Advertisement

grimpeur

Follow

Comment history

Editorial: Parking plans

"controlled access to campus, limited campus parking spaces and the price of campus parking passes..."

There is plenty of parking on campus. More than any other Big 12 school, per capita, according to KU Parking's director. So that's not the problem. In fact, there is probably too much parking on campus.

The price of campus parking passes is too low. There is no reason KU should not be making a profit from its parking enterprise, given the captive audience. Parking pass prices are less than half what the market will bear. If higher pass prices can help reduce the number of people who drive their almost completely empty personal autos into Lawrence--whether because drivers decide to carpool to share the costs or because many of the drivers who live less than 2 miles from campus decide to walk or bike--that's a winner.

May 11, 2013 at 7:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Defense expense

Thank you for this letter.

April 30, 2013 at 8:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Simons' Saturday Column: Menards again reveals city’s stunted retail thinking

To the author: what were the other examples referred to by the phrase, "time and time again in recent years?"

Lowe's? They picked an inappropriate location. They knew it, the landowner knew it, and the developer knew it. So that was not the city's fault.

American Eagle? They picked an inappropriate location. Same deal.

So answer the question: which denied applications--other than Lowe's and American Eagle--would you offer as examples of the "questionable vision" of "various Lawrence officials;" to which officials are you referring; and would you care to directly address their specific reasons for denial?

Now Menard's? I think the Gaslight location would be OK as long as that is the last big development east of Iowa in the wetlands corridor. But not everyone feels that way. Clearly, many feel that no further development should be encouraged east of Iowa between Dg, Co. 458 and 31st. St.

On the other hand, despite the delays and expense caused by various Lawrence entities (who remain unnamed and whose justifications for the 32nd St. re-alignment remain hidden), the push for re-alignment may be precisely to encourage more development in that corridor. Who could have seen that coming?

April 27, 2013 at 8:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Proposed policy would give KU faculty post-tenure reviews every seven years

The purpose of tenure, in general, is to provide an atmosphere of intellectual freedom, but the problem is that this sometimes leads to dead wood in academia. Faculty should have to do more than avoid giving due cause for termination. They should meet standards of performance review. Those standards should be high, and progressive, productive teachers and researchers should welcome--and meet--such reviews.

April 26, 2013 at 8:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: First preamble

"That is probably the most dangerous preamble of all."

You don't know how right you are.

And I'll thank you to keep your book, and your imaginary friend, out of my Legislature.

April 13, 2013 at 7:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Four-year Jayhawk Boulevard construction project could end with re-creation of old tree canopy, new center bike lane

Whaaaaat? You've got to be kidding. There is PLENTY of parking on campus! In fact, there's TOO much--KU has more parking per capita than any other Big12 school. This is one of the main contributing factors to road wear and damage in our city. It's unnecessary and only encourages single-occupancy driving. Parking within the central area of campus should be limited to cars with two or more people in them. Actually, let's make it three. And permit prices should be tripled to come in line with other universities.

Gotta say, though: Jayhawk Blvd looks great without cars littering the curbs.

April 6, 2013 at 7:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Police cite driver suspected in downtown accident with cyclists

What's wrong on our roads? Exhibit A right here, folks.

April 5, 2013 at 1:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Well-defined plan

Chamber endorsement? *snicker*

I do not think this means what you think it means.

March 30, 2013 at 8:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letter: Weak opposition

Exactly. And then the "Yes" campaign spokesman comes out and sets up district residents without kids as the scapegoats in case the bond fails.

It's not childless district taxpayers who might sink it. It's the recent skewed priorities, lack of forthrightness, and apparent tunnel vision of stadium mongers who took over the last bond with their monuments to themselves, along with the public's memory of that still-half-baked fiasco. To state, as many have, that "that was a different school board" is to ignore that fact that our money was wasted in a shady end run and that those board members will never be held responsible.

The board should have known that our schools needed (and would continue to need) maintenance. If they didn't realize this, then they were unqualified or incompetent to make multi-million dollar decisions. If they did, and built the stadiums anyway, that's even worse. Public perception of events leans toward the latter.

I will be voting for the bond. But I'm angry that the "Yes" campaign has found it fitting to alienate childless voters who have been steadfast in their support of the schools, and that they refuse to acknowledge the real problems with the last bond and with the board's behavior.

March 30, 2013 at 8:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Fiery debate over expansion of concealed carry, assertion of state gun rights as Kansas House advances bills

"Should we ban drivers' licenses as well as CCW licenses?"

No, we shouldn't ban them. But they should be harder to get than a Cracker Jack prize. And there should be better controls and stricter regulations on both.

March 14, 2013 at 7:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )