Jump to content
Seems so much easier to deal with if you accept that legal or illegal is largely irrelevant on whether someone has a substance abuse issue.
No middle school student or high school student should ever be prescribed opiods. Enduring pain without drugs that threaten your life is the only path forward for the young.
"With Hayden having placed infrastructure for many available lots, ..."
I note that Yampa, Oak Creek and Stagecoach also have many available lots they would like developed. That additional lots is only a potential issue around Steamboat.
I also think that the growth West Area Steamboat Growth plan was horribly flawed from day 1 because it focused growth onto a handful of properties in sequence and allowed them to wait. I mentioned this at the time to a city planner acquaintance and he said it was the result of political maneuvering. He knew it was not going to work as a plan providing affordable supply.
If City and County want to provide a lower cost supply of housing then they have to have a plan that breaks the monopoly of a handful of property owners.
If South Valley is off limits and north in Strawberry Park is off limits then why is Twentymile also off limits?
If the goal is to adding somewhat affordable lots then City has to be flexible on annexations. If the City, for instance, had a plan of adding 20 acres per year and someone applied to annex 100 acres along Twentymile then SB 700 property owners would be out of luck for the next 5 years. So then SB 700 property owners would have pressure to act or they might see City growing west along Twentymile instead of through SB 700.
Seems clear to me from the minutes that Planning is opposed because how the rule change would spread out growth around the county because 5 miles from Stagecoach, Hayden, Oak Creek and Yampa becomes huge swaths of the county. Those places want to focus growth within their boundaries.
And as affordable housing strategy in or near Steamboat then it is an approach that seeks defiance of sound economic thinking. This approach is to try to create low cost units in a high value area where people are willing to pay higher prices to live. Should be obvious that additional housing units near SB will also have SB prices and not be "affordable".
The sound economic approach to "affordable" housing in Steamboat is for wages to increase so that SB workers have the income to afford to live in Steamboat.
Since there are plenty of low cost lots within 30 miles of Steamboat then there is plenty of capacity for growth. The issue is how much more that people are willing to pay to be in Steamboat.
So according to what Doug posted then it would make more sense to promote secondary units on all lots within 5 or so miles of SB and makes no sense to not allow them on lots less than 5 acres.
In fact, since subdivisions like SB II and Heritage Park are closer with better roads then it makes more sense to promote secondary units on smaller lots than on 5+ acre parcels.
"Its called the Community Development Code for a reason."
Because it applies to the local 99%?
What we need to adopt is a "Development Code for the Ultra Rich" which states to what limits they are exempt from the Community Development Code.
It is such a false argument to think that secondary units on 5+ acre lots within 5 miles of SB are going to provide useful workforce housing.
An awful lot of that housing is expensive where a secondary unit doesn't pay a meaningful amount of rent compared to property's overall mortgage or value. Someone so ignorant to think that a multi million dollar property is going to care about adding a secondary unit?
If the secondary unit is for the owner's parents then right now they will just add it and call it office and exercise space to then add the kitchen that makes it legally a secondary unit later on. There won't be a lease or other complications that would justify the hassle for making it a legal secondary unit.
If county thinks secondary units are such a good idea then make it a use by right regardless of lot size so that they can be added in Steamboat II, Heritage Park and so on where the rent from a secondary unit would be a significant help to the owner's mortgage.
As for a new city hall, I wish size and functions of city staff was questioned. The trend in competitive organizations where costs and effectiveness are important is to be reducing administrative staff.
Government and failing businesses are the organizations where it is seen that staff size will be increasing.
City sales tax collection still accepts paper submissions. A cost effective organization would charge the added amount that paper submissions add to processing.
The costs of administering planning rules would be part of considering new rules. That would tend to make new rules much clearer so that staff was not needed to interpret the rules. And the director of Planning shold be fired for allowing staff time to be wasted on considering variances instead of making the code match what city will consider. Looks like a major reason we need so much planning staff is because the written rules do not apply and they have to spend a lot of staff time working with developers. A director of planning that cared about wasting taxpayer money had 18 months to seek clarified downtown code so that staff wasn't needed to spend time interpreting rules.
If the written planning rules were the rules that applied then we would not have had 18 months of staff "working with" the developer for 1125 Lincoln, but we have a few days spent telling developer whether or not plan met the rules and, if not, then why not.
Government loves not having clear rules as it gives them power in making decisions, especially to reward what they think is right, and gives them power as having staff.
You don't want to give up downtown area for parking. People only need to go to their car once or twice while visiting stores and restaurants.
The place for parking and then a parking garage is rodeo and Howelsen where there is enough space so that ramps are consuming a small portion of the lot.
What I truly do not understand is why the parking at the rodeo is not promoted as being available. That would be a quick easy way to add a substantial number of parking spots very close to downtown.
While Vail Resorts would face anti-trust issues if they bought SB Ski Corps, they could develop Stagecoach as that would be creating competition. And they would presumably be able to develop their own base area hotels and restaurants. Would also be close enough for them to leverage their flight program out of Edwards. 60 miles to Edwards while 40 to Hayden.
What a developer would likely want to also do is create a town government so their zoning isn't being dictated by the county that views it as a residential area.
But overall, smaller ski areas have been going out of business because an area needs to be big to have snowmaking and high speed lifts which today's skiers want.
It would appear that the town of Mammoth Mountain and Whistler Village have the best of breed programs.
The best programs secure trash AND use nonlethal methods to discourage bears from entering urban areas and so on.
Securing garbage cans is like stopping thieves by telling the public to lock their doors, but making no effort to catch the thieves.
Last login: Sunday, April 24, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |