Known for drugs, not beauty

There has been much discussion on whether marijuana should be legalized in Colorado Springs. I am against legalizing marijuana for Colorado Springs because of the sad experience I had when returning to Colorado Springs on an airplane. One man said to me, after I told him I lived in Colorado Springs, that he was going to come to Colorado Springs because of the “smoke.” I was confused and said, “There are no fires there right now.” He said, “Lady, I mean the legal marijuana. That is why I want to come to your city.” It used to be people traveled to Colorado for the beauty of nature, the mountains or to ski. So sad to see that now we are known for our marijuana. We are becoming known for our drugs, not our beauty. Please do not legalize retail marijuana in Colorado Springs.

Judy Allgeyer

Colorado Springs

Comparing sales tax rates

Having recently read several irate letters in The Gazette about the possibility of Mayor John Suthers asking for a sales tax rate increase to generate funds to repair our roads, I thought it would be illuminating to look up the comparative sales tax rates for some of the larger municipalities in Colorado. Here’s what I found:

Colorado Springs: 2.5%

Grand Junction: 2.75%

Pueblo: 2.9%

Greenwood Village: 3%

Durango: 3%

Greeley: 3.46%

Denver (city of): 3.65%

Fort Collins: 3.85%

Since metro Colorado Springs has a larger population than any of the localities above, and as a result of our low population density, more miles of roads, it stands to reason that we probably have inadequately funded roads maintenance. However, that being said, I agree with those writers who have expressed the opinion that the work should be let to private firms on a bid basis with a specific performance clause regarding how well patches perform. I have lived and worked in the Colorado Springs area since 1970 and must admit our roads are in deplorable shape. Best wishes to Mayor Suthers for wisdom and God’s speed in correcting the problem.

Patricia Jahla

Colorado Springs

Customers won’t like the rules

I find it very interesting and even possible that dividing the city into zones for trash pickup would stop creating potholes.

I would agree with Kent Hill and Merle Stryker that sounds sensible, except that I have lived in an area that had zones for the different trash truck companies and would never advocate for that kind of service again.

It turned out that the trash companies set down the rules, and you had to abide by the rules exactly or they just ignored you and were very rude about it.

Zones gave them exclusive rights to that zone, and no other company could come into their zone. No competition for price or service created dictators, and they set down the rules.

Exclusivity creates dictators and you won’t like the rules.

Did it once, didn’t like it.

Ed Smith

Colorado Springs

A fix for neighborhood problem

Kent Hill and Merle Stryker want to fix a neighborhood problem, (too many garbage trucks in their neighborhood) with a citywide response: create five garbage monopolies across the city. This is a bad idea. When you have a monopoly, service suffers and prices rise. Each company can sit back, fat dumb and happy, knowing that everyone in their zone has to buy from them. If you want fewer trucks coming through your neighborhood, get together with your neighbors and select one or two garbage companies for the neighborhood. They will be motivated to provide good service and low cost, knowing that they could lose a whole neighborhood if they don’t. Problem solved without ruining it for everyone else. And you might even build relationships with your neighbors in the process!

Michael Hanratty

Colorado Springs

Against trash service zones

I hope this letter won’t be discarded for beating a nearly dead horse. There’ve been two letters printed recently favoring dividing the city into zones with only one trash service allowed per zone. I’d like to offer some thoughts against it.

Firstly, it was stated that zoning would reduce trash service traffic and that would cure or prevent some of our pothole problems, but there is no proof for this, it is merely an assumption or the personal belief of the previous letter writers.

Secondly, it would require the city to outlaw competition and free enterprise. The city would arbitrarily award collection zones to businesses. Homeowners would not be allowed to select the service that best suits their desires, pocketbook or preferred collection day. The service would be dictated by their address. Would you accept an idea that a Safeway store wouldn’t sell to you because you live in the wrong ZIP code? Surely not, it tramples your rights.

Thirdly, the city would be required to fix service prices because the city wouldn’t be allowed to arbitrarily assign more costly services to some zones and more economical ones to others. Fixed prices set low would force some services out of business. High fixed prices would protect the businesses but unfairly guarantee bigger profits for some but not others, as well as costing some homeowners more than before.

Finally, the city would be forced into quality assurance and arbitrating with unhappy customers because customers wouldn’t have an option to fire a disappointing provider and hire a better one. Trash service zones may seem OK on first glance, but if you think about all the angles it looks less positive and more autocratic.

H. Wayne Hall

Colorado Springs