Jump to content
613 total votes
Where is my comment Mr. Editor ?????
It will provide NO benefit to Steamboat, except to the greedy developers ("the white shoe boys", as a local polictican in Routt County once said (guess who?).
It will only hurt the ONLY LOCALLY owned drug store. What is the need for Walgreens ? Drugs ? No, available elsewhere. Baby clothes and gum ? No.
Just money for the developers.
You really have it in for "greedy developers" don';t you bill?
Did one of them steal your lunch money when you were a kid?
I guy stole a ballon from me at a parade when I was a kid and I never got over it. Is it that kind of thing with you and developers, bill?
Thanks for your support, Bill. We at Lyon Drug appreciate our loyal customers! I just would like to raise a point about Walgreens stimulating our economy. I understand that the developers and construction workers would benefit. However, long term effects can not be ignored. What about the "shift" of dollars away from smaller companies? (There would not be an increase in revenue, just a shift.) Lyon Drug would not be the only company affected. What about the local services that we employ that would be affected if Lyon Drug ceased to exist? Think...local accountant, local entrepreneurs (Little Moon, Steamboat Soap Company, Jill Bergman cards/art), local cleaning supply company (Steve Green), local office supply company (Pilot Office Supply...wait...they've already been affected by a big box company...still we will support them to the end), services (plumbers, carpet cleaners, window cleaners). There is so much at stake in keeping our community unique, beautiful and thriving. I don't believe that Walgreens would be a benefit to our community. It would have negative effects that we can't allow to happen.
Where is "who cares" as an option?
I truly do not care if Walgreens provides an overall benefit to SB. There are so many plausible ways to consider what "overall benefit" means that there is no way to come to any sort of conclusive answer.
What we should care about is having a fair economic playing field. We should certainly expected that sort of lot at that sort of location to be developed as retail. Whether or not the planning codes are so crazy that any developer of that site is going to need a stack of variances, or the developer is unwilling to adjust from a generic corporate box to what is appropriate for that site is something that we will learn more about later.
It is a distraction and horrible public policy for city staff or a planning board to contemplate whether something provides "overall benefit".
Do the grass smokin gondola riders provide a "overall benifit" to our community? Do the trust fund zombies? does half of the crap that goes on here?
What business is it of you guys'?
They want to build a building with their OWN DAMN MONEY!
WTF ???????????????? Leavem alone.
I don't think people would confuse Lyons from Walgreens and I would bet that gross sales for Lyons would not go down if that store was built.
But I can understand the fear the owners of Lyons are exhibiting here.
No, I think the stores that would lose some sales to Walgreens are on the East side of town like Safeway, Walmart and City Market.
Perhaps you just moved here so that you have no idea what this town used to be before the developers took over. What benefit do you see to a Walgreens here ??
I get it. You could care less about benefit only $$$$ to the "white shoe boys".
While we are at it let's build a large Old Navy next to Walgreens and wipe out Allen's. Hey it's just another locally owned business.
Hey, you developers are losing the public vote. Just like 700 ??
I have been here since 1988 off and on. This valley has changed and I too believe it is largely for the worse. An example I often use is that back then you could ski good snow 3 days after a storm and now it's gone by noon. That sucks. The same is happening to snowmobiling.
However, there is a principal for which I stand that outweighs my personal desires. That is the principal of freedom.
If Walgreens wants to build or if other snowmobilers or skiers want to come here they are free to do so.
I believe you are on the incorrect side of this argument NOT because you hate to see this valley change for the worse but because you advocate using anti-freedom methods to keep it like we both wish it would be. I understand your desire to have this valley back like it was but it does not give us or anyone else the right to hold the valley hostage or keep it in the 20th century.
And the term is "COULDN'T care less, not could care less. Thanks for the conversation.
Damn those government rules. Here the Forest Service wants to keep the snowmobilers and skiers apart. Damn the Ski Corps won't let you ski out of bounds. Damn, speed limits. Damn going after DUIs and domestic abuse. You are RIGHT loss of freedom everywhere. The loss is EVERYWHERE. A relative of mine gets popped for DUID (marijuana) and claims that such a law should not be in effect, while I agree, but guess what?? IT IS !
I have been a lawyer since 1972 (and 1975 in Steamboat) and there are many laws that I may personally disagree with, however, that defense NEVER works in Court.
I'll leave this "debate" which is getting way too personal (my fault) at an end. I understand your belief and though you have the freedom to your opinions I, as well, have mine. So there. (That's a joke)
P.S. When my house sells (and it will) I intend to move to the farm ( and attend as many OSU football games as $$ will allow) that I inherited from my mother which is situated between Columbus and Cincinnati near Lees Creek, Ohio (pop. 100+/-). I moved to Steamboat from Boulder in May, 1975 intending to stay but a year, however, the "curse" struck (after all I grew up in a Chicago suburb). Now there is too much congestion , too much snow ( I can no longer ski as it costs too much and my replacement knee will not allow it ) and the spells of bitter cold.
Also, please shop at Lyon's (if you do not do so already). The ladies are great and always provide the best of small town attention.
I am not buying the freedom talk. Who knows why you want a Walgreens - you are probably an investor. Wouldn't surprise me. Hooray for you expublic you are on the right side of this argument. This council has already proven they love development good or bad. Perhaps, they learned something from SB 700. I hope Planning Commission will stick to their guns and deny any variances. I was allowed no variances when my building went up. Again, we live here for a reason. Do not try to make Steamboat like Silverthorne, or a Denver suburb or Anytown USA where they came from in the name of freedom. If Scott and Sledneck don't or can't appreciate this great community as it is - then leave. Oh yeah, again, in the interest of civility, leave please.
Freedom of Walgreen's to build as they please is a great concept.
Freedom of a community to apply codes Walgreen's must build by is also a great concept.
We may continue to argue on balancing these two. But the unavoidable fact is that this property was purchased with complete understanding of the codes it would have to meet going forward. The high number of variances requested is an obvious red flag, and much more so given this is the same retailer who applied and failed at the same site 4 years ago.
That they have changed their proposal so little suggests they are betting on a changed economy or a changed council to get approval.
I support council's flexibility when the community stands to profit. The CMC proposal and Orton land purchase were excellent reasons for flexibility. Adding a 4th drugstore to Steamboat is not the right reason to be flexible with our standards.
Perhaps, Mr. Olsen thinks he will have preferential treatment because he made donations to the sitting city council's races. Who knows. The rules apply to everyone equally - or should. Mr. Olsen knew the rules and knew that the project's big box size would be a big problem, yet, he pursued it. It is telling that he wanted a denial from Planning so he could appeal directly to Council. No to Mr. Olsen. No to Walgreens.
I surmise that the Community Alliance is not happy with this project and will use every political tool to encourage making life difficult for the developers. Council members favoring this venture will do so at their peril. We denied the 700 their chance, which in my mind is an embarrasment to our character. Do we need the "good ole boys" label?
Most all of the folks that I grew up with had the same fears about growth and competition that we see today. Many were not competitive and their concerns were valid. We have a sizable entity here in town and it is probably going to take some growth to maintain balance. The beast has to be fed, relying on a gingerbread resort theme may not be the total answer. Personally I would have locked the gate about 1980 but I missed my chance. The naysayers seem to be mobilizing for a 700 sequel and this is not a wise path in my opinion.
If you were arguing they are asking for too many variances then I'd be inclined to agree with you. I don't recall Staples needing that many variances to build across the street. But it seems like you are arguing no corporate stores that compete with local stores and that violates basic capitalism.
If 700 had been approved that would have been a nightmare to deal with for decades. The bust blew up their economic model for the project. The developers would have been asking to rewrite the agreement to push costs onto the city. We got enough lots in the city, Hayden and Stagecoach to last us many years. SB also has plenty of projects approved waiting for someone with money to start construction.
This Walgreens is not that big of a deal. But it has importance because of the 11 variances. If approved with the variances then the City would be saying that a whole lot of SB's planning rules are being waived for just another retailer. It appears that Walgreens corporate rules requires a drive thru window and that forces a design with so many variances. So why exactly should SB waive it's rules to comply with Walgreen's rules? So then Walmart comes back and says their corporate rules say minimum store size requires they expand Walmart into the parking lot and we must ignore our zoning rules to make it happen?
You always make me smile. You make me sound so powerful.
I seriously doubt Community Alliance has any interest in this project, but you'll have to ask them. I haven't attended a CA meeting or discussion since the 700 vote 11 months ago.
Consider my above opinion that of a former planning commissioner (who heard the previous Walgreen's application). I'm taking a break from City hall. Not reading council packets and staff reports has been sweet! Have you ever read one? I tell you, the facts can just ruin your day.
Take care Fred.
Lewi, your opinion always has good backup, practical experience and is reasoned. That is what makes you so powerful. We don't always agree but mostly, we are on the same page.
Scott W, well said.
I forgot to say, the approval of Walgreens and approval of the nearly unlimited variances will undoubtedly produce those pesky unintended consequences- just like Scott W. outlined above.
If Walmart expanded there would be less people driving to Craig and spending their dollars at the Super Walmart, and the Target and the Walgreens. Then the Steamboat power structure would have less sales tax "leakage" to complain about.
Posting comments requires a free account
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |