Advertisement

nekansan

Follow

Comment history

State argues court can't order more funding for schools; two justices say state broke its promise

It might be worth noting the court never defined suitable. In fact in the previous rulings it simply relied on the only evidence of the cost of a suitable education that was presented. In this case it was a study, by the state, ordered by the legislature, that determined the costs of providing a suitable education. The court defined nothing, it simply implemented the findings of the legislatures own cost study that they chose to ignore.

October 8, 2013 at 4:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Kansas, Arizona file lawsuit seeking to protect proof-of-citizenship requirement to register to vote

I find is perplexing that the same people who loose their mind over any kind of ID requirements, background checks or owner registry for firearms find similar requirements so important when exercising our right to vote right granted us by the same constitution.

August 21, 2013 at 3:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wicked's fast-broadband project moving slower than expected

Exactly Spot on. Our only hope is that the City continue to pressure WOW or whatever they change their name to next week & AT&T to get serious about improving the offering in Lawrence

August 19, 2013 at 1:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Armed employees could invalidate school districts’ insurance policies

I think the perfect solution to this issue is to allow the NRA the opportunity to step up and provide liability insurance for CCW holders and sell CCW liability to businesses. If they truly believe it is such a clear cut improvement to safety then this would seem to be a massive money making opportunity and should be extremely inexpensive since it reduces not increases risk. If not, then they are in the position of having to admit that all might not be as rosy with their claims that CCW increases safety and reduces violence. Many other organizations provide liability insurance for their members. Time for the NRA to put their money where their mouth is.

June 21, 2013 at 9:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

National chapter addresses alleged animal abuse at KU fraternity

I don't think these guys are serious about fixing their image issue. I saw a person (can only assume they are a Beta Theta Pi member) wearing the T shirt from this event (previous year) after this whole thing went down. Any organization with half a clue would have made it clear to their members that drawing additional public scrutiny to the event after what occurred this year is NOT a good idea.

March 7, 2013 at 1:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Agreements indicate multiple ways for Fritzel entities to profit from Rock Chalk Park project

So KU builds parking and road infrastructure, the City pays for a big chunk of it, and then they capture revenue by charging for parking on said infrastructure and do with it as they please? Sounds like a great deal if you are KU, not so much for me a city taxpayer!

February 19, 2013 at 6:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Former police sergeant's federal lawsuit against city alleges racial discrimination, wrongful termination

The more relevant question might be what disciplinary action has been taken against other officers who have "fixed" tickets for members of our community in the same time span? It seems that Monroe simply had a few speeding tickets dismissed as a favor to another officer, Bad judgement perhaps, but massive criminal conspiracy I think not. I'd bet he is far from the first officer to do so. If that is the case his disciplinary action should be consistent with other officers that have done the same. I'm betting it was not. And that means a problem for the city.

February 19, 2013 at 6:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

KU Endowment asking city to pay $780,000 for 26-acre recreation center site

To continue the sports analogy, it's time to punt. There are too many unknowns and the city seems to keep coming up further on the short end of this deal. Lawrence should step completely away from the deal rec center, infrastructure participation and all. If KU needs the facility let them build and fund it. Then the city can step back and plan this multi million dollar project on their own timeline and in the context of the numerous other capital projects (sewer treatment, police facility, roads, K10 bypass, farmland re-development, etc) that are on the horizon rather than be pressured by KU in to a facility/fiscal structure that is beyond our needs.

February 15, 2013 at 10:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

More twists with recreation center project: KU Endowment now requiring city to pay for land

To continue the sports analogy, it's time to punt. There are too many unknowns and the city seems to keep coming up further on the short end of this deal. Lawrence should step completely away from the deal rec center, infrastructure participation and all. If KU needs the facility let them build and fund it. Then the city can step back and plan this multi million dollar project on their own timeline and in the context of the numerous other capital projects (sewer treatment, police facility, roads, K10 bypass, farmland re-development, etc) that are on the horizon rather than be pressured by KU in to a facility/fiscal structure that is beyond our needs.

February 15, 2013 at 2:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

City Hall brokers deal to scrap controversial bidding process for $25M recreation center; proposal now calls for open bidding

"Why not put a cap on the infrastructure too, so we hand over any savings on the bidding to ku and bliss? Why doesn't it go back to the tax payers?"

This. There is no reason the city should be on the hook for $25 million regardless. They should pay for the cost of the rec center (IMO a smaller one) and the related infrastructure. The city's participation beyond that should not extend beyond the tax deferment that the entire complex will be receiving and the services (police,fire, storm water, etc) that the city will be providing when complete. KU can pay for the infrastructure related to their portion of the project.

February 1, 2013 at 9:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Previous