Archive for Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Jon Quinn: A councilman's duty
Advertisement
Steamboat Springs — I very much doubt that any of you voted for me because you believed me to be an expert on annexation. On the contrary, I can only hope that you may have because you hoped I would be thoughtful, reasonable and fair. But it doesn't matter. It is now my charge, and that of the six citizens who serve with me, to represent the interests of the community to the best of my abilities. It is my duty to weigh all of the evidence and opinion, to read all of the materials, the articles and even the blogs and then to cast a vote. I never expected that every vote would be easy, and so I have not been disappointed.
It is wonderful to see so many of our citizens so passionately engaged in this dialogue about the proposed annexation, and given the emotion surrounding this issue, it seems we will likely see this annexation go to a public vote. Indeed, we are all truly blessed to live in a place where these ideals of representative democracy with robust checks and balances are embraced.
I still have a job to do, however. Over the past two years I have studied a planning process that started 15 years ago, I have represented the interests of the citizens of Steamboat at scores of meetings and negotiations regarding this proposed development, and I believe that I owe it to you to follow the process through to its end, cast my vote and, probably most important, explain the reasons for which I will cast that vote.
I'll do my best, and all I ask is that everybody else do the same. This is an emotional issue, and I do not think its importance can be understated. Let's all do the homework, separate the facts from the fiction, have vigorous debate, respect the public process and remember that we are all, at the end of this, still neighbors.
Lastly, although our global, national and local economies may be struggling through a genuinely ugly recession, I personally believe that it would be shortsighted to make a decision on this project based on the fear and uncertainty we are all rightfully feeling today. We should be cognizant of the fact that the planning process for this project really started some 15 years before this recession began, and its terminus lies at least 15 years beyond it.
Jon Quinn
Steamboat Springs City Council
Comments
steamboatsprings (anonymous) says...
Jon, thank you for giving this careful consideration. I myself am conflicted on what is best but I am glad that you are giving this the thought and foresight it deserves.
September 17, 2009 at 6:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
housepoor (anonymous) says...
Jon, don't you think a project that was developed using 10-15 year old growth projection numbers should be reevaluated? Just like your 401, the value of your house or the # of people looking for a place to rent the game has changed. The 2010 census is coming this spring and that data should give us a better picture of our actual growth and demand going forward. Waiting does not mean we have to put it to a public vote. What is the RUSH????
September 16, 2009 at 8:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Scott_Wedel (Scott Wedel) says...
I suggest that a sign of a good leader is to do what needs to be done without leaving bigger problems for the next leader.
I just do not see the need to annex the entire property so that more than half can sit for more than 10 years. That is a huge risk for the City because if there is some major miscalculation then the City is left with big problems for a 20 year construction plan and 2,000 residences. And a City that has shown rank incompetence in dealing with real estate issues such as the Iron Horse purchase, there is no denying that there is a significant risk of a serious miscalculation.
Take the current proposal and make it a master plan so all of the hard work for the area is not lost.
Take that master plan and use it for the annexation agreement of what is to be built in the next 5 years.
The City should not let itself be bullied into an all or nothing choice for such a big annexation to be built over so many years.
September 16, 2009 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
fairlysure (George Danellis) says...
To Jon Quinn, elected representative, I say "Thanks for the letter". There is a balance (or challenge, however one may view it) in a representational democracy between electing a rep based on his/her views and expecting them to then make decisions as they see fit, and expecting our representatives to make decisions that reflect the majority view of their constituents. I wish each person who is part of the determining group, whether it be Council or the residents of the City, the greatest clarity, wisdom and diligence in attaining and reviewing the requisite information and applying these to our community.
September 16, 2009 at 10:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
danny (anonymous) says...
Scott-
You have always had a reasonable approach to your comments which I think is a bonus to the community.
I would like to explain a couple of reasons why a phased annexation is not as good as a large annexation with phased development.
Unfortunately, there is a significant amount of infrastructure that is needed whether it is one home or a thousand; there is an initial fixed cost which would unduly burden a small initial annexation and could not possibly be affordable. It wouldn't be reasonable to assume that the initial fixed cost could be spread over a larger area because there would be no certainty that: for one the next piece would actually get annexed by a different council or two it wouldn't be developed as something like 5 or 35 acre ranches. We are essentially in this position today; the City has a master plan on the property now; the WSSAP but has absolutely no control over how it will be developed unless they annex it.
Additionally we wouldn't be able to issue bonds for the infrastructure because the bond underwriters and buyers would have less certainty that there would ever be the assessed valuation to support the bond repayment. This approach would require the City to construct or bond for the improvements.
The same uncertainty listed above would also severely limit the amount of public benefit that could be offered for the same reasons. We couldn't propose 15 million for schools without the certainty of the density or that the entire property would be annexed. We can't commit a future city council to annex the next property.
Lastly, if only the first 100 acres was annexed and planned for commercial and mixed use but the market demand is for small single family lots then there would be no way to meet the market demand. When we are unable to meet the market demand prices go up and the work force and middle class get pushed out of town. This would eventually lead to hodgepodge development that would not resemble the master plan.
Annexation does not guarantee growth or cause growth; it only prepares us for growth. Annexation is not obligating the City or its taxpayers to any additional services or obligations. It just creates vacant land with City zoning. Having a master plan that can address the needs of the community over 20 or more years is something of an anomaly and we are fortunate to be in this position. We are unique in the Mountains to have this ability at this time in history.
cont.
September 17, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
danny (anonymous) says...
As for the internal phasing, as prudent developers our goal is to meet market demand not saturate it. Only bad decisions create empty houses. Every real estate type has a healthy and unhealthy vacancy and absorption rate. When vacancy rises too high rates drop and construction stops when vacancy diminishes rates rises and construction begins; there is always an ebb and flow. A saturated market devalues our property probably more so then anyone elses; our goal is to keep the healthy balance. If there is no demand we will not build.
The City is not on the hook for any of the infrastructure necessary to serve this project. In order to sell land we have to have a platted property, if the infrastructure is not constructed or secured then we can't get a plat. Said in another way; If we have sold a piece of property then we will have already bonded or constructed the necessary improvements to service that property. The City is not going to be "on the hook".
The City hired Gerry Dahl the States leading annexation attorney and told him the City does not want to have any risk. This is as strong of an annexation agreement as anywhere in Colorado
Steamboat 700 is an opportunity for Steamboat to benefit and manage their growth.
September 17, 2009 at 4:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Post a comment (Requires free registration)
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.