Jump to content
"... have a broad discussion with all the students of the school about American values and creating and maintaining safe space for all students."
Why is that discussion needed? Is it needed for the Jewish students? The perpetrator of this hate crime no more represents students than represents SB. I see no evidence that there are any significant number of students that don't understand American values or tolerate intolerance.
The people that need to be have a broad discussion are the school administrators that somehow didn't think it was worth mentioning for two months that a hate crime occurred at the school.
I think Brynn Grey should consider two changes and if SB city is too messed up to accept then walk away, let the property owner submit the property to county planning and leave the city with no future growth plans.
1) The $16,000 per house should increase 5% annually. That means money from future houses will not pay inflation adjusted less than initial houses. The amount of annual increase should be above rate of inflation to encourage building more sooner rather than later.
2) There should be some formulation requiring construction begin soon with a significant number of units being built. There could be an adjustment clause if local housing prices decline sharply. The biggest risk is more of the same of approving what is supposed to be a plan for the community, and then nothing getting done. The WSSAP is 20 years old and it was approved with the hope of construction on cheap lots. Similarly, 180 condos are approved for behind Staples and all that happens is that the parcel is put up for millions saying it is an approved development opportunity.
I think those that don't like this deal should be forced to describe what is a deal that is acceptable along with a business/economics model analysis that is workable. Most of city council wants developer to put up more money up front, pay for more things and provide lower cost housing.
Personally, I find Brynn Grey to be far more credible on their proposals than most of city council. Brynn Grey is not some developer hoping to get something approved so that they can flip the property to some other developer. Brynn Grey has a substantial track record of moving from approvals to construction and building popular products that sell out quickly.
That is far more credible than city council members claiming that development costs will be borne by the developer and not the home buyers. Or city council members insisting upon up front money as if that is free and won't be an added cost passed on to the home buyers. Or that some city council members don't understand that adding costs to the developer just means that developer will wait longer until housing prices increase further before building.
It really seem that too much of city council thinks that the YVHA Elk River is right model for development where there are huge federal tax subsidies paying for each unit. That all we need is $50M or $100M in annual taxpayer subsidies to build sufficient local housing. That the real problem with Brynn Grey is that are a company seeking to make a fair profit. Brynn Grey is proposing building attainable move up housing which is a category that the housing analysis says we need and to do it without millions in taxpayer subsidies.
As for the "risks" of dealing with Brynn Grey - they have substantial successful developments. The sort of economic calamity that leaves them unable to keep their promises would be the least of SB city government concerns. Brynn Grey survived the Great Recession while keeping their promises to Breckenridge. They didn't come back and say deed restrictions to locals was too much of a burden or have parcels in foreclosure. Thus, they are far more financially responsible than our local YVHA.
An improvement for MS administration would be to tell incoming students and parents that start of 8th grade is an important sorting of students into math classes that are a year apart academically. School should be honest with students and parents with written statements what path student is on.
Our family was told one thing at end of 7th grade and a completely different story at start of 8th grade. It should never have happened. Some communications are too important to be verbal. Some sorting is too important to learn of it at start of school year and not let students/parents consider summer schoolwork to get into desired class.
It got resolved in the end over the objections of school administration and history has shown it was absolutely a mistaken sorting by school administration.
The question on the number of swastikas is a horrible question because the actual number is not relevant. What next? A news question asking how many times a murder victim was shot, stabbed or beaten? The duration of a sexual assault? A far more relevant question would have been when did the hate crime occur as the months between the crime and publicly acknowledging the crime should be a big part of the story.
As for whether the perpetrators understood what they were doing - many crimes are committed under the influence of alcohol in which the criminal did not thoughtfully consider the crime prior to committing it. It doesn't make the crime excusable. The perpetrator(s) cannot be excused as possible "misguided youths" any more than a violent murder committed by someone drunk at the time was committed by a "misguided drunk".
I will be very upset if the school responds to this by having some assembly on inclusiveness. This is not some students failing to be nice in which everyone could do better. A crime was committed, the school administration seems to have done their best to minimize it and did not disclose it for a couple of months. 99+% of students did nothing wrong. School administration did things wrong. It isn't students that need an assembly. It is school administration that needs to improve how they respond to a serious crime occurring on school grounds.
Why do you do that? We have a halfway decent conversation going on based upon facts, questions and opinions, but then you kill it with a change of topic.
"She [Kathi Meyer] noted that of the $12.75 million in infrastructure costs, $11.5 million would ultimately be paid by the new homeowners."
Actually, since Brynn Grey is not a charitable organization receiving massive taxpayer grants, the new homeowners pay 100% of all costs. It seems that most of city council fails to understand basic economics in that the seller is seeking to make money and the buyer is paying market prices.
Paying $16K at time of sale is a low risk and cheap money for Brynn Grey. It means they pay when they have the money so there are no loans paying interest that are dependent upon selling a certain number of homes per year to pay off the amortization schedule. If Brynn Grey is asked to pay $16K per house up front then over the expected build out time frame that would add around $30,000 per house to be paid by new homeowner where the difference is what is paid out by Brynn Grey to their lenders.
It would make sense if the $16K were to increase over time so that money paid later is the same amount as if it had been paid earlier and earning interest.
As for taking risks, we have people saying there is a housing crisis and yet here is a developer promising a good deal. Yes, there would be some risks for the city, but those risks are limited. City council should not expect taxpayers to approve a guaranteed ongoing tax burden for some socialist development project just because government is willing to consider risks of dealing with an established successful private developer that could go bankrupt.
"When flames consumed the old Royal Hotel in Yampa on the night of Jan. 3, 2015 (no one was hurt)"
I guess that counts as an alternative fact. Factually, two residents of the Royal were hospitalized after the fire. One for several days due to smoke inhalation.
Half of US citizens don't have a 401K and of those that have one, the average balance is only $19K. So a rise in the stock market doesn't help that many people a significant amount.
You talk as if Trump the election by millions of votes. In fact, he lost the popular vote by millions. Trump won by doing very well in what could be described as "left behind" America where manufacturing and mining jobs left and were not replaced by high tech jobs. Trump lost badly where the economy is doing well. Trump even carried the parts of Ca that are economically distressed while getting blown out in the economically thriving coastal cities.
The economic cycle has not been repealed, but all too often the economic cycle is hastened and worsened by government stimulus finally taking effect when the economy is overheating and the government stimulus ending as the economy goes into recession. A positive effect of government deadlock is that we don't have a big stimulus program taking effect as unemployment rate is less than 5%.
Unlike many Presidents, there is no stimulus via spending or tax cutting that seems inevitable. Seems easier to not want to worsen the deficit. Seems that gridlock has created opportunities that don't cost government much such as a program letting companies bring back their overseas profits if they create good jobs in economically distressed areas. Or make H1B work visas have a $15K per year fee used to train USA citizens for those jobs.
Last login: Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |