Steamboat 700 development partner Michael Werner talks Wednesday evening during a Steamboat 700 open house at the Steamboat Springs Community Center.

Photo by Matt Stensland

Steamboat 700 development partner Michael Werner talks Wednesday evening during a Steamboat 700 open house at the Steamboat Springs Community Center.

Steamboat 700 open house draws large crowd

Project gets opinions from passionate group

Advertisement

Steamboat 700 timeline

- 5 p.m. today, Centennial Hall, 124 10th St. - 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 - City Council meeting; final consideration of annexation plat, annexation agreement and traditional neighborhood design ordinance

— A large and diversly opinionated crowd turned out to the Steamboat Springs Community Center on Wednesday for an open house and town hall meeting to discuss the controversial and complex Steamboat 700 development project.

Opinions ranged from strongly supportive to very opposed. Others said they remain undecided and used Wednesday's event as an opportunity to learn more about the project that proposes about 2,000 residences and 380,000 square feet of commercial space on U.S. Highway 40 just west of current city limits.

"That's why I'm here - to educate myself," resident Mike Gilbert said.

Gilbert said he has concerns about the project but also thinks it could be good for the local economy by providing the housing infrastructure necessary to attract companies and jobs.

"Nobody disputes this is a great place to live," Gilbert said. "The only thing people do dispute is that it's so economically challenging."

Jack White, president of the Community Alliance of the Yampa Valley, said the organization also is undecided. He said the Community Alliance generally is supportive of the project because it is modeled after the West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan but that there are still too many unanswered questions on subjects such as water, revenue neutrality and traffic.

Others were unequivocal in their views. Resident Greg Rawlings said the project "scares me to death." Others said the alternative is the true horror.

"We economically gate ourselves if we don't move forward with this project," said resident Curtis Church, formerly of the Yampa Valley Housing Authority.

Many questions were asked Wednesday about what happens if the city doesn't annex Steamboat 700 or if it is annexed but the developer is unable, financially, to bring the project to fruition.

Tom Leeson, the city of Steamboat Springs' planning and community development director, said that if Steamboat 700 is denied, the community should reassess 15 years of community planning that have directed growth westward. Steamboat 700 Principal and Project Manager Danny Mulcahy said the 487-acre parcel wouldn't sit as open space if annexation is denied and most likely would be developed as 35-acre lots. Both said the city would lose a financial partner to help mitigate the impacts of growth that may come one way or the other.

"They are certainly contributing a lot of money for highway improvements," Leeson said. "Without Steamboat 700, we have not really identified a long-term plan for highway improvements."

Some at Wednesday's event said they fear that if the city annexes Steamboat 700 and the developer goes under, the city will be left with challenges similar to those that exist in Stagecoach, where thousands of lots are platted without the infrastructure necessary to serve them. City and Steamboat 700 officials said a more sophisticated planning process has produced an annexation agreement that doesn't allow for buildable lots to be platted until the infrastructure necessary to serve them is in place.

Several questions were asked about Steamboat 700's affordable housing plan, which calls for the developer to dedicate 12.5 acres to the city and institute a 0.5 percent real estate transfer tax within the development. Some were skeptical that the plan would result in 20 percent of housing in the development being deed restricted for sale to residents and families that earn 80 percent of the area median income, which is the standard called for in the West of Steamboat Springs Area Plan. Leeson said the city is relying on projections it has developed showing that the land contribution and transfer tax proceeds will give the city the resources it needs to be meet that standard.

Wednesday's open house and town hall meeting served as an introduction to the city's final round of annexation hearings, which begin today when the Steamboat Springs Planning Commission will receive a presentation on and discuss the overall annexation. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to City Council on Sept. 17. City Council is scheduled to consider the first and second readings of the annexation ordinances on Sept. 29 and Oct. 13, respectively. Leeson asked those in attendance Wednesday to stay involved.

"We encourage you all to come down and make comments," he said. "It's important."

Also today - and every Thursday until the Oct. 13 vote - Steamboat 700 will hold a free breakfast at 8:15 a.m. at The Egg & I restaurant for anyone interested in discussing the development. A similar breakfast will be held at 8 a.m. Friday at Steamboat 700's offices on the second floor of the Chieftain Building at Lincoln Avenue and Fourth Street.

Comments

greenwash 4 years, 7 months ago

14- 35 acre homesites on 487 aces for $25 million....Ouch!

70 single family houses for rent in todays paper an even bigger ouch.

Hold on cowboys its going to be a wild ride.

0

robert nestora 4 years, 7 months ago

As a new resident i dont want to assume what is good for steamboat but i know if i owned a home near the 700 and now they want to build this behemoth i would ask the town and developer to pay me for my loss of value. isnt this the same council that lowered the fee developers had to pay for eliminating affordable housing, allowed developers to build downtown with insufficent parking and thought buying ironhorse inn was a good idea. guess thats what happens when you let real estate brokers decide your fate. and they vote and then leave. i love steamboat but feel a few under the guise of progress will prosper while the local residents around 700 will suffer in many ways. will lou antonucci reap rewards.

0

Martha D Young 4 years, 7 months ago

There was significant community support for putting the 700 annexation decision on this fall's election ballot. Instead Council plans to vote on the annexation next month. Open houses and town hall meetings do not generate the level of public involvement that a ballot issue would. I am not at all comfortable with seven people making a decision that will affect us and future citizens for generations to come.

0

Alpru 4 years, 7 months ago

Now that we've been educated, put it on the Ballot. We're smart enough to decide what's best for our community.

0

Scott Wedel 4 years, 7 months ago

The point of breaking it up into 35 acre lots would not be to build one house per 35 acres and be done with it. It would be to sell 35 acres that could be annexed into the city. Most would expect to wait until a neighboring parcel managed to get annexed.

But with it all split up, the city would have to front the money to build infrastructure and then get reimbursed when a parcel gets annexed. And there'd be some parcels that would be logically the next to be annexed that refuse to be annexed.

It would basically blow up the WSSAP and force the City to invest to keep it alive.

For me, the big problem is that the City is being asked to make one decision for a 20 year build out for 2,000 houses. If it turns out that SB 700 is proceeding differently than expected then it is big enough to actually really screw up SB. They should annex 10-15% of it with a prorated agreement similar to what has been agreed upon so far. And so it is all good then in 5 years they can request for another big chunk of it to be annexed using the same agreement.

But with key elements such as the real estate transfer tax being of dubious legality what happens if the first buyer goes to court and wins?

It is simply too risky to have such a large annexation with such a long build out to be covered by one agreement.

I'd vote yes for annexing part of it, no for annexing the entire parcel.

0

Steve Lewis 4 years, 7 months ago

I encourage you all to do something I have yet to do - watch a Steamboat Planning Commission meeting. I'm going tonight because its an excellent opportunity to see the whole enchilada explained.

If you want a primer on the annexation, the presentations by City staff and SB700, will lay it out. And 7 planning commissioners will discus on what they feel needs improving.

80% of this information will become irrelevant and unmentioned in any ballot campaign. That will only be about 4-5 elements of SB700.

Do yourself a favor and check it out tonight.

0

Steve Lewis 4 years, 7 months ago

The first 5 pages of this staff report to planning commission have staff's "grading" of SB700:

http://steamboatsprings.net/documents/agenda_item_2_steamboat_700_01_staff_report

I disagree with staff's high marks for SB700's affordable housing. SB700 has barely met the requirements of the WSSAP, the west area plan. Even that is guesswork - we won't know if the SB700 promise of 12.5 acres (with water and sewer infrastructure) and .5% VRETF will amount to the required 400 units sold at 80% AMI for another 20-30 years.

The WSSAP has a stated goal of 33% affordable housing out west. In my opinion SB700, has yet to put in writing how we will reach that goal.

Affordable Housing Grade: C-

0

blue_spruce 4 years, 7 months ago

Doesn't the economic downturn of the past 12 or so months warrant re-evaluating a project of this scope? Everything I've heard so far in relation to the 700 project assumes that we will "bounce back" from this economic climate in a relatively short period of time. What if this is not the case? Do we really want to move on such a massive project RIGHT NOW? The more the developers push for everything to happen now, now now:the more nervous I get. Just a thought.

0

Duke_bets 4 years, 7 months ago

marthalee - The city council members were elected by a public vote. Opening 700 up to a public vote would be undermining the authority of the council.

0

justice4all 4 years, 7 months ago

If the developers want to develope, then let them. AY THEIR OWN EXPENSE!!! Let them sell 35 acre lots and forget annexation---just like others have done. This will allow the buyers to decide if the parcels are affordable. Let us not bow down to real estate developers and sacrifice the Valley that we as locals love the way it is, but loved much better 25 years ago. Again, I will restate: we are developing ourselves into destruction. Do we really want industry to come here and destroy the way of life that we love? We have sat by and allowed enough to happen already. Let us now stand up and preserve our valley by resisting more mass development.

0

Jeff Kibler 4 years, 7 months ago

Duke, I agree. Martha, we are all free to voice our opinions to the city council. I am certainly going to voice mine.

0

Chad James 4 years, 7 months ago

Studionsl,

No this council is not the council that approved the downtown development or the purchase of the Iron Horse.

This is the council that replaced that council and has been trying to clean up the mess left by them which includes the affordable housing program.(the intent was good and it brought people to the table but nonetheless it penalized building moderate priced housing options)

The last council bought and over paid for the Iron Horse, rezoned the base area to higher density, implemented an unworkable and counter productive Inclusionary Zoning ordinance and burned through the City reserves.

Additionally the 1998 & 1999 council spent thousands of tax payer money to find a traffic solution (1998 Mobility and Circulation Plan) but then didn't have the leadership to implement any solutions and chose to just pass the buck.

The State had plenty of Money for roads from 2000-2007 if we had implemented the plans the community paid for.

0

robert nestora 4 years, 7 months ago

your very much like the obama administration you blame everybody else and think your the saviors as they say look in the mirror and ask if you can honestly say you have the peoples best interest in mind not your own

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

The city and county have been trying to get this area developed for some time now. Many seem to be getting cold feet at the last minute. The "you can't be too careful" crowd seem to be seizing the moment with the conclusion, we dare not risk. Many politicians will head for high ground and try to find a fence to straddle. This all makes me sad at the lack of courage we display, but maybe we will find solace in writing grants, and redistributing wealth from those that have less than we do. No guts no glory!

0

Rob Douglas 4 years, 7 months ago

Fred, With all due respect, the last thing we need from our elected representaitves is movie cliche mentality. That is precisely what got this country in the fix it is in.

I've watched over the last year as several members of the City Council have justified deficit spending as the courageous thing to do, while argunig that it shows faith in the future and leadership. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Most notably, Steve Ivancie has voiced this illogical reasoning, as has Jon Quinn. And, while I like and respect both men, that reasoning is immature, emotional and foolish. And, it just digs our collective fiscal hole deeper.

The last year has brought, thankfully, significant change to the way Americans view economics. We've gone from a negative savings rate to a positive one - no matter how hard our "leaders" have tried to tell us it's our duty to spend. If there is anything Americans, Coloradans and those of us in this valley agree on today it is that we are sick of fiscal irresponsibility by government.

The most important decision each member of the council will need to make is whether the annexation of 700 - or any annexation in the future - makes economic sense for the city.

No emotions.

No fantasy or wishful thinking.

And, most importantly, no decisions made under implied threat or promise from those with economic self-interest.

Just a clear-eyed assessment and resulting decision based on the reality of the numbers on the day of the vote.

It really is that simple.

0

robert nestora 4 years, 7 months ago

is it just me or is fred duckels like the city council looking to prosper from the passage of 700.

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years, 7 months ago

studionsl: it's just you. now shut up unless you have something of substance to say.

To the rest of the bloggers who have added civil dialogue to this important discussion: I apologize for my rudeness and as always, look forward to reading thoughtful and thought-provoking posts.

0

robert nestora 4 years, 7 months ago

like me the ones being shut up by the city council are the voters who are not being given a chance to vote on something that has so much importance. have all the council members vowed not to prosper in any form from their decision

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years, 7 months ago

Well I thought that I might regret letting my exhaustion send me on the low road. My regret lies in that I now feel I must entertain a silly conversation in order to put it to bed. a) You were asked to shut up to the extent you make unsubstantiated accusations against solid employers with hard-working employees in this valley. I believe that most of the people in Steamboat Springs are smart enough to understand the difference between cronyism & job creation, job opportunity. Because some employers choose to publicly advocate for a project that he/she believes will create the latter does not mean the former exists. You pointed your finger at one such employer, he answered you with a valid response more than once, yet you persist. It is childish and foolish and serves as a distraction to dissuade people from thinking rationally and participating in civil conversation about the real issues. b) Regarding future prosperity for City Council: With or without this development, will there be real estate to sell in this city? Will there be a resident or property owner who might need legal council? Will there be someone who needs buildings designed and plans drafted? Will there be businesses & households who need computer service? Will people who live in the city or businesses operating in the city need assistance with organizing and personal planning? Might there be some surveying work needed? Absolutely. They, as well as all professionals, service providers and business owners are free to make an honest living in any legal way they choose and we should HOPE they prosper doing so. Are demands for their professional services or businesses contingent on this development moving forward? Of course not! Whether or not they are prosperous in their future business or wage-earning endeavors is NOT dependant on the approval or denial of this project and to say that we should limit their ability to compete freely in the market b/c they serve on the Council is preposterous. c) You may have legitimate questions about conflicts of interest and you may certainly question motives and agendas. This is your right and responsibility. I call you out, however, on your continued one-liner potshots as your chosen form of political rhetoric. The people of Steamboat Springs are smarter than that. d) Though, admittedly, I did say "shut up" (my Mother would scold me), I did include an "unless" in the statement. I urge you to join the conversation and get involved with substance and civility. I recognize, of course, that a continued display of ignorance is your right.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

Rob, I have indicated for some time that our community lacks the guts to make any but the smallest decisions. We are addicted to small thinking and if 700 is a wise decision I fear that it will be voided merely because the decision is too big. This could be a huge mistake. This is one reason that 'grant' fever is so popular, big bargain, small risk, at least for now. We have not had real leaders that could lead us through a decision this important. We looked for a long time to find a partner on the 700 and now some of the same people are picking it apart in order to avoid making a decision, mostly out of fear in my opinion. Our lack of leadership will confine us to waddling with the penguins when we might soar with the eagles. Lately all responsibility has been put on developers and those willing to risk, our leaders are spoiled and are not ready to take on any risk. Turning 700 down could be a far larger mistake that going ahead, straddling the fence here may have unintended consequences for the future. I believe it will, what do you think?

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

studions, I'm dumber than you think I am, I would be kissing up to everyone if I wanted to maximize profits, how many potential customers do you think I offend by commenting? My concern for the future of the area will not be deterred by the prospect of losing customers, how about you?

0

Rob Douglas 4 years, 7 months ago

Fred, I have enormous respect for your opinions - as should everyone in the valley. You've earned that respect and you are one of the few who have the guts to put your name behind your comments. But, on this issue I disagree. I've read your posts and what screams off the page is that you believe leadership in this case - or "guts" - is defined as agreeing with you that 700 should be annexed. Further, you seem to believe that because the process of annexation has been underway for so long, it must result in passage. I couldn't disagree more. For me, leadership consists of a careful balancing of all facts available at this moment. Not what folks wanted 15, 5, or 1 year ago. It is only within the last few weeks that the final financial projections of 700 have been presented. The council must examine those numbers and decide whether the project makes sense at this moment in time. That decision should not be clouded by what ifs and fanciful projections of what funding will be available in 5 or 10 years from now. Anyone who believes they know what dollars will be available in 5 years is either naÃive or a fool. That some have envisioned annexation west of Steamboat for many years should not be determinative of this, or any, specific project. That is precisely how bad decisions by government get made. Too often, government officials proceed with a project because it's been in the pipeline for an extended period of time. I believe this council was elected because the citizens of Steamboat were tired of projects being passed that were fiscally irresponsible. I have no idea whether the numbers - as finally delivered by 700 and staff within the last several weeks - make this a viable project for the citizens of Steamboat. I do know that most of us expect the council to have an open mind and take ALL the facts into consideration. And, one of the facts that must be considered is if at this moment in time the citizens of Steamboat truly support this specific annexation. As for the consequences for the future, I find that the future has a way of taking care of itself and things usually work out for the best. I guess that's the naive optimist in me. I do know this. I think this is a good council made up of men and women who take their responsibility seriously. For that, we should all be thankful.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

Rob, I may be amiss here, but I don't see the downside in annnexation, the developer seems at risk and we appear to be mostly win win, am I missing something?

0

robert nestora 4 years, 7 months ago

maybe my comments are harsh and possibly rude but i find when council members are asked to make a decision for the citizens which presents a conflict of interest (even obama pledged to take himself and his staff out of decisions which may smell of conflict of interest) they must do something to show their neutraliy. i understand that council members have right to earn a living but i just cant get past the fact that a decision by a council member who is not up for re-election who can eventually do business with 700 is a conflict of interest thus the request for a pledge. or if they feel they may do business with 700 they should not vote. well you are in a position now which will be played out in the future to show if its me or the council whose ignorant. listen to your mother calling someone ignorant has a way of coming back to bite you. i only hope that the future proves me to be ignorant.

0

Rob Douglas 4 years, 7 months ago

Karen, I would suggest you and others who truly want a meaningful dialogue ignore studionsl's posts. Even a cursory review of studionsl's posts indicate that this poster is not interested in dialogue, but rather is attempting to plant false allegations and lies on numerous threads.

Two years ago, the city council election was notable for the smear campaign that was undertaken by certain individuals and an organization that attempted to hide their true identities while spreading lies about individual candidates.

The posts by studionsl on numerous threads are reminiscent of the type of gutter tactics that were, sadly, the hallmark of the '07 election. These posts are often quite transparent as the poster attempts to plant "facts" or sow discord by deliberate distortions or outright lies.

Whether or not we agree or disagree with a certain candidate or the city council, we should give our respect to all the candidates and council members who seek to serve their community.

Given the sad reality of the '07 campaign, posts to this forum this close to the election about issues and candidates and the council that do not reflect the name of the poster should be accorded little, if any, credibility.

We should all encourage and applaud the open exchange of ideas and issues by our candidates and the council. At the same time, we should show appropriate scorn for nameless cowards who attempt to smear or intimidate those who have stepped up to serve our community.

0

robert nestora 4 years, 7 months ago

my name is bob nestora wasnt hiding the studionsl was just an id i have had for years. you may malign me as much as you want but i have still not heard of any council member stepping up and pledging their vote is for the people and in no way will they prosper from their vote. you can dance around with wordy dialogue but i still feel a conflict of interest exists. we as citizens should feel comfortable that our council members vote are squeaky clean. call me a fool, jerk, inappropriate,scornful,gutter monger anything you want but conflict of interest in such a contentious debate is nothing to hide from. lets see who has the guts to assure the citizens of their devotion to them only.

0

flotilla 4 years, 7 months ago

Gee, Rob, I wonder why you think those posts should be ignored? How is Cari? Though I agree with you largely on the issue of 700, It is absurd to me that you would not recognize the blaring conflict of interest that Cari, Loui, Scott, Steve, and Jon have in this. They all stand to make money. Excuse me, they all stand to have their careers effected by their voting. Denying this rejects the very nature of you scratch, I scratch that we all know exists. By their chosen career fields, all of these people have a potential conflict of interest. Admitting that and putting this to a ballot would be the smartest thing Steamboat could do. I will expect Cari to vote no on 700 judging by her comments in the past few articles. If not, I think we will have an extremely large conflict of interest. Shutting the door on these folks motives is a terrible idea. This is a big project that will effect all of Routt County, whether that is publicized or not. I prefer not to have that rest in the hands of a couple realtors who work with Mary Brown's husband. Actually, I prefer not to have any decision rest in realtors hands but with 600 and growing, they seem to take up a large population of this town. I still don't think anyone has enough information for this annexation to go through. That alone shows me that the developers have more to prove. More concrete answers.

0

robert nestora 4 years, 7 months ago

thanks flotilla i was beginning to feel like i was the only one who felt that way. we must get this message out its an important point. i have been maligned and abused for pointing this out but its so obvious not one council member has stood up and promised not to profit from their decision. i may be a suspicious person but thats me. wheres rob douglas now probably in somebodies pocket.

0

Rob Douglas 4 years, 7 months ago

flotilla & studionsl: You just made my point better that I ever could have. Thank you.

0

blue_spruce 4 years, 7 months ago

fred - dude - you are an animal with these posts! every time I stop back to check this post or really any other "discussion" from the hofmeister article to global warming - there you are again with a virtually new essay every time. every point carefully analyzed and proofed - Bravo! i'm not sure where you find the time but keep it up! _bs

0

Karen_Dixon 4 years, 7 months ago

Here it is, 4:something am... just finished yet another lengthy night of reviews on this project. One item that was added to our review packet this past Thursday is a list of the emails that have been sent to Councilwoman Hermacinski in response to her ad. Many of them were very thoughtful and provide valid arguments both for and against. Yet many others, in one way or another, made the "what's in it for me" argument both for and against. As I read through them, I had to ask myself if the same line of thinking... "what's in it for me if I vote no?....what's in it for me if I vote yes?".... has crossed my mind. And what I realized, Mr. Nestora, is that the reason I so hastily snapped at you was because you were claiming to know the answer to that question not for me but for people that I believe would answer it the same as I did for myself tonight. Which is this: What's in it for You if I vote no? What's in it for You if I vote yes? That's not little 'y' you.... It's capital You. 'You' as part of a community, not 'you' as an individual. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages for YOU, the Community? Self-interest & opportunism may be traits that belong to 'y'ou, but do not project that trait without substantiation onto the people who work diligently for 'Y'ou. It's uber uncool.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

Floitilla, Do you propose to limit elected offices to trustfunders, retirees, and those with less than a years residency.

0

flotilla 4 years, 7 months ago

Fred, now why would I propose that? What, exactly, in any of my posts would lead you to believe that is what I want. You may think I am a fool, but I am not. So, go ahead and spit your jokes at me. Rob now works with Cari, is that not a conflict of interest in his writing about 700? Did I insult Rob or his intelligence? No. I stated a fact. I have not heard from anyone in this council why 700 is a good idea except for that a) it was in the growth plan of years past and b) well, they've come this far.

Therefore, I do not think this council has the gusto or concern for this community to vote for this annexation and it's terms. That leaves me to wonder why they all jump on the yes bandwagon. I have no reason to think that the majority of these council people are not serving themselves a little. Why should I, because they ran for public office? Sorry, too many politicians have proved that theory wrong. Sorry to announce it, but I don't believe it. I don't agree with them firing Lanning or Franks, and I don't believe they, as a whole, represent Steamboat Springs.

And, further Rob, I don't think you do either. Just because you wrote for this "news" paper doesn't mean your word is gold. You have an opinion as do I, and you are welcome to express it. This will all come out in the wash, and it is unfortunate that it will be my generation that picks up the pieces. Or picks up and moves out. Then, yes, Fred you can have your retirees and trustfunders. Enjoy it.

0

Rob Douglas 4 years, 7 months ago

flotilla, There's a difference between nameless, faceless cowards using smear tactics and the open interchange of ideas and opinions.

It's the difference between: a) People who support their positions with facts and place their name next to that opinion so that people can evaluate the author of the opinion and any biases that author might have and, b) Those who attempt to smear good people who are trying their best for their community.

Two years ago, the city council election was notable for the smear campaign that was undertaken by certain individuals and an organization that attempted to hide their true identities while spreading lies about individual candidates.

It is my hope that we will not see a repeat of that this year. Further, it is my hope that more folks will stand up and call for an end to the anonymous attacks on people serving our community that make up the majority of posts on this forum.

Whether or not we agree or disagree with a certain candidate or the city council, we should give our respect to all the candidates and council members who seek to serve their community.

I continue to believe that given the sad reality of the '07 campaign, posts to this forum about issues and candidates that do not reflect the name of the poster should be accorded little, if any, credibility.

We should all encourage and applaud the open exchange of ideas and issues by our candidates and fellow forum members, but we should show appropriate scorn for nameless cowards who attempt to smear or intimidate those who have stepped up to serve our community.

That's my opinion "flotilla" about you and other smearmeisters who don't have the courage of their convictions to tell us our your true name so we can place your "opinions" in context.

0

flotilla 4 years, 7 months ago

Thanks for your nasty comment Rob. It is very telling. I am not sure why telling you my true name will put context behind my opinion. It didn't for Studionsl. That is my opinion and I appreciate your call for "scorning" me. If you would read some of my other posts, I am sure you could figure out that I am not a faceless,nameless coward. But, thanks for the insult. I will look forward to hearing why our council members will be voting the way they do for 700. I just haven't heard it yet.

Enjoy your day Rob!

0

robert nestora 4 years, 7 months ago

dear karen, i commend your dedication to your job. i am tempted to make a play of words similiar to y-ours but it would be pointless. your y-ou play is definitely the words and vanity of a politician let me ask you to answer the following with a simple yes or no. 1. does having real estate agents make decisions concerning possible future business of theirs present a conflict of interest. 2. if we assume they are pure does it not give the appearance of possible conflict of interest. 3. do you feel it would be in the best interest of those voting to dissociate themselves from future business from steamboat 700 if you can answer with a simple yes or no it would be greatly appreciated as i feel i have taken too much of your time already. excuse my non use of capitals in my previous life i never typed.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.