Jump to content
I'm with Jim on this one. Our Routt County Building department is truly dedicated to serving this community well. i have not always agreed with some interpretations, and find the mission creep troublesome, but those are political or administrative issues and must be addressed through comissions or elections. But the unfailing commitment to serve the people of the county, the builders and homeowners and businesses, is unquestionable. If the service is to be privatized, it must be with local residents as the personnel, and preferably by locally owned firms. They could not do better than to hire Skip and John and Ted, and Danna and Sue. And if it must be taken out of governments purview, then it must be turned out to real market forces competition, with at least two options to choose from. The last thing we need is to grant a monoply to a private, for profit contractor.
I have said this many times before, we have by far the best, most honest, hardworking and ethical building department I have seen in over forty years of construction in at least two dozen different juristictions. Some have been indifferent, some incompentent, some criminally negligent and corrupt. We have a good thing going on here and it is all because these people really care.
Thank you RCBD, and thank you Carl for your many years of service. Here's wishing you every happieness in your retirement.
Maybe it is just that because of the obstacles to development of the 6th street lot they figure there is no hurry. But because the 7th street lot is so well suited for a business, it probable should be left in the private sector and become another venue for the visitors to patronize and generate revenues to support parks at the other locations.
Why is the 7th street lot preferable to the 6th street lot, which has 4 times the river frontage? The 6th lot also is not developable without significant variances so an appraisal would reflect that fact. If the owner will not agree to sell for the appraisal, the City could legitimately claim eminent domain, but the owner would not likely refuse and so alienate the City that variances would be even less likely, and any subsequent buyer would know that.
Could be short of capital because of payments on other overpriced but nearly worthless properties, the Iron Horse and vacant land at the end of Elk River Road for affordable housing come to mind.
The lot at 7th would be a nice park but should we buy highly desirable development property at the rates justified by that demand to provide for park space? It seems to me that the next parcel upriver that has had development proposals denied because of several issues and is unlikely to be a commercial success due to those existing watercourse setback regulations could be a better buy. The lot at 7th is deep enough to avoid those development problems. and the one at 6th has much more river frontage.
The clone of Oz lives!
I repeat your statements are factually correct but inane. You are clueless as to how to have a reasonable discussion, where commonly accepted notions of such things as water is nontoxic and volatile hydrocarbons are will not be challenged.
If you want to stick strictly to the scientific standard of relative toxicity, probably expressed in scientific notation as ten to the nth power, then have that conversation with others who speak that language. Here you are in the world of commonly accepted definitions of common English words.
Again I assert, you diminish your own credibility, got all the facts right but no common sense.
I think you have just proved that you are in fact clueless as the writer suggested.
Steve, there is a point that reasonable people will agree on regarding the definition of "toxic". Ordinary water and air will not meet that criteria even if it is possible to ingest then in sufficient quantity to be lethal. The product of a fossil fuels well, that can kill by inhalation or cause violent illness by exposure clearly will, (even though in rare cases it can be benign, such as some very sweet Pennsylvania oils that were actually bottled and sold as medicine).
Why in the world would you bother making that point? Much of what you have written before that seemed intelligent, even perhaps insightful. You diminish your credibility; even though what you said was factual it was inane.
Much of the physical evidence that links higher CO2 levels with warmer climate is clearly accurately reported. What is less certain is whether the CO2 was the result of or cause of the warmer weather, or even coincidental in that the same forces produced them both but they did not produce each other.
Much of the water used in fracking also comes back up after the pressure is relieved, we call this "flowback" water and it is handled in much the same manner as production water. The main difference is that flowback is much cleaner than production water, does not have to go through a series of settling and cleaning procedures. This is because it was already cleaned before its re-use in fracking. The water that naturally exists in gas and oil fields is highly toxic, and is handled as carefully as the equally toxic hydrocarbons it was formed with. The only really safe and sane thing to do with it at present is to return it to whence it came.
If the demand is great enough, the filtering equipment is so good that it will support life again, I have seen the algae growing in it when it has sat for a while. Considering how deadly it once was that is pretty impressive. I still would be reluctant to drink it though.
Last login: Thursday, April 17, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.