Jump to content
This is such bad advice. Kids trying to get what they want is good and natural. Parents should encourage their kids to give persuasive reasons to get what they want. Ralphie wanting a Red Ryder BB gun grew up to be a noted author and storyteller.
The things to stop are manipulation such as whining and refusing to accept a decision. Both are relatively easy for parents to deal with by first making a request made by whining as an automatic disqualification and second, making refusing to listen to a decision something that results in punishment.
I think it is a great lesson to a kid that a request made by whining will never be granted and instead to be told to ask again "like w well behaved person". That ends whining quickly.
On some occasions I would have said no to the request, but after reasons were given then I was convinced the request was fair and agreed.
Most kids are poorly behaved because they have learned that it works. Kids are smart that way. If they learn that asking again 50 times works then they ask 50 times. At a playground you can quickly identify the parents that cave because their kids will lay on the pressure. The kids where that behavior is not allowed only need to hear "if you can't behave then we are leaving" once because they have learned that is not an empty threat because that has happened.
It is costing about $250K per units at this project. If we need 700 units then that is about $175M in spending. If we are to embark upon a program that comes close to that need then it needs a lot of money such as an additional 10% in sales tax and hope that doesn't reduce local spending and bring in less than expected tax revenues.
The free market can raise a lot of money if there is a decent profit. So if there really are 700 households able to pay the cost of new housing then they can build it themselves or pay developers that have built houses.
If there are 700 households that need housing and cannot afford free market housing then the next question should be why not? If they are in jobs that don't pay enough then they need pay raises to continue working here. There is no guaranteed right for businesses to pay less than a living wage and have government provide low cost housing for their employees.
YVHA continues to be so inept that their own plans are the best argument against public ever considering giving them a dedicated funding source. They keep on this development model that a inopportune recession will crush them. Larger private developers form limited liability companies so their newest project can fail without taking down the entire enterprise. But YVHA, as a government agency, can not form legally separate companies and cannot use bankruptcy to protect themselves from an economic downturn. Every YVHA development project is just like pulling the trigger in another game of Russian Roulette. This round may work out good for them, but soon enough there will be a fatal shot.
Their predecessor, RALF, had the right idea which is to purchase existing rental properties that are cash flow positive and use their position to finance it with low interest rates. That they are a nonprofit and can get loans at lower interest rates means it is a no brainer to be able to acquire rental units and that they can rent for less than market rent.
While that doesn't directly create more rental units, the fact that YVHA is buying from private owners then allows those and other private developers to build rental projects and know there is a ready buyer (YVHA) if project is completed at a good price and rents are affordable.
Tony was good on city council. He wasn't a natural politician so he had more than his share of missteps, but he put in a good effort. He was arguably on the wrong side of big issues all the way up to the final vote when he finally would see the light. That was how we was for downtown URA and so on.
The vacancy is in District I which is west side and downtown generally north of Maple Street and west of 4th with enough jigs and jogs to prevent a more concise description.
Many regulations are not opposed by larger producers because it is what they already do. And many regulations are created in response to a problem where a producer got people sick using unsafe practices that were not previously against regulations.
Throwing away all that cheese is real hard on Bleating Heart Dairy, but it appears that they had contaminated all of their cheese.
You testing for antibiotics is a waste of time until the one day it tests positive and you figure out what happened by mistake for that to have happened.
The public dislikes regulations until bad food causes people to get sick and then everyone goes into a panic about how a lack of regulations allowed it to happen.
The men are not complaining, but thinking about how it could be done better.
The reason for a later in the day clearing of slush is not to have pristine pretty roads, but that slush refreezes at night into ice and what were ruts in slush become ruts in hard ice. What could have been easily cleared in the afternoon becomes very hard to clear and beats up the equipment.
With City Council elections a mere 10 months away, Bill Jameson is off to a strong start. He has shown himself to have a superior understanding of local issues. He already has a powerful campaign slogan "No, or hell no to all of the above”. That is a perfect slogan for a bumper sticker.
BTW, it doesn't take many people wanting that bumper sticker to be able to put in an online order so each one is $1 or so.
So what is meant by the question of City of SB aggressively addressing housing issues?
City could "aggressively" change zoning to easily allow mobile home parks as an affordable high density housing option and up zone single family neighborhoods to allow duplexes or secondary units or even multi-family units. City could also aggressively change tap fees to charge much less for smaller units and charge much more for larger houses with landscaping. It is a fact that city's water dept needs additional water rights to handle summer exterior watering while household interior use is not a problem.
Or it could mean that City gets aggressive seeking to raise tens of millions of dollars annually in order to attempt to build one study's projected number of affordable units per year.
It is a big difference whether city government aggressively looks at itself to make it easier for free market to provide additional housing compared to city government aggressively seeks to raise taxes.
The Arnold Barn is not a "huge piece" of our western heritage. If it was anywhere close to that importance then it would have been properly maintained years ago. It has a crummy location below Mt Werner Road and adjacent to a parking lot in which there is no hope for a good picture of the barn. This discussion on saving it has many people confusing it with the famous, frequently photographed More Barn.
Though, a development agreement required that it be preserved as part of their larger development and that has not happened. Under no circumstances should it become a city responsibility to maintain. Nor is it very important how or where the barn is preserved so if Ski Corps wishes to move it to where it will be more easily seen then that should be allowed. But that is currently wishes and dreams. The main issue remains of barn not being maintained as required by previous agreement.
I agree with John that there should be a schedule option for slush fighting and road widening that can be used on warmer days after a storm.
The "Banana Belt" does not extend to CR 14 around Stagecoach. CR 14 is vulnerable to drifting snow. I think it would make sense to work with property owners to see if a snow fence located at an engineered locations on their properties would reduce snow drifts on CR 14.
Last login: Monday, December 19, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |