Jump to content
But did George directly prompt Jon to revive this discussion, or was it indirect, Jon's response to George mentioning it on the other thread? Either way, George;s fingerprints are all over it.
I second the nomination of George for city manager, but not interim, full term. I would also certainly vote for him for council, I believe he would fit in very well with Scott and Sonja and their efforts to bring our local government into compliance with it's mandates.
Sadly, the culture of disrespect for the law has deeply infected governmental authorities at all levels. It should come as no surprise, crafting laws for the purposes of suppressing competition, enforcing conformity, and making questionable expenditures of taxpayer monies can only lead to disrespect.
Fortunately there are still many who remain motivated by morally sound principals. George is one, and would serve us well. Even though I disagree completely with him over whether traffic problems should be solved by civil vs social engineers, I would much rather have a principled representative I disagree with than a corrupt one that holds similar positions as mine.
George, please prepare your resume and apply for City Manager, You could be far more effective there than as a council member.
I think the basis for not getting the report is that there is a widely held consensus of the public in general that growth will continue. I too subscribe to that notion, believing that almost no condition of the future will make this area unappealing enough to cause shrinkage. Population growth in general, increasing outmigration from urban areas, and people leaving California by the tens of thousands are factors enough in themselves. If you add in such future possibilities as fears and consequences of terrorism and climate change our sanctuary here becomes even more attractive.
Only our self inflicted condition of attempting to restrict growth in a manner that keeps housing costs high can continue to dampen the enthusiasm of potential new residents. Lack of investment in improved roads and transit contribute to that as well. Even so, as the relative difference in quality of life here improves compared to deterioration elsewhere, more people will make the sacrifice and pay the price.
Interestingly, as Scott has so often pointed out, the quality of the schools is a major attraction, If we build it they will come. We can only change the demographics if we create enough unattractive conditions, and that would be unthinkable.
It is my understanding that the public funds purchased the conservation easement, which clearly applied only to a select portion of the property. I do not know if the trails agreement was integral to that or a separate contract. The idea those funds purchased the property is not necessarily linked, it may be that the down payment could have been made without them.
From informal reports I got the impression that the deal was done in good faith by all parties but that there was a disconcerting display of arbitrary imposition of conditions by which the trails and cabin would be built, maintained and used. That in searching for a defense in response to the potential loss of some significant input into the operations, the loophole was found.
In my opinion it just goes back to the crafting of the contract. In a shared access arrangement, the rights and responsibilities of each party should be spelled out in great detail, along with a means of resolving disputed interpretations. Apparently this was more dependent on trust based on mutual respect, and when it was felt that that respect was no longer extant the the enforcement mechanism went with it.
It is interesting that this discussion has re-emerged just after George was banned, just after he made a comment about this old wound. I wonder if that was the motivation for his banishment, and whether he prompted the revival of this topic.
The Pilot has done much better lately with FOIA requests and such. It seems poised to really move into the role that only the press can assume, that of watchdog for the public of the government. I too encourage Lisa and the other decision makers there to embrace that duty.
Perhaps an editorial comment here or preferably in the print edition pertaining to George's charges of corruption and his dismissal from posting would be appropriate.
I just remembered, Twenty Mile road from Oak Creek to Hayden is paved and nearer than other routes, a state highway alternative would be hundreds of miles.
Two things Russell, one is many are destined for deliveries here, and for the others the nearest paved alternative would involve hundreds of extra miles around the mountains. It might be OK for the driver but would complicate things terribly for dispatchers and increase costs. Plus, I'm not sure that a state highway can have such restrictions, and if so they cannot be imposed by the municipalities.
Did anyone see a final outrageous comment by George, or was it more of a cumulative thing, all his ongoing criticisms of the Pilot for not reporting on government corruption?
Russell, regarding your comment detailing the 5 minuet difference in commuting time on a good vs bad day, you are right, in that regard we do not have a traffic congestion problem. Our traffic problem is that having so many cars and especially trucks going through Old Town degrades the quality of our most attractive commercial area to the point of being comparable to a big city experience.
Changing speed limits only changes where the back up happens, the capacity issue remains all of Old Town. When you have to share heavy through traffic with pedestrians, parallel parkers, and many turns to side streets you have an inevitable delay. The theoretical capacity numbers do not apply as lanes are frequently blocked by these other factors.
In addition to the delay, there is the quality of experience issue. We have the equivalent of heavy city traffic in the most commercially attractive section of our resort town. The only viable solution is to provide extra capacity around Old Town. Planning for less development on either side of town will not work.
While personally I think a parkway would be an enhancement to the town, I respect that many feel otherwise and agree that the cost makes it a remote possibility. But by using techniques common to traffic solutions elsewhere we can create the needed bypass. Of course cost is still a factor and changes in neighborhoods and parks will ensue.
The line of least resistance is via the route George and Fred describe, alongside the railroad tracks. The way to keep it flowing smoothly and have less disruption to other activities is to have no intersections, only bridge crossings over 13th st and 5th st. It rejoins 40 at the Iron Horse and between Dream Island and Stockbridge. Where it is elevated to cross 13th st. it also crosses the rock outcrop, requiring less removal of that feature. With limited turning and a crossover bridge for one lane at each end, no stop lights are required.
The cost and trade offs are enormous of course, but so is the benefit, and it will work.
Sorry about the misspelling Fred.
I remember you saying that the re-routing of the railroad was not as far from reality as one might think. It made me interested enough to drive the potential route, eyeballing the grade and revisiting it on maps.
George's comment from a few years ago of elevating the tracks to share the space with a bypass also resonated. It was probably only as tongue in cheek as my comments above.
George, we have all served our time in the committees planning and discussing the potential . You were always the best informed, you still are. Tell us please, what will work? Do we sacrifice Brooklyn, the Howelsen parks and Dream Island? Would the mprovement of the quality of downtown be worth it?
The bottleneck is not just 13th street, it is all of Old Town.
Last login: Saturday, July 25, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.