Mostly Cloudy, 32.0°
Log in ·
It is scheduled to open Friday. Sorry about that.
Posted 18 January 2018, 1:17 p.m.
Francis, the article lists where Lawrence's sales tax rate would rank if the 0.5 percent sales tax was approved. People had asked me about it. Was I supposed to tell them that is a secret? For good measure, the article also points out that there are other considerations for voters besides just the sales tax rate, such as the jail is currently overcrowded and people are concerned about mental health care. If I wanted to make an argument for or against the issue, I would have done that. This is a column and I'm the editor, so such opinion would be allowed. But that's not what I want to do. Rather I want people to have information to make their own decisions. Thanks.
Posted 5 January 2018, 4:20 p.m.
No. There was a lot of apartment construction in 2017, but the construction started in 2016, and thus the permits showed up in that year.
Posted 27 December 2017, 4:20 p.m.
The sheriff's deputies were mentioned in the article: "This year’s graduating class from the Lawrence Police Department’s in-house academy numbers 10 law enforcement officers: eight with the Lawrence Police Department and two with the Douglas County Sheriff’s Office."Thanks.
Posted 13 November 2017, 2:01 p.m.
That's fantastic, Brian.
Posted 6 October 2017, 7:31 a.m.
Hi Brett: Just to set the record straight, I’ve mentioned the impact the Dick’s Sporting Goods development has had on sales taxes many times. Here are a couple I found in about two minutes searching. There are others as well. Menards gets mentioned more only because it is the most recent one, and thus has been having a proportionally greater impact on the total. That will begin to change as it now enters its second year of operating in Lawrence. http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_...http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_... Thanks, Chad
Posted 13 September 2017, 2:58 p.m.
Just to clarify, "sex shop" is the city's phrase. It is how the shop is defined by city code. We used it for that reason. Thanks.
Posted 29 August 2017, 9:09 a.m.
Hi Ryan:I don’t think your assumption is accurate. We’ve checked with the reporter, Elvyn Jones, and he stands by the report. The idea of violent offenders spending less time in jail awaiting trail is consistent with what I have heard Justice Matters advocate for, and it is consistent with the position I’ve heard the County Commission take. The idea is that if you can reduce the amount of time an offender spends sitting in the Douglas County jail waiting for his/her trail to begin — say that time drops from 100 days to 50 days — you have reduced the capacity pressures on the jail. It in no way is saying that violent offenders should be on the streets rather than in jails. In the case of violent offenders who are convicted, they most often do not serve their sentences in the Douglas County jail, but rather in a state-operated prison. The County Commission tentatively has agreed to add another pro-tem judge to the local court system to help reduce the time it takes to move someone through the court system, and thus out of the Douglas County Jail and into another facility, if convicted. I hope that helps. Thanks, Chad Lawhorn, Editor.
Posted 27 July 2017, 10:12 a.m.
Hi David:We did write about this particular issue. I addressed it in a Town Talk column in May 2015. It provided an explanation from the city about the difference between the $75 million number — which was used when the project was seeking tax incentives — and the approximately $45 million number when the project got its building permit. The $45 million represents just building materials and labor. The $75 million also included land costs, demo cost, and quite a few soft costs. Despite the explanation, I still noted it was odd, but the issue didn’t seem to cause much concern with others. The current question is why the project has a tax value of about $29 million when the building permit was close to $45 million. Tax values and building permit numbers don’t always match, but they usually are a lot closer than that. I’ve had discussions with a county official about it. One explanation is the project still really isn’t finished from a tax valuation standpoint (and definitely wasn’t on Jan. 1 when the tax value was set.) If you remember, the city has placed occupancy restrictions on the building until it gets some parking issues and other issues resolved. The lack of the robotic garage also will likely reduce the value of the project some, as the building now has to rely on leased, off-site parking to a large degree. Still, it is an interesting question. Unfortunately, I think we’ll probably have to wait until the 2018 values to get a better picture of it. Here’s the link to the May 2015 article: http://www2.ljworld.com/weblogs/town_...
Posted 11 July 2017, 1:29 p.m.
Sorry. Here is the link to the state income tax article. http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2017/jun...
Posted 27 June 2017, 9:17 p.m.
Full LJWorld.com site
© 2018 LJWorld.com