Development is inevitable

Re: “Locals need a say in community development” Friday, October 3.

I have little problem with locals making decisions on their own communities. Your editorial fails to mention that two billionaires who are not locals are providing funds for opposition to Buc-ees. It is easy to conjure real or imagined, or made up negative aspects for any project, especially if you have a lot of money to repeat them enough times. Advocates generally are limited to facts.

The billionaires assert a negative impact on Greenland Open Space, but one must ask, what it s boundary anyway? Is there some mythic space beyond Palmer Divide Road, and how much space is that? One hundred yards? One half mile? There is no limiting principle here. Did they fail to include adequate buffer space in their plan for the open space?

The saddest part of this is that anyone can see that there will be a gas station on that land, as well as two other corners on I-25, and a convenience store, followed by several fast food places. The traffic will be there anyway, however unlikely to continue on to Palmer Lake, and the land on the south side of PDR will become too valuable for residential only, suggesting further development is inevitable, all without benefit to Palmer Lake. It is a sure thing that Monument is watching all this and seeing their own opportunity. As a 65-year resident of Colorado, I have not always been happy with development, but it has happened anyway, and will in this case.

Dave Vandenberg

Colorado Springs

What a horrible idea

First: Congratulations to Jake Fogelman for his excellent refutation and condemnation of the proposals to adopt a progressive, graduated income tax in Colorado (“A ‘Progressive’ Tax Will Backfire,” Sunday, Sept. 28).

Backfire indeed! What an absolutely horrible, stupid idea.

Fogelman did a great job laying out the benefits of Colorado’s existing flat income tax and the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and the faults and fallacies of a progressive, graduated income tax.

The word “progressive” alone is a red-siren signal of a bad idea. Everyone who files a federal income tax return already knows what a nightmare and how punishing the “progressive” U.S. tax code is. So how could anyone possibly think that adding multiple income-tax levels to Colorado’s tax system would be a benefit to individual Coloradoans?

These “progressive” proposals are reminders of two salient points:

• 1) Whenever the government intervenes, it makes things worse. The late, great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises concisely spelled this out in “Interventionism: An Economic Analysis.”

This is undeniable and proven day after day. Adding more layers of government to Colorado’s tax system will improve nothing; only make life worse.

• 2) Individual personal incomes and state economies always rise faster in states with falling tax burdens than in states with rising tax burdens.

Economist Arthur Laffer, economic policy expert Stephen Moore and economist Jonathan Williams have documented this fact for 18 consecutive years in their annual “Rich States, Poor States” report for the American Legislative Exchange Council (see: richstatespoorstates.org).

What’s more, Coloradans should be alarmed by the following: At the Colorado Springs mayor’s State of the City address Sept. 25, Johnna Reeder Kleymeyer, CEO of the Colorado Springs Chamber & EDC, rattled the business audience when she reported that of the 16,000 new jobs created in Colorado in 2024, 60% of them were government jobs. Kleymeyer also reported that Colorado experienced more people moving out of the state in 2024 than moving in.

Those two facts are clear indicators of a state heading in the wrong direction — growing government and fleeing population.

Having lived in Florida for 45 years (and part-time in Colorado Springs for 10), I can tell you three essential ingredients to Florida’s economic miracle: 1) no personal income tax; 2) population growth (it is the fuel for every state’s economic engine); and 3) low, rational business regulation.

I own businesses in Florida and Colorado, and I know from first-hand experience the business regulations in Colorado, compared to those in Florida, are onerous, burdensome and uninviting.

Progressive, graduated income tax? Ha. Just look at which states have that. They are all states from where people are fleeing.

I hope the Gazette reprints Jake Fogelman’s column again and again. Bury the graduated income tax idea, and shame the proponents of it into oblivion.

Matt Walsh

Colorado Springs/Sarasota, Fla.

Pendulum has swung too far

The war on boys has gone far enough.The pendulum has swung too far. In the process of trying to detox masculinity, we have all but eliminated the masculine as well. We no longer have safe spaces for boys to be boys when the YMCA eliminates boys-only leagues for teenagers, but maintains girls-only leagues. My teen boys are home-schooled, and we have relied on the YMCA for sports opportunities for years. Teen boys should not be playing contact sports with girls. According to the YMCA website, the Young Men’s Christian Association was developed “…to provide a supportive community to help young MEN… address pressing social challenges…. ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to become healthier, more confident, connected and secure.” Eliminating boys-only leagues does the exact opposite of its mission.

Boys are not provided a space within the YMCA for them to address the pressing social challenges of gender confusion. They are instead placed in an environment where boys’ needs are apparently less important than girls’ needs in that girls are offered opportunities to play sports in an all-girls league or a co-ed league. Boys are offered only an option to play in a co-ed league. While this may be appropriate at younger ages, everyone knows that boys and girls change drastically around the ages of 8-10 years and up. Boys have more testosterone and are more aggressive. They should be playing with other boys who match their God-given biology in all aspects. They should be playing with boys who match their aggression and physical ability. This choice is taking away their opportunity to become healthier, confident, and secure. I am by no means against co-ed leagues; everyone should have that option. But why is it coming at the expense of boys?

Stephanie Sabo

Colorado Springs