I do not know about the grocery stores, but have you ever stopped into Subway, McDonalds, Wendy's, or any other fast food place during Triple Crown Time? The line is huge most of the time. Those may not be "local" businesses, but they are certainly generating tax revenue.
Also, I assume these people are sleeping somewhere? So that means hotel rooms are being paid for.
I would also say that your study is fairly accurate. According to page 43, the rec center had a "willingness to pay" of 24.4% among voters. I think it failed by about that margin.
Page 43 shows that 43% of full-time residents "support" affordable housing, but only 21.3% of them are willing to pay for it. If you go by the voter column, then it is 46.8% that supports and 24.6% that will pay.
Interestingly open space is the top priority, but it seems to be opposed to the affordable housing goal.
If anything, I see this as proof that support for affordable housing taxes has eroded since the study sbvor has cited, not increased.
Assuming of course, I am reading the results correctly.
I can not access the page either. I was going by what Steve said, as I was unable to access it. If he was incorrect, then disregard my statement.
I also do not like to make money by climbing on the backs of others, and I think we will have a considerably healthier economy (and town) if this were to happen.
However, I do know quite a few people that are gleeful about the price appreciation.
You are correct, I did substitute "money" for "property tax," and incorrectly so in the context of the statement.
However, in one of the links, didn't one of the surveys show that affordable housing is a top priority, but the survey in question shows a clear majority do not want a property tax? That tells me that people care, and hope the problem is fixed, but do not want to give up any of their cash to do it. I would bet that if you changed the wording to any other form of tax, it still would not be welcomed. A sales tax may be slightly more palatable as you have the tourist dollars helping out, but we already have a high sales tax.
Typical of most programs, in my opinion, people want them until the bill shows up.
Just my opinion there, though.
Sbvor,
I do agree that 700 will stabilize the market, as the quote suggests, but won't property owners not like that the growth has stopped (or slowed)? I guess it depends on a number of factors if that will truly happen. I just know that if I was making 30% a year, and now if an event might happen that would slow that growth, I would be opposed to it from that angle. That does not mean I do not think the positives of the idea are not very, very strong.
And, I had no idea that Steve Lewis was on the planning commission. I think that goes back to the post about whether the forum matters. Apparently an influential person does read it.
To clarify, I totally agree with sbvor, but I am asking if the people that have become accustomed to high annual growth rates on their homes and condos would support a policy that would curtail that growth? And if they did not, do they have the numbers to stop it.
I think the most telling line in your post is this one: "It is HIGH TIME we gave our work force some REALISTIC expectations that we MIGHT have a PRAYER of delivering on!"
I should amend my previous post - it would apply only if there are more property owners than non-property owners in the area. Does anyone know the percentages on that?
And knowitall, I believe that is why sbvor referred to them as "ranchettes"
Steve Lewis did bring up a good point, what do we do about it? It seems unlikely that the rules will get repealed - assuming it was put to the people. As sbvor has mentioned, and proved to my satisfaction, the people of Steamboat are generally opposed to spending money on affordable housing. If we repeal these rules, property values will fall (supply will be increased, with no change in demand).
Do we simply repeal the laws, or do we replace them with something more forgiving? Maybe some form of pre-determined growth that can be adjusted. I do not know the answer to these questions, but I do appreciate the discussion that is making me think about possible answers.
City considers Triple Crown extension
I do not know about the grocery stores, but have you ever stopped into Subway, McDonalds, Wendy's, or any other fast food place during Triple Crown Time? The line is huge most of the time. Those may not be "local" businesses, but they are certainly generating tax revenue.
Also, I assume these people are sleeping somewhere? So that means hotel rooms are being paid for.
Seems to me that they are generating revenue.
February 13, 2008 at 10:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
City seeks Iron Horse ideas
I would love to know how many people allocated money to open space and affordable housing in that 2005 study.
The two seem to be working against one another.
Also, does anyone know how often those studies are done? A lot has changed since 2005.
February 5, 2008 at 3:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mainstreet Steamboat Springs sets 2008 goals
How often are these surveys done?
February 1, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mainstreet Steamboat Springs sets 2008 goals
I would also say that your study is fairly accurate. According to page 43, the rec center had a "willingness to pay" of 24.4% among voters. I think it failed by about that margin.
Very interesting stuff, thanks for the link.
February 1, 2008 at 9:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mainstreet Steamboat Springs sets 2008 goals
Thank you for the link, Nitro. Reading the survey though:
http://www.nwc.cog.co.us/Community%20...
Page 43 shows that 43% of full-time residents "support" affordable housing, but only 21.3% of them are willing to pay for it. If you go by the voter column, then it is 46.8% that supports and 24.6% that will pay.
Interestingly open space is the top priority, but it seems to be opposed to the affordable housing goal.
If anything, I see this as proof that support for affordable housing taxes has eroded since the study sbvor has cited, not increased.
Assuming of course, I am reading the results correctly.
February 1, 2008 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mainstreet Steamboat Springs sets 2008 goals
I can not access the page either. I was going by what Steve said, as I was unable to access it. If he was incorrect, then disregard my statement.
I also do not like to make money by climbing on the backs of others, and I think we will have a considerably healthier economy (and town) if this were to happen.
However, I do know quite a few people that are gleeful about the price appreciation.
January 31, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mainstreet Steamboat Springs sets 2008 goals
You are correct, I did substitute "money" for
"property tax," and incorrectly so in the context of the statement.
However, in one of the links, didn't one of the surveys show that affordable housing is a top priority, but the survey in question shows a clear majority do not want a property tax? That tells me that people care, and hope the problem is fixed, but do not want to give up any of their cash to do it. I would bet that if you changed the wording to any other form of tax, it still would not be welcomed. A sales tax may be slightly more palatable as you have the tourist dollars helping out, but we already have a high sales tax.
Typical of most programs, in my opinion, people want them until the bill shows up.
Just my opinion there, though.
Sbvor,
I do agree that 700 will stabilize the market, as the quote suggests, but won't property owners not like that the growth has stopped (or slowed)? I guess it depends on a number of factors if that will truly happen. I just know that if I was making 30% a year, and now if an event might happen that would slow that growth, I would be opposed to it from that angle. That does not mean I do not think the positives of the idea are not very, very strong.
And, I had no idea that Steve Lewis was on the planning commission. I think that goes back to the post about whether the forum matters. Apparently an influential person does read it.
January 31, 2008 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mainstreet Steamboat Springs sets 2008 goals
To clarify, I totally agree with sbvor, but I am asking if the people that have become accustomed to high annual growth rates on their homes and condos would support a policy that would curtail that growth? And if they did not, do they have the numbers to stop it.
I think the most telling line in your post is this one:
"It is HIGH TIME we gave our work force some REALISTIC expectations that we MIGHT have a PRAYER of delivering on!"
Very well said.
January 31, 2008 at 3:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mainstreet Steamboat Springs sets 2008 goals
I should amend my previous post - it would apply only if there are more property owners than non-property owners in the area. Does anyone know the percentages on that?
And knowitall, I believe that is why sbvor referred to them as "ranchettes"
January 31, 2008 at 2:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Mainstreet Steamboat Springs sets 2008 goals
Steve Lewis did bring up a good point, what do we do about it? It seems unlikely that the rules will get repealed - assuming it was put to the people. As sbvor has mentioned, and proved to my satisfaction, the people of Steamboat are generally opposed to spending money on affordable housing. If we repeal these rules, property values will fall (supply will be increased, with no change in demand).
Do we simply repeal the laws, or do we replace them with something more forgiving? Maybe some form of pre-determined growth that can be adjusted. I do not know the answer to these questions, but I do appreciate the discussion that is making me think about possible answers.
January 31, 2008 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )