Jump to content
I am not arguing with you. I am just saying that they used 'tipping point" as a catch phrase without understanding what it means. If they knew what it meant then they'd describe what we on the verge of tipping into.
When a tipping point is discussed by those that know the meaning of the term then it will be stated what becomes the new stable situation. There is nothing ominous of a tipping point. There was a tipping point when there were enough people with iPhones that it became worthwhile to develop apps. Once people started making apps then iPhones became more popular and made it even more worthwhile to develop apps. Nokia's mobile phone operating system never became widely enough used to reach that tipping point.
This editorial's usage of "tipping point" is nonsensical because it is never asserted what is the new stable dynamic. Without a description of the new situation then there is no way to understand why it would be a crisis. I think the most likely result of the increase in housing prices are good things such as businesses having to pay workers better and more workers able to afford new houses in the region.
A generic wildfire would not prevent using the watershed for water. The fire above Stagecoach hasn't caused anyone's water system to be threatened. The big problem would be a fire so severe that they needed to use enough fire retardant chemicals above the levels which a treatment plant can reduce to safe levels.
I think water is just being used as an excuse for those inclined for no growth to find a way to have no growth. The water situation has not changed from when that parcel was put inside the UGB and made part of the WSSAP. Nor does city water dept claim there is not enough water supply or rights to serve the proposed annexation.
The cost of water rights is largely unknown because we don't have an active local market for buying and selling water rights. SB is talking about water rights that won't be needed for decades which also makes it difficult to project a cost. With a decent water conservation/efficiency program, those additional water rights might never be used. So there are a bunch of unusual variables in this possible water rights purchase? Would water right calls be limited to when needed by SB City water dept? Or would SB water always take the water and resell water on an annual basis to others until needed by SB?
The whole water issue has largely nothing to with this development. SB Water staff says we have plenty of water for infill and this development. The "urgent" water issue is that a horrible forest fire at the city's main watershed would leave the city for months without enough water to support current exterior watering. We'd be fine for winter peak tourism even after the forest fire. City water is adding more wells that draw from the Yampa River to alleviate that issue. But at some point, we will need Elk River water rights if we are to get through a bad fire in Spring Creek watershed without affecting summer watering.
The idea of a tipping point in housing is nonsensical. Tipping point refers to systems that fundamentally change after a certain point such natural gas becoming cheap and displacing coal for generating power. There would be no new dynamic in SB housing caused by pricing exceeding a certain point. It isn't as if suddenly people are going to buy multiple condos to convert into one luxury condo.
The one tipping point in local housing is that housing prices might finally be reaching the point to support building new housing in Hayden, OC and Stagecoach. That is not a crisis.
The second sheet supporters appear deaf to concerns stated by city council. They are afraid that ice rink enterprise will lose even more money if having to operate a second sheet.
If the first sheet is so busy for so much of the day then why isn't the ice rink enterprise making lots of money? It appears that the ice rink is being rented for less than their costs. A second sheet looks like the joke on hopeless companies during the internet bubble - "They are selling at a loss, but hoping to make it up on volume".
Ice rink second sheet supporters have been challenged to create and financially back a private operator. If their claims of improved financial performance are to be believed then there should people fighting to selected as the private operator of the ice rink. The fact that no such private operator has emerged strongly suggests that they know they are blowing smoke about a second sheet improving the financial performance of the enterprise.
Seems to me that city's biggest concern in this proposal should be that it could be yet another approval that is allowed to sit until housing prices increase further and arguably put more stress on the community. Thus, I think biggest issue should be rewards/penalties for building more units sooner and not letting it sit vacant as an investment while property values increase.
As for tract housing, what Brynn Grey has built in Breck and Frisco are not being criticized as being ticky tack tract houses. They are getting a lot of credit for being communities as they are designed with trails that connect and parks so that people get out and see each other.
I guess that is what bugs me so much about City Council's handling of this is that checking Brynn Grey's references (prior and existing projects, surviving Great Recession) suggests they are better and far closer to what we say we want than any other developer making proposals to the city. And instead of being pleased that they are willing to do what we want, city council members are saying "more more more". It is as if we'd be willing to run Billy Kidd, Todd Lodwick and others out of town because they didn't win every competition by at least a minute.
Yeah, government is sometimes so divorced from business that they think someone else other than the consumer is going to be paying for things.
Actually, starter homes can be built in this region in the communities about 20 miles from SB. In those places there are inexpensive lots.
What I find so disappointing in most of city council's demands is that they are made without considering the impact upon the developers. It is as if city council thinks that developers have hundreds of millions of dollars and are charitable organizations. In the real world, asking for millions up front on a long term development costs the developers a lot as they have to treat it as a long term loan. That sort of request by government is just ignorant when the upfront money is to be used for longer term needs.
City asked the developer for a phased annexation approach so if there are things not as good as desired then it can be fixed before the next annexation. So Brynn Grey came back proposing annexing part of the parcel for a 12 or so year development. But now the city is saying they aren't solving the water issues for the rest of the parcel when that is to be annexed. Well, you don't break something into pieces and then complain that a piece isn't the whole.
City council members should be expected to show basic financial competence and understand that the financial impact of various additional requirements upon the developer are actually adding substantial costs to the home buyer. If city determines first phase needs to pay more because costs of future infrastructure costs will increase due to inflation and costly environmental regulations then it is far more cost effective to have annual increases in the amount to be paid when a house sells than require upfront money. The city is going to earn less on upfront money sitting in a bank account than the developer will be pay in loans. So getting the money when a house sells means city can get more will costing the home buyer less.
I don't see a general issue of the school system graduating classes of racists, neo nazis and so on. I don't see this incident as indicating there is a large overall problem.
I see a specific issue of school administration not revealing to the students, parents and general public for two months that a very offensive incident occurred targeting a Jewish student. I have no idea how they talked themselves into believing that was an appropriate response, but it was most conclusively a terrible response. Yet, the letter from high school administration to parents fails to mention even that there was a two month delay and thus also fails to offer an apology of how they handled it so wrong and, most important, fails to promise that they have learned and won't make the same mistakes again.
It is also very poor to send that letter to parents at 3 pm on the Friday before Spring break. It is as if school administration intentionally waited until there is a week off so the issue will die down before school opens again. Thus, the letter and the timing of the letter only further indicates to me that the high school administration has thoroughly mishandled this issue.
I doubt that the school board wants to discuss this issue, but it has been so resoundingly poorly handled by the high school administration that this now needs to be on the agenda for the next school board meeting. They have to get to the bottom of how this was managed to be so poorly handled and make sure no future incident is this poorly handled.
School earlier said that they didn't get even a clear day of when swastika appeared on locker so looking at video probably shows a lot of people near locker, but not able to see their hands.
I just got an email letter from the school administration that yet again has no explanation of how it took two months to report it to parents, but promises to apparently punish everyone with a mandatory event. Mandatory events are such a show to please some people that are so good at repeating the already known obvious. They should have students take a quiz before and after the event to see what, if anything, is learned.
Looks to me that SB boys didn't win a "share" of the league title, but that they won the league title by winning the tie breakers. Yes, it might make more sense if teams with same records could be co-champions, but that is not how it works in Colorado. SSHS teams in other sports in other years have lost league titles on tie breakers so why shouldn't the boys basketball team celebrate being outright league champions by winning tiebreakers?
Last login: Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |