Jump to content
If the development permit required maintaining the barn then why doesn't the failure to maintain the barn then void the development permit?
The City's difficulty in writing contracts in which important priorities are enforceable is an ongoing problem.
In 2012, the clinic remodeled and expanded in response to the demands of growth and modernization. The end result was a beautiful modern clinic, but the timing was terrible.
It would be better if SRMC was willing to speak truthfully about that remodel. The remodel went way over budget. The management of the remodel was a disaster.
Since it is too close to SB to count as as a Rural Health Center then it would have been far better in 2012 to have sold the current building and relocate in Yampa. That would have cost less than the remodel and would have allowed it to qualify as a Rural Health Center. A RHC qualifies for a higher reimbursement rate for medicare patients. So the remodel was also a strategic blunder as the long term financial health of SRMC would be far better if it qualified as a rural health center.
This is another tax to compensate for prior horrid decision making of the SRMC board.
Even so, that is a national system.
ColoradoCare would be unique as being a regional solution within a country that is substantially different than the national system.
A major issue in Brexit was Britain's NHS and whether EU freedom of travel was causing sick people from other countries to move to Britain and use their NHS.
ColoradoCare is one of those things that will fail regardless. If it somehow beats the predictions and works then sick people will move here from other states and overwhelm it.
Tipton has also never responded to me. I suggested what I would view as a good government conservative idea.
An unfortunate side effect of term limits is that lobbyists become those that are the greater experts and remember what has not worked in the past. A good legislator can learn the games played by the government bureaucracy and get things done that a new person would never know. California Gov Brown has been far more effective in these terms than he was the first time as governor and better than other recent governors. He knew the rot of political favors that existed in redevelopment zones and had no trouble getting public support for abolishing them
Anyway, term limits have not proven to be a way to get better government. I think it is more important for voters to get rid of mediocre incumbents. Tipton is, at best, mediocre. Bennett is also mediocre.
So it is 73% and not two thirds.
That further reinforces my point that there is zero chance that County Commissioners would oppose an annexation that is popular in SB.
There has been no history of serious political differences between those within SB and those in the subdivision just outside of SB.
Thus, there is simply no credible scenario in which the county commissioners would not approve subsequent Brynn Grey annexations if SB residents wanted more Brynn Grey annexations. The votes in Steamboat CCD cannot be ignored by someone being elected to County Commissioner.
The far greater political risk to Brynn Grey's long term plans would be a change in city council. SB city council has had change elections.
I suggested to Brynn Grey representatives that they propose citywide water conservation program as being their water rights for their phase I. A parallel would be how LA's water district has been paying farmers in the Imperial Valley to line and cover irrigation ditches and to use drip irrigation for orange trees and LA gets the water that is saved.
I don't know how local water usage has escaped the attention of locals concerned with sustainability and local environmentalists, but we manage to use more than twice as much water during the summer than during winter peak tourism and yet we have no credible water conservation program.
Once communities start considering water conservation programs then they realize it is a long term sustainability issue and not merely the immediate response to a drought. California communities have water conservation programs to change landscaping design so that long term water usage is decreased. The immediate response to a drought could be to allow lawns to die that are then replaced when the drought ends. Instead, their water conservation programs focus on reducing long term water usage so that there can be a future where there is water left in rivers for fishes and so on.
I have no idea what Kathi Meyer was talking about when she said the proposed water rates encouraged conservation. It is so one sided the way City Council takes public comment and can give responses that could be described as spin. I note there is never anyone on council asking if they've answered the public's question.
If I was asked if that answered my question then I would have asked if Kathi Meyer was referring to the residential tier rate for usage above 28,000 gallons a month of over $10 per additional 1,000 gallons so that a residence has an incentive to limit their extravagant water usage to 900 gallons a day? Or was she suggesting that $2.30 or $3.45 per 1,000 gallons for those using normal amounts of water is a sufficient incentive to use less water?
1) The ACA exchanges in which 80% of those using the exchanges qualify for subsidies is clear evidence that subsidies encourage buying health insurance. Most workers get health insurance from their employers so they do not see the current system as broken.
2) You fundamentally miss the point that if people have the money in their pocket to spend on routine care (your car insurance doesn't pay for oil changes or tune ups) then patients are free to find the doctor at a fair price and that doctor doesn't have to deal with insurance billing. Thus, it would be more effective.
The point of insurance is not to pay for routine maintenance, but to cover the catastrophic event that the person could not afford. You buy auto insurance in case there is an accident where someone is hurt, loses wages and so on.
3) Your understanding of insurance is exactly wrong. Insurance wants large pools of participants to spread the risk. Thus, we have national insurance companies with more participants than the entire state population of Colorado.
ColoradoCare would not be a national single payer system. It would be a state system greatly different than the health system for the rest of the county. Do you know of a province or city with a successful health care system that is completely different than the country's national system?
Brynn Grey representative made an argument that the whole parcel had to be annexed so that there was local control. There was something about 2 out of 3 County Commissioners changing their mind.
I have no idea what he was talking about. The county government wants SB annexations so that development pressure for those wishing to live in or near SB is not dispersed over the rural county roads. The county commissioners have discussed considering approving development projects in the county near SB precisely because City of SB has been so slow at agreeing to annexations. Also, as Scott Ford likes to say, two thirds of Routt County lives in and about SB. Thus, there is no credible scenario in which County Commissioners could be elected that oppose an annexation that has strong SB support.
Thus, Brynn Grey's apparent insistence upon one big annexation either is based upon ignorance of local population distribution and local politics, or is a deceptive gambit hoping to gain the benefits of complete annexation without it being considered as such. Either way, it demands that annexation of the entire parcel be rejected.
Personally, I think a limited annexation of a possible 131 residences would have minimal opposition as long as it has some consideration of water. I note that a 180 apartment project was approved behind Staples with minimal opposition. And Brynn Grey can point to quality successful projects in Breck and Frisco. As long as we are not the sheep that is fleeced by blindly trusting Brynn Grey then we are likely to get a quality project.
Mylan's patents have nothing to do with the drug, but with the design of the pen itself that injects the drug. The pen's design has nothing that any observer of mechanical engineering would say is new or particularly clever. It has some design so that it is easy to inject the entire dose into the leg muscle. The US Patent Office basically gave Mylan a patent on the design of the pen. And then FDA has decided that any one self administrating pen has to work the same as the Epipen. That combo has made it impossible for competitors.
Other countries including the EU, refused to give a broad patent to Mylan and refused to say a competitor must work exactly the same. Thus, they have an approved competitor.
Well, everyone within city limits is guaranteed water for their development. So the city rule only applies to annexations, not all development. Also, this is the semi-arid West where our water usage more than doubles due to summer watering, but we have no program to reduce summer watering. It is simply contrary to all principles of sustainability that commercial properties (and road medians) have water intensive landscaping instead of landscaping suitable for semi-arid conditions. There are attractive plants that can live off of typical summer rains and just need watering during dry hot spells.
Things have changed and there are no longer water rights easily available for new development. So, if we keep this rule then SB becomes a no growth city.
What should be happening is that SB has an aggressive water conservation program with the intent of saving 20-30% on summer usage in 5 years.
And we already have an issue with existing water rights as being too dependent upon a few sources that could be affected by a forest fire. So the City isn't asking for an annexation to provide more water rights at existing locations, but to pay to develop access to a different location (Elk River) so that city has desired redundancy.
City talks about sustainability, but has completely been ignoring that issue when it comes to water usage and a sustainable long term plan for this community's water supply.
How to fix the current system:
1) Give a larger fixed amount tax credit for having health insurance that goes away if person doesn't have health insurance. Thus, it is tax credit that is only usable for buying health insurance so there is a greater incentive for all to be covered. A big current problem is that too many healthy people are choosing to go uninsured. So when they get hurt or sick then system is having to provide healthcare to the uninsured and isn't likely to be repaid.
2) End the requirement that healthcare plans must cover this and that routine medical procedures. What the healthcare system needs is everyone with good coverage for catastrophic issues so that uninsured don't have big unpaid bills having to be paid by everyone else. So health insurance that doesn't cover annual physicals and so on is fine for the system. What the system needs is everyone with health insurance that provides good coverage after some modest amount in annual deductions. That allows people to go to clinics where they don't worry about insurance company billing, but charge a lower price for the visit.
The healthcare coverage of routine care is not really insurance, but prepaying the insurance company for annual care as compared to the patient paying it directly. It is actually generally a less efficient method of paying for routine care than patient paying directly.
3) Since now the primary concern of required healthcare are major health issues then insurance doesn't have to be provided locally. So people on the Western Slope could then sign up for the same lower cost insurance as Denver residents. That would those signing up for that Denver insurance would have to travel to Denver for any cancer treatments or heart surgery, but that isn't that bad especially for those at low risk and very unlikely to need such treatments.
Last login: Wednesday, October 26, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |