Home

■ Interesting that the people in the actual health care industry, both doctors and administrators, are somewhat positive.

— housepoor

■ If there was about to be some national law passed that mandated the necessity and success of your particular industry ... wouldn’t you be slightly happy about it?

I know that there is an inherent “job security” built into caring for people’s health, but this takes it to another level, doesn’t it?

— mmjPatient22

■ So this health care package is 2700 pages long. … I wonder if anybody actually read it?

I know the Republicans are using it as toilet paper.

And I’m guessing the Democrats that voted for it didn’t read it either.

Probably just put their vote up for sale and it went to the highest bidder.

— freerider

■ freerider — It’s really funny that you mention reading the bill. I have tried to read it 3 times, and each time, my computer freezes and crashes because it’s such a huge file! Didn’t someone say once it was passed we’d finally know what was in it? What really upset me yesterday was to hear that after the bill passed, the stock market ended on a high note ... due to the increase of purchased stocks in the health care section. Amazing.

— runnerbikerdriver44

Humble Ranch

It is my recollection that the crux is the issue was bikes on the trails. That the owners were concerned about mountain bikes interfering with the special needs kids’ horse activities. That there could have been an agreement for horse and walking trails, but the city’s insistence that bikes be included caused the owners to fight the city.

And thus, it was exactly the imprecise nature of vision and verbally described plans that created the dispute in the first place. That it is entirely possible that the Trousils expected they were providing access to horse and walking trails and would have allowed that. Though, when the city insisted upon bikes then the easiest way for the Trousils to control the disputed trails was to use the flawed agreement to not allow the cabin and to keep the trails closed.

— Scott_Wedel

■ The biker and the rancher can be friends. Paying for conservation easements that don’t include public access makes sense. I’m glad that the Stanko Ranch west of town has a conservation easement. I’m happy to see Jim running his tractor and I don’t yearn to get on his property.

The threat to future conservation easements is exploiting the catch in Trousil’s agreement (cabin before trails + cabin never) when public access was intended. Doesn’t that seem like a swindle? Why would we buy another swindle?

— George_Krawzoff