FIRED - Colorado Springs fires cops & firefighters

[flacaltenn]

Watch your language....you're not talking to your folks.

Writing stuff for fucktards to puzzle at is a specialty, PopoC-word.

Let's look at some more science:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Future disruptions to fire activity will threaten ecosystems and human well-being throughout the world, yet there are few fire projections at global scales and almost none from a broad range of global climate models (GCMs). Here we integrate global fire datasets and environmental covariates to build spatial statistical models of fire probability at a 0.5° resolution and examine environmental controls on fire activity.

Fire models are driven by climate norms from 16 GCMs (A2 emissions scenario) to assess the magnitude and direction of change over two time periods, 2010–2039 and 2070–2099.

-------------------

Can you believe somebody doesn't believe in any of the following:

1. greenhouse
2. global climate change
3 human causes, which include cars and chainsaws

But Ann Coulter sure seems to have her panties in a bunch, trying to catch on!

Did you even read thru that link that you posted? A toy model -- based on trivial inputs, forecasting a PROBABLE increase in fire hazard in Saharan Africa...

How damn useful is that? A global model for fire prediction based on a 1 or 2 degC rise by 2070.. BTW --- the conclusion was...

Departures from baseline (1971–2000) fire probabilities are computed from the 100-replicate ensembles of the 16 GCMs as mean change in fire probability for both the 2010–2039 and 2070–2099 time periods (Fig. 6). The ensemble mean changes in fire probability are highly variable, both spatially and temporally. Large areas of the globe are expected to experience relatively small near-term changes in fire probability (yellow areas in Fig. 6A), whereas predicted changes become much more pronounced in the 2070–2099 time period (Fig. 6C). Despite dramatic disruptions in fire activity illustrated by the model, supplementary analysis (not shown) indicated that the temperature of the warmest month is the only variable that consistently exceeds its current range of baseline observations. Furthermore, these out-of-range increases are confined to some of the warmest parts of the world in most GCMs (notably the Saharan and Arabian deserts and northern India).

Ah -- set a calendar reminder about 2040 and see if these model toys tell you ANYTHING about fire probabilities in the AMERICAN SOUTHWEST. Then call me.

 

[MaryL]

I am asking for trouble here, but...here goes: There wouldn't be millions spent fighting fires in wilderness areas if they were left to be strictly WILDERNESS. Instead, we are letting developers and land speculators and the wealthy move into what WAS pristine forests. Then we fight fires to defend the wealthy , not the wilderness. At least, that is what this is starting to look like. I am a native of Colorado, I know that conifer forests need FIRE to clear out the dead and the undergrowth. It's part of the natural cycle. Forest fires are natural. But in this time of climate change, we need to look at this situation a little closer. Maybe all these wealthy folks can swallow their elitist pride and move to the less scenic cities like Denver. There has never been a forest fire, earthquake and nary a flood in these places. But, that’s were us lesser humans live. Deal with it.

 

[Old Rocks]

It's no coincidence when you look at the Western forest fires that the Indian owned and managed lands end up in better shape at fire season than the ones managed by the Forest Service and the BLM and state organizations..

Indians have been practicing PREVENTATIVE forest fire suppression for over 10,000 years. And the consistentcy of practice produces more productive land.

OTH -- all forests managed by our political leaders have been ping-ponged between hands-off wilderness edicts and controlled burning gone wild. So before we ask HOW MUCH it costs to fight the fires -- we ought to figure out whether we are gonna MANAGE the forests or ignore them as much as possible. Obviously, the enviro-whack orgs don't see a need for many degrees in "forest management" and have lobbied for reduction in prevention practices which results in CATASTROPHIC fires.

Yet another example of Lefties ignoring science... Right Chris/RDean??

links? or just flapyap.

 

[Old Rocks]

Watch your language....you're not talking to your folks.

Writing stuff for fucktards to puzzle at is a specialty, PopoC-word.

Let's look at some more science:

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Future disruptions to fire activity will threaten ecosystems and human well-being throughout the world, yet there are few fire projections at global scales and almost none from a broad range of global climate models (GCMs). Here we integrate global fire datasets and environmental covariates to build spatial statistical models of fire probability at a 0.5° resolution and examine environmental controls on fire activity.

Fire models are driven by climate norms from 16 GCMs (A2 emissions scenario) to assess the magnitude and direction of change over two time periods, 2010–2039 and 2070–2099.

-------------------

Can you believe somebody doesn't believe in any of the following:

1. greenhouse
2. global climate change
3 human causes, which include cars and chainsaws

But Ann Coulter sure seems to have her panties in a bunch, trying to catch on!

Did you even read thru that link that you posted? A toy model -- based on trivial inputs, forecasting a PROBABLE increase in fire hazard in Saharan Africa...

How damn useful is that? A global model for fire prediction based on a 1 or 2 degC rise by 2070.. BTW --- the conclusion was...

Departures from baseline (1971–2000) fire probabilities are computed from the 100-replicate ensembles of the 16 GCMs as mean change in fire probability for both the 2010–2039 and 2070–2099 time periods (Fig. 6). The ensemble mean changes in fire probability are highly variable, both spatially and temporally. Large areas of the globe are expected to experience relatively small near-term changes in fire probability (yellow areas in Fig. 6A), whereas predicted changes become much more pronounced in the 2070–2099 time period (Fig. 6C). Despite dramatic disruptions in fire activity illustrated by the model, supplementary analysis (not shown) indicated that the temperature of the warmest month is the only variable that consistently exceeds its current range of baseline observations. Furthermore, these out-of-range increases are confined to some of the warmest parts of the world in most GCMs (notably the Saharan and Arabian deserts and northern India).

Ah -- set a calendar reminder about 2040 and see if these model toys tell you ANYTHING about fire probabilities in the AMERICAN SOUTHWEST. Then call me.

Well, dumbass, that is the point. The predictions were made for decades ahead of us, are instead happening now. Same for the predictions for the Arctic Ice.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's no coincidence when you look at the Western forest fires that the Indian owned and managed lands end up in better shape at fire season than the ones managed by the Forest Service and the BLM and state organizations..

Indians have been practicing PREVENTATIVE forest fire suppression for over 10,000 years. And the consistentcy of practice produces more productive land.

OTH -- all forests managed by our political leaders have been ping-ponged between hands-off wilderness edicts and controlled burning gone wild. So before we ask HOW MUCH it costs to fight the fires -- we ought to figure out whether we are gonna MANAGE the forests or ignore them as much as possible. Obviously, the enviro-whack orgs don't see a need for many degrees in "forest management" and have lobbied for reduction in prevention practices which results in CATASTROPHIC fires.

Yet another example of Lefties ignoring science... Right Chris/RDean??

links? or just flapyap.

You need links for THAT?? Every word is true -- especially about it being yet another example of Leftists shunning science..

What part of this do you doubt?

 

[flacaltenn]

Well, dumbass, that is the point. The predictions were made for decades ahead of us, are instead happening now. Same for the predictions for the Arctic Ice.

Well DUMBASS -- which is it?

THe models in that paper are useless toys because they find no basis for you claims of calamity TODAY?

Or you insist on using those same faulty models to prove your "end of the world is tomorrow" scenario?

Did you read that crappy intent to model every forest on the globe and make divine predictions? Or are you just impressed with the title?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Forest fires are a natural occurrence and if one lives in an area prone to fires then one should be willing to put up with the consequences.

What I don't understand is why people don't build and maintain fire breaks around their neighborhoods

I guess it's because they're waiting for the fucking government to take care of them and we all know how well that works.

the fires jumped the fire breaks.

I'm not talking about the fire breaks established by the forest service. I am talking about a 40 or 50 yard zone around a neighborhood where nothing taller than a blade of grass is allowed to grow.

 

[Skull Pilot]

If neighborhoods were planned properly we could just let the fires burn as they would have naturally.

It' is folly to think that we can contain forces of nature

Given the extreme dryness of the forests at present in the Southwest, they will all be crown fires, and that is not 'natural' fire state.

What we are seeing in the Southwest is the result of man's influencing nature. The heating and drying of that area was predicted decades ago, and we are seeing the predictions come true. The scientists even specifically stated that the fires that would result would be epic in nature.

You talk as if forest fires are something new. They're not.

 

[bobgnote]

Fatass, in the course of posting a lot of quote in quote, followed by flappage of yappage, you deleted, in several posts, without replying to the issues, therein:

Can you believe somebody doesn't believe in any of the following:

1. greenhouse effect (come ON, atmospheric molecules with 3 atoms or more)
2. global climate change (the climate will heat up and oceans will acidify)
3 human causes, for GW, which include cars and chainsaws (humans did it, OK?)
4. the drug war is expensive AND costly, preventing proper allocation of funds
5. we will re-green or lose much human habitat (heard of MASS EXTINCTIONS?)

Any particular reason, for taking up half a page, with an edited quote, which you didn't answer?

Do you have any comments, about the drug war, or about related deflection, on behalf of petroleum and prison industry, while USFS and Colorado Springs have to go fish?

Do you now admit, we have to re-green, or we will lose human habitat?

Any time you aren't completely demented, you can comment on something you quote, including the parts you delete, and I won't think you are an asshole, who happens to be a retarded, white male, etc., etc., who shouldn't make babies, since you are a goddamned DDD, who not only can't think, you refuse anything like the scientific method.

 

[bobgnote]

Fatass, in the course of posting a lot of quote in quote, followed by flappage of yappage, you deleted, in several posts, without replying to the issues, therein:

Can you believe somebody doesn't believe in any of the following:

1. greenhouse effect (come ON, atmospheric molecules with 3 atoms or more)
2. global climate change (the climate will heat up and oceans will acidify)
3 human causes, for GW, which include cars and chainsaws (humans did it, OK?)
4. the drug war is expensive AND costly, preventing proper allocation of funds
5. we will re-green or lose much human habitat (heard of MASS EXTINCTIONS?)

Any particular reason, for taking up half a page, with an edited quote, which you didn't answer?

Do you have any comments, about the drug war, or about related deflection, on behalf of petroleum and prison industry, while USFS and Colorado Springs have to go fish?

Do you now admit, we have to re-green, or we will lose human habitat?

Any time you aren't completely demented, you can comment on something you quote, including the parts you delete, and I won't think you are an asshole, who happens to be a retarded, white male, etc., etc., who shouldn't make babies, since you are a goddamned DDD, who not only can't think, you refuse anything like the scientific method.

 

[bobgnote]

Fatass, in the course of posting a lot of quote in quote, followed by flappage of yappage, you deleted, in several posts, without replying to the issues, therein:

Can you believe somebody doesn't believe in any of the following:

1. greenhouse effect (come ON, atmospheric molecules with 3 atoms or more)
2. global climate change (the climate will heat up and oceans will acidify)
3 human causes, for GW, which include cars and chainsaws (humans did it, OK?)
4. the drug war is expensive AND costly, preventing proper allocation of funds
5. we will re-green or lose much human habitat (heard of MASS EXTINCTIONS?)

Any particular reason, for taking up half a page, with an edited quote, which you didn't answer?

Do you have any comments, about the drug war, or about related deflection, on behalf of petroleum and prison industry, while USFS and Colorado Springs have to go fish?

Do you now admit, we have to re-green, or we will lose human habitat?

Any time you aren't completely demented, you can comment on something you quote, including the parts you delete, and I won't think you are an asshole, who happens to be a retarded, white male, etc., etc., who shouldn't make babies, since you are a goddamned DDD, who not only can't think, you refuse anything like the scientific method.

 

[flacaltenn]

Fatass, in the course of posting a lot of quote in quote, followed by flappage of yappage, you deleted, in several posts, without replying to the issues, therein:

<<gibberish, gibberish, opinion, opinion... >>

Any time you aren't completely demented, you can comment on something you quote, including the parts you delete, and I won't think you are an asshole, who happens to be a retarded, white male, etc., etc., who shouldn't make babies, since you are a goddamned DDD, who not only can't think, you refuse anything like the scientific method.[/I]

All I can picture reading this is Gollum sitting on his haunches hissing about the Ring... Got your new Avatar right here...

If you think we're obliged to respond to ALL of these incoherent rants -- we're not.

I quoted the ENTIRE POST about the flimsy predictive modeling of future fire dangers worldwide. And made points that obviously you don't comprehend or care to discuss. That's where we leave this stuff. I've got to put on a hazard suit just to scan one of your Gollum posts..

 

[Katzndogz]

Forest fires are a natural occurrence and if one lives in an area prone to fires then one should be willing to put up with the consequences.

What I don't understand is why people don't build and maintain fire breaks around their neighborhoods

I guess it's because they're waiting for the fucking government to take care of them and we all know how well that works.

the fires jumped the fire breaks.

Environmentalists prohibit the clearing of brush. The fire service may mandate that people clear away the brush, but protectionists will not only find those people but make them put the dead brush back and restore the natural habitat. They also prohibited clearing away the dead trees infested with bark beetles which allow the beetles to spread to healthy trees and infest them to death too. Environmentalists prohibit killing off the bark beetles. They also mandated that every puff of smoke be doused immediately before it burns off a limited area.

Healthy forests burn often, it's what keeps the fires from getting too big.

 

[bobgnote]

Fatass, in the course of posting a lot of quote in quote, followed by flappage of yappage, you deleted, in several posts, without replying to the issues, therein:

<<gibberish, gibberish, opinion, opinion... >>

Any time you aren't completely demented, you can comment on something you quote, including the parts you delete, and I won't think you are an asshole, who happens to be a retarded, white male, etc., etc., who shouldn't make babies, since you are a goddamned DDD, who not only can't think, you refuse anything like the scientific method.[/I]

If you think we're obliged to respond to ALL of these incoherent rants -- we're not.

I quoted the ENTIRE POST about the flimsy predictive modeling of future fire dangers worldwide. And made points that obviously you don't comprehend or care to discuss. That's where we leave this stuff. I've got to put on a hazard suit just to scan one of your Gollum posts..

Can you believe somebody doesn't believe in any of the following:

1. greenhouse effect (come ON, atmospheric molecules with 3 atoms or more)
2. global climate change (the climate will heat up and oceans will acidify)
3 human causes, for GW, which include cars and chainsaws (humans did it, OK?)
4. the drug war is expensive AND costly, preventing proper allocation of funds
5. we will re-green or lose much human habitat (heard of MASS EXTINCTIONS?)

Fatass, you deleted 4 and 5, ranted a lot, and your rants were really stupid. I guess you caught the same bug that is eating sucksassandballs' tiny brain.

 

[Star]

Forest fires are a natural occurrence and if one lives in an area prone to fires then one should be willing to put up with the consequences.

What I don't understand is why people don't build and maintain fire breaks around their neighborhoods

I guess it's because they're waiting for the fucking government to take care of them and we all know how well that works.

the fires jumped the fire breaks.

I'm not talking about the fire breaks established by the forest service. I am talking about a 40 or 50 yard zone around a neighborhood where nothing taller than a blade of grass is allowed to grow.

In order to create these -ehem- fire breaks around neighborhoods, are you:

-suggesting neighborhood covenants
-federally unfunded mandates
-local laws to force people to create fire breaks

and

-who pays to create and maintain your fire breaks
-how do they pay
---local sales taxes
---can people contribute via sweat equity


How do you define (a) neighborhood? is the city of Colorado Springs a neighborhood or should each city block in Colorado Springs be considered a neighborhood -- who decides? If the whole city is not surrounded by a fire break who decides whose home gets razed to create a fire break for a -so far- undefined neighborhood-----have you thought your suggestion thru, or are you just blowing rightwing smoke-----so to speak?


Are you a beckster? DYK -- Environmentalists don’t oppose removing brush and chapparal in at-risk areas, but logging in backforests has nothing to do with wildfire prevention. Removing brush is not a solution in itself. A 2006 study by Prof. A.L. Westerling, et al. concludes that addressing global warming needs to go hand-in-hand:

[L]arge increases in wildfire driven by increased temperatures and earlier spring snowmelts in forests where land-use history had little impact on fire risks indicates that ecological restoration and fuels management alone will not be sufficient to reverse current wildfire trends
​

 

[flacaltenn]

Fatass, in the course of posting a lot of quote in quote, followed by flappage of yappage, you deleted, in several posts, without replying to the issues, therein:

<<gibberish, gibberish, opinion, opinion... >>

Any time you aren't completely demented, you can comment on something you quote, including the parts you delete, and I won't think you are an asshole, who happens to be a retarded, white male, etc., etc., who shouldn't make babies, since you are a goddamned DDD, who not only can't think, you refuse anything like the scientific method.[/I]

If you think we're obliged to respond to ALL of these incoherent rants -- we're not.

I quoted the ENTIRE POST about the flimsy predictive modeling of future fire dangers worldwide. And made points that obviously you don't comprehend or care to discuss. That's where we leave this stuff. I've got to put on a hazard suit just to scan one of your Gollum posts..

Can you believe somebody doesn't believe in any of the following:

1. greenhouse effect (come ON, atmospheric molecules with 3 atoms or more)
2. global climate change (the climate will heat up and oceans will acidify)
3 human causes, for GW, which include cars and chainsaws (humans did it, OK?)
4. the drug war is expensive AND costly, preventing proper allocation of funds
5. we will re-green or lose much human habitat (heard of MASS EXTINCTIONS?)

Fatass, you deleted 4 and 5, ranted a lot, and your rants were really stupid. I guess you caught the same bug that is eating sucksassandballs' tiny brain.

I did no such thing -- I copied YOUR ENTIRE post when I started editing and responding.. YOU EDITED your original post while I was still composing.. The times are perfectly clearly there, and some of us take time and effort in our responses.

What you are doing here is trying to change facts and evidence to suit your cause and try to indict ME --- KNOWING that you edited that post. And furthermore you are dodging my critique of the useless link you posted to explain forest fires in the SouthWest.

Wonder where a warmer gets those kinds of tactics eh?

Stupid move Gollum...

 

[Skull Pilot]

the fires jumped the fire breaks.

I'm not talking about the fire breaks established by the forest service. I am talking about a 40 or 50 yard zone around a neighborhood where nothing taller than a blade of grass is allowed to grow.

In order to create these -ehem- fire breaks around neighborhoods, are you:

-suggesting neighborhood covenants
-federally unfunded mandates
-local laws to force people to create fire breaks

and

-who pays to create and maintain your fire breaks
-how do they pay
---local sales taxes
---can people contribute via sweat equity


How do you define (a) neighborhood? is the city of Colorado Springs a neighborhood or should each city block in Colorado Springs be considered a neighborhood -- who decides? If the whole city is not surrounded by a fire break who decides whose home gets razed to create a fire break for a -so far- undefined neighborhood-----have you thought your suggestion thru, or are you just blowing rightwing smoke-----so to speak?


Are you a beckster? DYK -- Environmentalists don&#8217;t oppose removing brush and chapparal in at-risk areas, but logging in backforests has nothing to do with wildfire prevention. Removing brush is not a solution in itself. A 2006 study by Prof. A.L. Westerling, et al. concludes that addressing global warming needs to go hand-in-hand:

[L]arge increases in wildfire driven by increased temperatures and earlier spring snowmelts in forests where land-use history had little impact on fire risks indicates that ecological restoration and fuels management alone will not be sufficient to reverse current wildfire trends
​

All that is for the people of those communities to figure out
As for the cost it's not very expensive to clear land and keep it so

And can you please not use the annoying blue font when replying to me

 

[Old Rocks]

If you think we're obliged to respond to ALL of these incoherent rants -- we're not.

I quoted the ENTIRE POST about the flimsy predictive modeling of future fire dangers worldwide. And made points that obviously you don't comprehend or care to discuss. That's where we leave this stuff. I've got to put on a hazard suit just to scan one of your Gollum posts..

Can you believe somebody doesn't believe in any of the following:

1. greenhouse effect (come ON, atmospheric molecules with 3 atoms or more)
2. global climate change (the climate will heat up and oceans will acidify)
3 human causes, for GW, which include cars and chainsaws (humans did it, OK?)
4. the drug war is expensive AND costly, preventing proper allocation of funds
5. we will re-green or lose much human habitat (heard of MASS EXTINCTIONS?)

Fatass, you deleted 4 and 5, ranted a lot, and your rants were really stupid. I guess you caught the same bug that is eating sucksassandballs' tiny brain.

I did no such thing -- I copied YOUR ENTIRE post when I started editing and responding.. YOU EDITED your original post while I was still composing.. The times are perfectly clearly there, and some of us take time and effort in our responses.

What you are doing here is trying to change facts and evidence to suit your cause and try to indict ME --- KNOWING that you edited that post. And furthermore you are dodging my critique of the useless link you posted to explain forest fires in the SouthWest.

Wonder where a warmer gets those kinds of tactics eh?

Stupid move Gollum...

Flatulance, have you ever seen a firestorm up close and personal? They throw burning branches thicker than your arm for anywhere from hundreds of yards, to miles. When you have extremely dry forests, very low moisture content in the wood, very high heat, and strong winds, you will have a firestorm, no matter how clear the underbrush is. And it takes is some dry lightning.

People build near or in these forests, and don't even bother to use material that is heat resistant on the exteriors of the buildings. Then they expect the Forest Service or other government agencies to risk their lives preventing the consequences of their own foolishness. Anybody building in the forest should have tin or tile on the roof and fireproof siding. Also, if the trees or brush, native or ornemental, are close to the house, then they should have a sprinkler system, independent of the grid, or tank of foam, ready to go in case of a forest fire.

I think we need some tough love here. You build in the forest, and request or recieve government help to fight the fires, you pay a sizable amount to the government agency that is involvled, whether or not your home survives.

 

[bobgnote]

Hey. Fatass! I don't look like Jimmy Carville, on meth. Get over it.

If you think we're obliged to respond to ALL of these incoherent rants -- we're not.

I quoted the ENTIRE POST about the flimsy predictive modeling of future fire dangers worldwide. And made points that obviously you don't comprehend or care to discuss. That's where we leave this stuff. I've got to put on a hazard suit just to scan one of your Gollum posts..

Can you believe somebody doesn't believe in any of the following:

1. greenhouse effect (come ON, atmospheric molecules with 3 atoms or more)
2. global climate change (the climate will heat up and oceans will acidify)
3 human causes, for GW, which include cars and chainsaws (humans did it, OK?)
4. the drug war is expensive AND costly, preventing proper allocation of funds
5. we will re-green or lose much human habitat (heard of MASS EXTINCTIONS?)

Fatass, you deleted 4 and 5, ranted a lot, and your rants were really stupid. I guess you caught the same bug that is eating sucksassandballs tiny brain.

I did no such thing -- I copied YOUR ENTIRE post when I started editing and responding.. YOU EDITED your original post while I was still composing.. The times are perfectly clearly there, and some of us take time and effort in our responses.

What you are doing here is trying to change facts and evidence to suit your cause and try to indict ME --- KNOWING that you edited that post. And furthermore you are dodging my critique of the useless link you posted to explain forest fires in the SouthWest.

Wonder where a warmer gets those kinds of tactics eh?

Stupid move Gollum...

My edit time says "perfectly clearly" 2:47, your post with no reply, to 1-5 shows 2:53, and what I was editing was the notice, how the cookie failed, which didn't matter, since the link goes to the article I cited, anyway. Since you don't raise issues or paste passages and ask questions, eat shit.

You still took up 1 and 1/2 pages, quoting in quote, without responding, to 1-5, you miserable, ranting queer. What is your aversion, to picking up on how the drug war needs to end, in order to fund climate change media, including USFS, FEMA, and more?

Are too many of your queer buddies getting over, as drug dealers, for you to admit the drug war needs to be lost, finally? You sure are stupid enough, to fuck up at greenhouse effect, climate change, and AGW. I don't think you will survive, all the way, to the middle, of Mass Extinction Event 6. Something will go really wrong, and you'll fuck up.

What can I say! The bath-house gang turned tricks and shot speed, to shove it's dose of HIV, all the way through AIDS, to death. When the bath-houses closed, Fatass moved to Tennessee, but you survive, in a state of denial.

 

[dilloduck]

FIRED - Colorado Springs fires cops & firefighters -- how's that workin' out for the tax cutters?


Anthropogenic warming-------Anthropogenic response



Waldo Canyon Fire: Wildfire Near Colorado Springs Now 70 Percent Contained; Reconstruction Effort Dire

&#9988;snip>

The devastation from the fire isn't the only thing residents need worry about -- thieves are taking advantage of the evacuated areas and looting homes. At least 32 homes were burglarized and dozens of evacuees' cars were broken into in the evacuation zones since the fire erupted about a week ago, according to Bloomberg. There have been three arrests so far.

The string of burglaries has some wondering if Colorado Springs' anti-tax movement is partially to blame for a lack of resources to protect the area effectively. Bloomberg reports that the city has 50 fewer police and 39 fewer firefighters than five years ago.

In 2010, Colorado Springs had a nearly $28 million budget shortfall so the city government sold police helicopters on the Internet, cut firefighter and police jobs -- including burglary investigators, according to The Denver Post -- asked residents to volunteer to mow public green spaces, and turned off more than thirty percent of the city's streetlights.

&#9988;snip>

Higher taxes will stop disasters-----great campaign slogan !