that doesn't work here. It only tells me that you are afraid of what they have to say; afraid that the information they provide will damage the man made global warming charges. Thus I respect them even more for their courage to defend themselves.

You and others must believe that "only the global warming proponents" have "the absolute right to correct data/information". As a matter of fact I believe those providing information that countermands the IPCC & others promoting man made global warming, have to be accurate to withstand the hurricane of charges the proponents will try to throw at them. For a fact we know from published reports & information I have provided over the last two weeks (none of which has been refuted with scientific facts) that the IPCC & their proponents have used false data to make their case & proposed recommendations.

This must be why you and others only attack the messenger & not the information they provide.

A glaring omission on your part is you did not mention the report from NASA. Is the reason you can't, because even you recognize it is a credible source? To repeat it states: "In the conclusion section NASA makes two key points: "1) The IPCC dismisses the radiosonde data as the decline is inconsistent with theory. 2) Changes in water vapor are linked to temperature trends in the upper atmosphere. Both satellite data and radiosonde data confirm the absence of any tropical upper atmosphere temperature amplification, contrary to IPCC theory. Four independent data sets demonstrate that the IPCC theory is wrong. CO2 does not cause significant global warming."

Barb this is tiring. I have provided much evidence, that at minimum shows "Reasonable Doubt" that man made global warming exists, none of which has been refuted scientifically. The evidence has pointed to natural variability.

I also believe you, Ken & others, who are proponents of man made global warming, can not admit reasonable doubt in the face of the evidence, because: The IPCC & the AGW Industry has a conundrum, admit the truth that they are "guessing", and risk being ignored, or "use falsified data or just leave data out" then "shade" the model results to gain an audience.

This is the problem with the AGW theory doesn't stand up to scrutiny, & nobody has irrefutably scientifically countered the scrutiny.

The evidence points to natural variability.

There is an old saying about knowledge that I believe is appropriate here: "The acquisition of uncommon knowledge inhibits the ability to apply common sense. Our Biosphere, having no uncommon knowledge, is smarter than the AGW proponents trying to tell it what it is supposed to do."

All the Best Barb

June 18, 2015 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Ken your comments offer no scientific proof, you are only offering personal opinion.

The following are two more articles showing the IPCC Report & those supporting man made global climate change have some work to do.

First with your argument that it can take 100's of years for the impacts of CO2 & "the dynamics of heat build up" to show warming. The following web site offers 600 million years. One would hope that time horizon will be adequate.
Please refer to the graph showing 600 million years of data.

The conclusion is worded as follows: "According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming."

Further evidence that the IPCC is getting the "Whole Story Wrong" comes from NASA in the article titled: "NASA satellite data shows a decline in water vapor". You can find the article at the following web site.

In the conclusion section NASA makes two key points: "1) The IPCC dismisses the radiosonde data as the decline is inconsistent with theory. 2) Changes in water vapor are linked to temperature trends in the upper atmosphere. Both satellite data and radiosonde data confirm the absence of any tropical upper atmosphere temperature amplification, contrary to IPCC theory. Four independent data sets demonstrate that the IPCC theory is wrong. CO2 does not cause significant global warming."

Ken, I continue to offer facts to support my position. What do I get from you? No facts to support anything you say.

Ken, Irrefutable scientific proof would be real helpful. No more words that mean nothing. This is a data argument based on science, not a talk-a-thon.

I must conclude you have no science to prove your position on man made global climate change. You only have a supposition supporting your beliefs & position.

June 18, 2015 at 11:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Ken, Ken, Ken...words, words, words, words, words...All I hear are words. Words demeaning folks who offer a factual presentation of the IPCC forecasts, ; words occupying space & adding nothing to the points presented.

I hear nothing factually (data & supporting evidence, not emotional diatribes stating "we tried real hard") refuting the evidence, that I have offered in multiple posts throughout these several weeks.

If you don't like what the sources I have provided say, then please refute them factually. Don't offer sophomoric explanations that say nothing. Don't try to kill the messenger with immature demeaning remarks, deal with the message not the messenger. This later point is part of the reason the global climate change message goes no where. You do not bring people on board to your cause as followers of the religion by alienating them.

Throughout this long series of posts I have tried to offer evidence that, at a minimum, places the forecasts of the IPCC in reasonable doubt.

Can you please offer facts/data, not emotional diatribes, that PROVE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, that what I have said previously is factually wrong, and that your evidence irrefutably proves climate change is anthropogenic, to the exclusion of natural climate variation.

I offered the article about the ship trapped in ice for two reasons..primarily to inject some humor, & secondly to show the lengths some promoting anthropogenic global climate change will go.

Still waiting in Lawrence.

June 17, 2015 at 1:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Climate strategy

Ken, that was a lot of words so I assume you said "Maybe". :)

I am sure the IPCC does a lot of testing, backcasting, but it is all for naught. The bottom line is they are not projecting the real world.

We are back to where we started with this discussion. I have included below some info on IPCC temperature & sea level forecasts that the IPCC had great certainty about.

I hope you enjoy, especially the last item. This is my last post as this discussion is now circular. The climate is changing, the reasons the IPCC says leaves a lot to be desired.

I have always said: If you want an alarmists prediction go to the mass media. If you want the failures of those predictions go to the “alternate” press.

The Climate Models VS Temperature Observed

The climate models overestimate temperature rises due to CO2 by at least a factor of three.

95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong VS Observed Data
Dr. Spencer Background

The Climate Models VS Sea Level Rise Observed

Tidal gauge data show no acceleration during strong warming between 1920-40 (a period when CO2 concentrations were lower)…with levels continuing to rise during slight cooling of 1940-75, and also during a recent 17-year warming “pause”. Yet IPCC-2013 shows increasing values (acceleration) throughout the entire period. It appears that this record may have been falsified. By Dr. Fred Singer (Retired Professor of Environmental Science, Univ. of VA., Early space research; first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service (1962–1964). The Climate Change proponents don’t like him, thus I do because I get to hear the other side)

“Sea Levels Higher During Medieval Warming Period - Research Shows Current Sea Level Rise Began By 1750 AD. The data show that rising CO2 levels have zero impact on short-run or annual changes in the sea level. Sea Levels are highly variable.”

This one is just for fun: “Global Warming Expedition to Prove Antarctic Ice is Melting Trapped by Ice”

Ken, All the best.

June 16, 2015 at 11:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )