Comment history

County appraiser finds Baldwin City's property values decline the steepest in the county

I thought you all wanted lower tax bills.


February 28, 2012 at 8:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Baldwin City Council hears presentation on proposed Sunflower water cooperative

We are one of the few places (US) that pour treated, clean, potable water on our grass. With this bad habit, there most definitely will be water scarcity/affordability issues.

February 28, 2012 at 8:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Baldwin girls win thriller in De Soto

I think this is the whole idea: let the citizens of Baldwin run this paper. It's cheap labor (free).

Thanks for the link.

February 28, 2012 at 8:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Utility bills

Good for you, nwyt. I hope you can persuade KCPL to help our municipal utility to pass those incentives on to the residents here in BC. Also, I think net-metering will be a great incentive for the 2% of the population that actually generate their own electricity.

However, for those that don't have R40 in there attics or those that don't have lo-e coatings on their glass, and for those that have a low SEER AC, these incentives can be a great way to cut consumption and their costs. There are people, like bloggerboo, that want to lower their energy bills and these are the programs that the state has offered.

As far as CFL's go, if you do the math, they are the best when it comes to savings to investment.

July 19, 2011 at 7:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

5 Questions: A day for dads

"About 46 percent are divorced, 30 percent were never married, 19 percent are separated, and 6 percent are widowed."

None are married? Also, all of these percentages add up to 101%.

June 15, 2011 at 9:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


I think newsie got shut down by Jimmy!

April 28, 2011 at 10 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

City plans public meeting tonight to discuss County Road 1055 project

Wasn't this intersection already "lined up"?

April 28, 2011 at 9:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Letters to the Editor

I hate to say it, but this is a direct result of the board closing the outlying schools. This is only the right thing to do. The children that deserve to be bused are those living in the immense of the southern half of the county. They also deserve to not be on a school bus for over an hour. Preferably, those rural children need to be on the bus no longer that 30-45 minutes. Of course, if the in town kids are shuttled home first, then that will increase the amount of time for those that are actually mandated to have bus service provided.

Maybe the rural kids can be taken home first, then the in town kids can be dropped off an hour after school lets out. I don't see a problem with that, do you? But of course, you would still have to pay a fee for it. I think that's it! That sounds very fair.

I think we can sum this up to buyer's remorse. When you campaigned to shut down the outlying schools, you didn't take into consideration all of the repercussions. That's pretty tough.

When you shut those schools down, the rational thoughts are that we will be busing these rural students further to school. Some much further. The rational way to deal with that is to cut off the in town busing -- not charging a fee for it. That's not the point. That's just an added bonus that the district will save 30K.

The point is is that the rural kids deserve the service of a somewhat quick bus ride home to and from school. If in doing so the district can save $30K, the hell yeah.

Maybe you in town parents can have a bake sale to buy your own bus!

April 28, 2011 at 9:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )