Transportation on U.S. Highway 40 in western Steamboat is a major component of a potential annexation agreement between the city of Steamboat Springs and Steamboat 700 developers, who would be required to provide a wider road, improved intersections and increased public transit.

Photo by John F. Russell

Transportation on U.S. Highway 40 in western Steamboat is a major component of a potential annexation agreement between the city of Steamboat Springs and Steamboat 700 developers, who would be required to provide a wider road, improved intersections and increased public transit.

Steamboat 700 effects on traffic weighed, debated

Advertisement

photo

On the 'Net

Visit www.steamboat700.com and here for information and downloads regarding the proposed Steamboat 700 annexation.

By the numbers

1 percent: A real estate transfer tax at this rate will be instituted within the project to help pay for items such as affordable housing and a school

20: The number of years property rights will be vested if certain requirements are met

487: The size of the development in acres

2,000: The number of homes - from apartments to large-lot single-family houses - proposed

17,600 to 21,900: The number of daily vehicle trips the development will generate on surrounding roads

380,000: The square footage of commercial development proposed

$960,000: The amount being paid to firm up some of the city's existing water rights

Steamboat 700 timeline

- 5 p.m. Monday

Joint meeting of City Council and the Routt County Board of Commissioners; work session to discuss annexation issues including funding of U.S. Highway 40 improvements

- Sept. 8

City Council meeting; review of fiscal impacts for capital improvements

- Sept. 9

Open house; city and Steamboat 700 officials available to provide information and answer questions

- Sept. 10

Planning Commission meeting; annexation review and traditional neighborhood design amendments

- Sept. 17

Planning Commission meeting; annexation review and traditional neighborhood design amendments

- Sept. 29

City Council meeting; initial review of annexation plat, annexation agreement and traditional neighborhood design ordinance

- Oct. 13

Final consideration of annexation plat, annexation agreement and traditional neighborhood design ordinance

— Traffic concerns are among the many issues being debated as the Steamboat Springs City Council nears an October vote on the multi-faceted Steamboat 700 project that is seeking annexation.

By the developer's own estimations, the project west of city limits that proposes about 2,000 housing units on 487 acres will generate 17,600 vehicle trips a day on surrounding roads, at build-out. That number increases to 21,900 daily vehicle trips if large-format retail, or big box, stores are included. And some suspect those numbers are low because of aggressive assumptions regarding Steamboat 700's future residents' tendency to ride bikes, walk and use public transportation.

Some argue that those numbers alone are reason enough to deny the development, but Steamboat 700 Principal and Project Manager Danny Mulcahy asserts just the opposite.

"Traffic is a concern today with or without Steamboat 700," he said. "The

question is, what do we do for traffic without Steamboat 700? Steamboat 700 is actually an opportunity to have a partner on U.S. 40, which is necessary if we are going to leverage state and federal funds.

"We should take this opportunity to manage growth and capitalize on the growth," Mulcahy continued. "The traffic is coming, one way or the other."

Routt County's 2008 population was 22,980, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. It is projected to increase to 44,708 in 2035, according to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs. If growth isn't concentrated in western Steamboat, Mulcahy said, instead it will go to thousands of vacant lots in Hayden, Stagecoach and other outlying areas of Routt County.

The city's West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan states that such sprawl "will result in increased commuting time, road and infrastructure costs, traffic impacts, split family life and other social costs, and higher costs of recruiting a work force for Steamboat Springs businesses."

Mulcahy also said that if growth goes to those other areas instead of western Steamboat, the city won't have any financial partners to construct needed transportation improvements. He said that is particularly important in the state's current budget climate. Steamboat 700 and the city agree that the state typically would cover the costs of improvements to U.S. Highway 40, but the Colorado Department of Transportation is strapped for cash.

"That trend isn't going to change for years," Mulcahy said.

Mitigating impacts

The most substantial improvements accompanying Steamboat 700 are those to U.S. 40. The road would be widened to four lanes from downtown to the entrance of Steamboat 700, and its main intersections would be improved. Steamboat 700's cost share for the improvements is being negotiated; Mulcahy guessed Steamboat 700 would pay between $5 million and $16 million.

"The biggest element outside of 40 is the transit element," said Philo Shelton, city public works director.

Steamboat 700 also would be required to pay for the non-grant portion of four Steamboat Springs Transit buses and construct a transit center and bus stops. Improvements to Downhill Drive, Routt County Road 42 and C.R. 129 also would accompany the project. The city's annexation agreement with Steamboat 700 grants density as improvements are constructed.

According to a draft capital facilities phasing plan, for example, Steamboat 700 must pay 77 percent of the cost of improvements to U.S. 40 from 12th Street to C.R. 129. It must purchase two transit buses at 700 units and another two at 1,500 units, according to the draft plan.

"My density will be limited based on improvements that will be constructed," Mulcahy said.

City Council candidate Kevin Bennett thinks the city has not done enough to mitigate Steamboat 700's traffic impacts.

"The new traffic study ignores safety issues and simply funnels all the new traffic to the edge of Old Town," he said.

Bennett also thinks it is inappropriate that the city and Routt County are spending large amounts of money to build the New Victory Highway, a road that would provide access to the development from C.R. 129 north of and parallel to U.S. 40. Shelton said Routt County has committed $500,000 to the project and the city has contributed $1.3 million. Steamboat 700 and the Overlook Park development are paying for the portions of the road that cross their property. Bennett said the taxpayer contribution is an example of current government officials catering to developers.

John Eastman, the city's planning services manager, disagrees. He said the city's and county's contributions to the road were contemplated in the WSSAP and are part of government's commitment to encourage growth in western Steamboat to create affordable housing.

"We're putting significant resources and funds toward it," Eastman said.

The traffic impacts of the development will be a topic of discussion at 5 p.m. Monday at a joint meeting of the Steamboat Springs City Council and the Routt County Board of Commissioners. The two governing bodies will discuss earmarking a portion of property tax and building use tax for U.S. 40 improvements and other specific projects. A final vote on the annexation is scheduled for Oct. 13.

Comments

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

What we have here is two competing agendas. One is limited growth and making growth as difficult and selective as possible, imposing extreme expense on growth. This follows the pattern of many ski areas, driving the less afluent downvalley, this approach has many drawbacks and does not let the working class share in the windfall of appreciating assets. This will require a big transportation investment, the same that we are facing today. The community will become a haven for the wealthy. The demand for social engineers will be good, considering the hardships imposed on the lower class. We presently have this situation with affordable housing, which is a bandaid for the problem and a tool for less growth and more expensive development. The other approach is to let the 700 come in and share in some of the expenses, increase inventory, and let the working folks become a partner in the community. This also keeps sales tax revenue here, and improves their quality of life. The larger inventory will drop prices and dramatically lower the cost of living. Voting patterns will change as the workers need a thriving economy to keep a paycheck coming. We will no longer fight growth, and suffer the unintended consequences that are evident today. The marketplace rules our valley and trying to fool mother nature is another exercise in foolishness. I don't like the idea of more growth but I think that history will not smile on micromanagers. The marketplace approach will decrease tne need for social engineers, it is good for workers to provide their own "pursuit of happiness" at the expense of those who would intervene in the process. The question is, what direction do we go?

0

freerider 4 years, 7 months ago

ANYBODY WITH HALF A BRAIN CAN FIGURE WHAT 4 LANES FUNNELING DOWN TO ONE LANE IS GOING TO DO TO DOWNTOWN........NEXT LET'S JUST MOVE THE YAMPA RIVER AND MAKE ROOM FOR THE 700 CLUB ........STOP THIS INSANITY NOW....THERE IS 5 TO 7 YEARS WORTH OF REAL ESTATE INVENTORTY ALREADY IN STEAMBOAT, GO BACK TO VEGAS TO SELL YOUR BS

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

freeby, You are correct about the Lincoln problem, let the economy kick up now and the street is already at gridlock. Traffic will come regardless of the 700 status and they are willing to contribute. Lincoln has created denial in our leaders, they are not willing to look 5 years down the road. We are no stronger than the weakest link. Some of the no growth crowd see Lincoln as the trump card to force us onto busses and stifle growth. History will not smile on micromanagers.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 7 months ago

Hayden and the County have eliminated the question of whether growth will occur in the Yampa Valley. Both have approved enough lots to handle population growth for many years. These people will be driving to SB.

SB has approved Wildhorse, One Steamboat and presumably is not planning on keeping vacant lots in Ski Time Square. SB did not consider how those projects would impact traffic on Lincoln.

The question for SB 700 is thus whether it is better than the alternatives. The possible alternatives is it being developed as 35 acre parcels, not being developed, a different design or different terms.

I don't know whether SB 700 is better than the alternatives. I do know that SB 700 is not a decision regarding regional growth.

0

stillinsteamboat 4 years, 7 months ago

The New Victory Highway is a joke!! Talk about bottleneck. Try to get on hwy 40 from 129 between 7:30 am and 8:30 or between 4pm and 5:30 pm. Add another 20,000 trips a day to that. Who is the genius who came up with that idea?

"If growth isn't concentrated in western Steamboat, Mulcahy said, instead it will go to thousands of vacant lots in Hayden, Stagecoach and other outlying areas of Routt County." Can anyone tell me why this would be worse than 700. Personally I'd rather have the homes distributed around the county instead of being concentrated.

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years, 7 months ago

"Can anyone tell me why this would be worse than 700. Personally I'd rather have the homes distributed around the county instead of being concentrated."

Boulder decided to take that approach, hence growth explosions in Longmont, Lafayette, Louisville, Superior, etc. Ever driven to & from work to Boulder from those towns?

Likewise for Aspen re: Basalt, Carbondale, Glenwood.

Who has paid for road and signal improvements from those outlying municipalities into the primary economic centers of Aspen & Boulder? I have not had the time to research this, but these are definitely examples worth looking into when considering the scenario of allowing Hayden, Stagecoach, etc. to become our bedroom communities.

0

CedarBeauregard 4 years, 7 months ago

I think there will always be a huge price differential between Steamboat and the surrounding "bedroom communities" regardless of SB 700. And because of that differential there will be a market to live outside of town. Hence I do see the correlation between the annexation of SB 700 and the slowing down of regional growth.

0

CedarBeauregard 4 years, 7 months ago

Karen I just had a thought.
Were your examples (Boulder and Aspen) desirable places to live because they limited growth? Or did they have to limit growth because they were so desirable?

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years, 7 months ago

Windle, You are right, they already are bedroom communities for Steamboat. Yes I have driven it. You ain't seen nothing compared to the examples I gave.

Cedar, That is a good point unless the housing prices in the annexation areas can truly compete with the housing prices in Hayden & Stagecoach. Either way, with or without annexation, you are suggesting that regional growth will continue. Traffic is the issue being discussed. If regional growth does not slow, and annexation fails, where does the funding for necessary Hwy 40 improvements come from? What is Plan B? Would county property taxes paid by all taxpayers need to be increased to cover it? (that's a question for anyone, not just Cedar)

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 7 months ago

Hayden and Stagecoach already are bedroom communities. Will traffic be improved if all growth is concentrated there? Might traffic be less awful if SB 700 is built that pays for some traffic improvements and is more practical to access via public transit?

It is not as if SB is considering major annexations to the south, east and north. It is considering an annexation that has long been part of regional plans. In fact, the SB 700 annexation took far longer than the regional plans had expected.

The relevance of regional plans should not be totally ignored because if SB is not going to accept it's responsibility to provide at least a share of it's housing then why shouldn't the County approve housing needed in SB on the borders of SB?

I am not suggesting that the SB 700 plan should be accepted as is. Personally, I think there needs to be a way after 5 years to evaluate if it is meeting it's goals and make adjustments as needed. It just makes no sense from a planning perspective to be approving the second half of the development that will not be built for at least 10 years. Vested development rights have all too often been used by developers to build bad projects that are not like what their neighbors were able to build.

0

CedarBeauregard 4 years, 7 months ago

I don't think your wrong Scott but what I want to know is why out of 52 people I have asked "what do you think about SB 700" only 3 have been in favor of it? And don't think I asked only anti growth people. I went looking for a yes response.

0

CedarBeauregard 4 years, 7 months ago

To sum up my personal outreach I would say most feel SB 700 is simply out of proportion to the size of Steamboat. Ya 2000 homes annexed into a City of 200,000 would be fine but a our little town?

I think people are afraid that SB 700 is so big that it will in someway define who we are. Oh ya and that character that we all want to save... in allot of ways our character is defined buy our struggle to survive in Steamboat. Most everyone I talked to had a housing struggle. But they had no interest in living in a large track subdivision. In fact the opposite. They are way more concerned about loosing why they moved here and struggle to survive here than they are about the house they live in. Most could live the perfect "American Dream" any where in the USA but chose Steamboat instead.

Sorry to blurt this out but I have been up many nights about this and I'm sure to have many more..

Also please ignore my spelling.. Not my strong point..

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 7 months ago

Ced, SB 700 is change. And being asked to add all of it at once is huge change. People have a natural way of thinking that it will all be built at once.

It is easy to see it as defining SB in a couple of years.

And your 3 out of 52 is not what I see in my neighborhood. It is probably closer to a split.

Adding 2,000 to SB is crazy, but adding 150 with modern urban design principles (garages in back and so on) would not be crazy. and when that was done then adding another 150. And if that in 20 years all added up to 2,000 then it could be a really nice part of SB.

And if SB adds nothing for 20 years then this area will be a real mess.

The real problem here is that the SB growth plan went through ONE property. And that growth plan put all affordable housing into that property and not into any projects within SB (until linkage and such came along 10+ years later). And now that ENTIRE property plus acquired adjacent property is trying to do the entire growth plan for 20 years in one vote.

I had a conversation with John Eastman in 2001 and I pointed out those flaws and he said he tried to get alternate paths of development so that there could be advantages to the property owners that acted first, but that was shot down.

Bad plans results in future decisions between less than ideal choices.

Personally, I would vote against SB 700 because I would not approve parts of an annexation that are at least 7 years from being built. I'd say come back again when you are within 7 years of building the next part. But I think SB 700 has generally made a reasonable plan and the current agreement would be fair for the first 7 years and should served as the basis for the next annexation for the following 7 years of development. Specifically, it is not fair to ask SB 700 to solve traffic issues that would be worse if SB 700 is not developed.

0

trafficman 4 years, 7 months ago

Unless an area goes into an economic meltdown, growth is inevitable. The question then becomes where do you want the growth and how can you best provide the infrastructure to support the growth. It would appear the plan to concentrate development in the west of Steamboat area is a very sensible plan. If there is anything that has been learned from urban development, concentrating development and providing higher density actually provides a much more desirable solution. Having a major development that is willing to contribute significant dollars to the infrastructure improvements is a tremendous advantage.

In the early 90s Disney proposed a new theme park in Northern Virginia approximately 35 miles from DC. Disney offered millions of dollars that would have made significant improvements to the local road network. The Piedmont Environmental Coalition and other activists group came out in opposition and eventually resulted in Disney pulling out of the project. Now 15 years later the area has developed under the zoning that was already in place which has allowed numerous lower density housing development to be built that has only made the traffic significantly worse with little to any improvements in the roadway infrastructure. Rather than having the Disney theme park that would be attracting trips in a reverse commute pattern for only a few months a year when the park was open, you now have thousands of homes being the origin of trips and adding to the commuting nightmare. Improvements to the roadway network that Disney would have provided have still not been made since the state does not have the funds to pay for the improvements that are needed.

If Steamboat 700 isn't approved my prediction is that in 15 years everyone will still be complaining about how bad the traffic is on US 40, why isn't there any money to make the improvementst that are needed, the average trip length will be significantly longer, more emissions will be pouring out of tailpipes, and public transit will not be viable to serve the new trips that are generated from the scattered development that will occur. Those so staunchly opposed to a concentrated development beware of what you wish for. I've seen the results of what can happen and it is not pretty.

0

CedarBeauregard 4 years, 7 months ago

"Adding 2,000 to SB is crazy, but adding 150 with modern urban design principles (garages in back and so on) would not be crazy. and when that was done then adding another 150. And if that in 20 years all added up to 2,000 then it could be a really nice part of SB."

What your suggesting would require a phased plan. Something we have asked for but not yet seen from SB 700. Maybe with more control of the build out the public would be more supportive.

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years, 7 months ago

Keep in mind the annexation's vested rights are not the same as final plat rights. Preliminary & Final Plats still must meet development criteria laid out in the TND zoning standards and will be subject to the same vesting as the rest of the city. The same goes for specific project Development and Final Development plans. Phasing has and continues to be a concern as Cedar points out. I believe the annexation agreement has some density controls in it. It could be argued that this is forced phasing, but I have not read this language yet to make that determination. Additionally, the annexation agreement allows the continued haying of land until a development starts. This is good b/c undeveloped parcels will maintain their rural character & productivity until development time vs. becoming barren & wasted.

Trafficman - Thank you for articulating those points & providing the example.

I think fear and uncertainty are weighing heavily on everyone's mind. It is important, though admittedly difficult, to keep reason at the fore. It is important to understand good planning principles and weigh the annexation against them. It is important not to be short-sighted. It is important to consider probable scenarios of how this community will grow if the annexation passes and if the annexation fails. Each has its consequence/outcome and we must understand them and make our decision based on which outcome we want to live with.

Though Steamboat has its own unique set of circumstances, we are not reinventing the wheel here. We - the community - should be looking at examples of the good, bad, and ugly. It is wise to learn from others. Anyone voting has a responsibility to be informed. Perhaps we should have Bike-in Presentations at Howelsen?

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 7 months ago

I don't think the the public wants "more control of the build out". If that was the issue then SB 700 could easily enough put in a max number of units built per 3 years or such.

I think the public is generally misinformed and thinks that SB 700 intends to build as many as possible fast as possible. And so there could be 2,000 new homes out there in a few years.

I think the issue is whether an agreement reached now could be a bad agreement that in 10 or 15 years fails to deal with the important issues of that time. And if that is the developer's favor then the developer benefits. And if that is not in the developer's favor then the developer puts it on hold, goes to the City Council and modifies the agreement.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

Karen, The road to Aspen was improved by CDOT, that cost ran into the hundreds of millions. SB has the same one road scenario, and we are not in line for any money. 700 is the only one willing to contribute, the others will probably need a free ride. 700 has followed our planning guidelines, if that is not what we want, why are wasting our time planning?

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years, 7 months ago

Cedar, To your chicken & egg question above - The question should be: Can a place be desirable without gentrification? In all of my schooling, gentrification was taught as the evil outcome and the quest was to discover ways to achieve desirability & community character without gentrification. Boulder and particularly Aspen are extreme examples of gentrification. So, was gentrification furthered by their actions and/or non-actions? Does Steamboat want to go down the same path? Can we maintain/achieve desirability and community character without gentrification? If so, how? I believe the WSSAP was and is that quest, and annexation - in some form - is the intended outcome - the mechanism to maintain community character with respect to socioeconomic diversity and prevent the Evil G.

0

CedarBeauregard 4 years, 7 months ago

"... if that is not what we want, why are wasting our time planning?"

That is a good question Fred. A follow up question might be if the populous doesn't like the outcome of the plan do you fulfill the wishes of the plan or of the people.

On a small scale in construction for example I would never insist we fallow the plan if the family decided they didn't like the outcome.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

Hi Cedar, I agree, I can go either way, but it is not fair to lead developers into this trap and then decide to cancel. Let's be up front and let everyone know the risks involved.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 7 months ago

Or at the very least, state the various conditions and let the developer meet them or argue why they don't apply.

It is incompetent for the City to, in the middle of the application, to be deciding what are the standards.

Ced, Trouble with your analogy is that the develop can always stop and try to get permission to make desired. What you appear to be suggesting is that if the City does not like how your house is being built then it could tell you to stop and how to redesign it.

I think the more appropriate analogy would be if you owned 4 neighboring lots which you planned to build a house every 5 years and you asked the City to approve all 4 houses instead of just 1 that you plan to build now.

0

CedarBeauregard 4 years, 7 months ago

Hello all,

I have been having bloggers remorse and rightfully so. This is not the place for me to be discussing these issues.. There will be a very complete discussion in the next two months inside the public meetings. I encourage you to all come. I also encourage you to contact staff in the interim to discuss any issues you might have or want more information on before those meetings.

The last thing I want is the impression that these huge decisions are made outside of the public realm. Or on these blogs for example.

Thanks,

Cedar

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years, 7 months ago

Cedar, Exactly..... only not quite. This is a legislative matter. Engaging the public is critical. While the blog is not part of the legal "public" forum, it is hardly behind closed doors. Planning Commission has 7 criteria for approval of annexation and we have an obligation to review an annexation though the lens of those criteria when reviewing evidence presented in the public hearing. Our public hearing has been going on for a year and a half now, and we have been providing feedback & forming our opinions - based on evidence & questions presented and discussed at those hearings with respect to those criteria - throughout that time period. The next 2 hearings will be the culmination of that process for us. We have seen the bulk of the "evidence" presented by both staff and the applicant - and the next 2 hearings will be the closing arguments, the wrap-up, the final presentation of facts that have been negotiated and modified through the public process thus far. And though we have not seen the exact final form of the agreement yet in order to make a decision, we are certainly not going into this blindly.

But can you say that the room has been filled with concerned citizens throughout this process? Can you say that their portion of "evidence" has been presented to us. I cannot. This concerns me, as I believe it does you, on so many levels. This is why we are here, on this blog, regarding this legislative matter. The intent is not to convince anyone one way or another. The intent is to engage in meaningful dialogue; to entice people to think, to research, to become educated and informed; to contemplate scenarios regarding the future of this community. The intent is to draw the community into the process, b/c a) their public comments at the hearings are crucial pieces of "evidence" and b) ultimately the community, through the power of referendum, makes the final decision. And guess what. They are not bound by the same 7 criteria. An uninformed yes or no carries the same weight as an informed one. I would much rather people be educated and informed and approach the responsibility through reason rather than fear and uncertainty - whether or not they come to the same conclusion as you or I or the 2 bodies of 7.

I make no apologies for this.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

If we reject the 700 I think the cities name should be changed from Steamboat Springs to Hayseed springs. In recent years we have often been embarassed by poor decisions, this would give us a reputation of incompetence, well deserved. We need to start all over and establish ground rules and attempt to reflect some class. I'm not leaning one way or the other but we need to treat people with respect, regardless of who they are.

0

Steve Lewis 4 years, 7 months ago

Good points.

In my opinion, the annexation process has been very fair. Area plans contemplate we will apply due diligence and obviously in that diligence, uncontemplated factors will come to bear. The recession is one such uncontemplated factor. Certainly it affects the City's side of the "partnership".

Few outside the staff and officials take the time to understand the details. This takes a lot of time actually. I was fortunate to get the information as a planning commissioner. The recent scenario released to show how the 700 CHP would bear 400 units is great work, but also pretty complicated.

Fear of uncertainty is valid, given we are projecting costs over 25 years and we are guessing at interest rates that will make it all work. This is no small deal. I agree this uncertainty and complexity could be reduced with a smaller annexation.

Fear has another face affecting the conversation. A fear which has little to do with uncertainty : I've met a few who feel speaking up will bring negative consequences. Some who spoke up relate getting pushback in other tiers of their life. Its easier to go with the flow. I expect its more lucrative to support development than it is to question development. So in my estimation, this undercurrent runs against the annexation.

I prefer more engaged neighbors, sure, but none of this process is a "trap", or unfair to SB700.

0

freerider 4 years, 7 months ago

Fred ...how much money do you stand to make off the SB 700 ?? You don't have much credibility here

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

freeby, As JFK would say, that is a good question, I'm glad you asked it. The 700 work will be done through a metro district scenario, all bids will be advertised and my chances are no better than someone opposing the project. I am for fair treatment, regardless of who may be involved. Steve I disagree, with your assesment that this will be fair to turn 700 away, I think that our free enterprise system needs fairness to thrive and I don't think that income redistribution or wounding capitalist pigs will lead to anything good. RIght now we need to help the net producers before the net consumers will have a pie to share in. We have many solutions proposed here but no one is going to help pay the bills except 700.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

Steve, Recently you indicated that 700 would increase in value exponentially once the annexation was complete. Huge profits were in order and the scare was on. This is probibly the most irresponsible blog that I have seen since I started participating. You evidently are blinded by ideology, to make a statement like this. This conclusion would take at least a month to have a thread of competency, Steve Aigneresque. I think you need to back up your claims or print a public apology.

0

Steve Lewis 4 years, 7 months ago

I incorrectly joined two parts of the Village Center move. It was in our review/update of the original WSSAP that the main landowner, Mary Brown, sought a release from the centrally located Village Center. She sought flexibility. The Village Center location was left open in that 2006 WSSAP update, before SB700 bought the land.

We had the remainder of the conversation with SB700, which is where the Village Center was moved near Hwy 40. That discussion had a grocery in the Village Center.

0

Steve Lewis 4 years, 7 months ago

Fred, In the thread you refer to, I posted my math and I asked for rebuttal, "feel free to let me know what I've left out". I was expecting someone would take issue with those numbers. No one did. Nor have you.

Instead you refer to your beliefs about my ideaology. You are wrong, but of course I'm talking with a wall there. In your mind developers always play fair and I'm the lunatic fringe always hurting them. I've posted several events to rebut your twisted reality. Here's another:

Early in the review of SB700, the applicant sought to drop the requirement for a Village Center located at the core of the property, and instead place the Village Center near Hwy 40. They were then promising a Village Center with a grocery store.

This was back when, in my opinion, planning commission had an even political balance. Cari and Scott were on it, with myself and Dick Curtis.

One of us argued that downtown traffic would be best mitigated by a strong commercial Village Center out west, and that strength was increased by moving the Village Center and its grocery store closer to Hwy 40.

That argument found support and the core located Village Center of the WSSAP was dropped by planning commission. The developer was quite happy about that and Fred, I was the commissioner who first supported his point of view. I still think it was a good move and will reduce traffic at our downtown bottleneck.

The Village Center is now right beside Hwy 40, like the developer wanted, but there is no longer a promised grocery store. Is there?

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

Steve, I too would like a grocery store, if we are to serve the west area and eliminate traffic through the Lincoln Ave. parking lot. Coming up with a counter to your, in my opinion absurd, claim of profiteering is for you to prove. Laying out a claim like this does not automatically put the ball in Danny's court, this is a game that you initiated and you need to back it up. This is your game and Danny is not obligated to participate, if this were true we need all companies to open the books for social engineers to determine their contributions to the greater good.

0

Steve Lewis 4 years, 7 months ago

Fred, You are right. My profit guess was uneducated, too high, and missing a lot of "line item" numbers. Items I know little or nothing about.

I had an "old" annexation agreement, dated 8/25/09. The latest draft agreement, dated 8/31/09 has a 20,000 sqft grocery back in the deal. That will help with the traffic.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.