Jump to content
Affordable housing is not made during the booms or the busts. It is a price point that is simply below the cost of construction.
Otherwise, there would be all sorts of local buying lots, buying modulars and creating affordable homes for themselves.
If the issue was boom and bust causing ebb and flow then the housing built during a boom would become very affordable during a bust. But even during the bust of the Great Recession, SB homes were not commonly going for $300K or less.
It is far from clear to me that the water rights issue has anything to do with the dam. The 5 acre foot pond holds at most a few hours of water supply.
The preferred current environmental approach is to avoid creating lakes and dams, but to build naturalistic diversion structures to take water.
There is also a growing trend to be more protective of water supplies. That drugs and hormones are often not completely metabolized and are not filtered out why water treatment plants. Thus, humans and their dogs should not expect to play in the water district's feeder pond for long regardless.
Thus, all elements of the city's proposed plan reeks of spending money to preserve the status quo instead of doing it right as if being designed from scratch today.
"sufficient housing solution" is a very vague phrase.
A goal of $300K entry level single family houses in SB is probably $200K less than property and construction costs. It is tough to build $300K single family home at Stagecoach.
In terms of apts, I note that there was only one 6 plex building OC from 2002 to 2007. The reason is that even with high demand that demand dropped off sharply at higher rents. That we have an awful lot of low paid service workers that aren't paid well enough to live in SB, will compete with each other to live in Hayden/Stagecoach/OC, but will then live in Craig if they cannot find anything closer.
The biggest problem in our local housing issues is the large number of poorly paid workers. If $15+ per hour was the prevailing wage then housing supply would explode in Hayden/Stagecoach/OC to meet that demand.
I think government charters and constitutions generally describe that government is promote the general welfare and individual rights set limits on what government is allowed to do.
It would be possible for a government to say that largely vacant second homes are needed to solve the local affordable housing issue and therefore seize those homes. That happens in some countries. In the US we have Constitutional protections against seizure of property. And so on.
"Nearly everything government touches is distorted or destroyed in spite of what might be good intentions."
That may be overstating it a bit because we haven't quite destroyed roads and so on. I think the general point is well taken because government tends to design programs with desired outcomes without considering the long term effects of what are now the incentives. So rent control sounds like a good idea without considering that it destroys the ability to make money building apts so the apt shortage is made worse. That is a simple case, but that sort of unintended consequences is all too typical.
I think it is reasonable to examine how government limits supply by various regulations. For instance, SB allows 5 adults to live in an apt or condo. Meanwhile, SB sets a maximum of 3 adults in a single family house unless all are related. Thus, effectively eliminating legally sharing a house.
BLS says that median family income for Steamboat is $64K.
I guess you are seeking to be proven wrong again.
I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that if median income is $64K that highest income is limited to $133K.
I understand statistics. It is the housing task force that set their goal of 60% of median incoming being able to afford a home.
In Steamboat 60% of median family income is about $40,000. So the housing task force is saying a family's combine income of $40,000 should be enough to buy a SB house. From a free market, not communist perspective, that is absurd.
"permanently employed people in the entry-level market who seek to purchase homes for less than $310,000."
And like to pay less than $500 for a season pass, have a mobile plan with unlimited data for less than $20 a month, eat at a nice restaurant for less than $10 per person and so on.
From a free marker, not communist perspective, it is absurd that people earning only 60% of the area's average income should be expected to be able to afford to buy a local house.
Where did I "demand support"?
I merely pointed out the verifiable fact that Hillary was not fired by the Watergate committee and, in fact, remained on the committee until it was done and was disbanded.
I think the county should allow what I would call ag style grow operations which I would define as in greenhouses with modest usage of electricity.
I would want to encourage building local greenhouses, but I would want them suitable for local food production if the country ever legalizes pot and it isn't economical to grow much pot locally. I would want the immediate usage for growing pot to create useful longer term infrastructure.
I would also suggest that such greenhouses be located in economically disadvantaged parts of the county where more jobs are needed. In particular, South Routt property tax base is highly dependent upon Twentymile Coal and coal is a declining industry because fracking has dropped the price of nat gas and China has nearly stopped importing coal. Some tax producing commercial land in South Routt is very much needed.
Last login: Sunday, June 19, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |