Jump to content
I observe that cities with bear problems seem to have adjacent luxury homes on larger lots. I'd guess that bears get accustomed to human activity via the outlying subdivisions and then learn to live in the city. So I think any solution is going to require consistent rules across the greater SB area and not just city limits.
I also think we should take active steps to discourage bears from living in the city. As long as we allow mama bears to live here and teach their cubs how to live in the city then we are going to have a bear problem even if they are mostly living on natural food from gardens and open space areas. I do not see any reason why we couldn't track them and systematically remove local bear dens. And maybe there is a humane way to chase them out of town so the bears learn that it is easier to live elsewhere.
Maybe someone should do an economic study on the value of economic studies. Look at how many people attended the presentation, how much they spent on food and lodging. Economic studies could also be written up as great for the local economy.
The only real value in an economic study is that politicians can use them to justify spending money to benefit special interests.
Downtown Steamboat just does not feel like a historic district to me. There is just too much newer construction in a modern style for me to be able to stand at any point and gets a sense of the history.
Some historic districts such as Georgetown's is obvious and clear.
I see this as being like Bike Town USA, where the reality of the marketing slogan is underwhelming. Where there are no shortage of places that didn't spend the money, effort and time for the official designation, but are instantly obviously more worthy of the title.
The newspaper article fails to mention the issue is much less about a marijuana business than the new building they propose to house it. The recent applications for marijuana businesses in existing buildings generated much less opposition.
The idea of a 3 story building that is 34' feet tall at the lot line that borders the residential district is pretty outrageous. With the particular issues of that location, I think anything more than a single story building would face strong opposition.
Yeah and that part that reads "Highest Honors" is pretty cool. Can't remember if they put that there or if I did. :)
Though, I knew a couple of people that had to change an Incomplete in an independent study class to a completed class to get their degree, but the college allowed them to participate in the graduation ceremony. That was just fair because it was just a ceremony to share with friends and they probably were going to finish the needed work.
If he is willing to answer questions in the grocery store then maybe he would consider answering two online.
When told the college didn't say you graduated then why wasn't your first call to the college to straighten it out?
Is the account presented in the Boston Globe accurate when saying that you first said you would provide the transcript and then you said that the college refused to acknowledge your degree because you owed them money? If not, how would you correct it?
Seems to me that the initial claim on the resume was much less damaging than Mr Fisher's response to being told the college said he wasn't a graduate.
So I do the work to find the source for the most controversial statement and now I am expected to annotate every comment by everyone?
States like Mississippi, Arkansas and so on in the deep South have among the highest percentage of the population receiving direct government assistance and vote overwhelmingly Republican.
I could not find any link to exactly how Shilling determined what counted as jobs relying upon government. Though, when the most generous calculation of all layers of government add up to slightly less than 40% of the national economy (which counts things like water districts which are government enterprises charging fees to provide a service and often not even supported by taxes) then Shilling cannot be very strict on what he counts as reliant on government spending to reach his 52.6% number.
As for wealthy people getting what they want - google "wealthy political influence" and there are tons of links to that category of research.
I submitted a letter to the meeting stating that the property posting requirement was not met.
Crazy part of the "oversight" is that town's staff report said notification requirement D.1 was met by sending out notices to neighbors. But notification requirement D.2 requiring property posting and is obviously right there in the town's land use code was not mentioned in the staff report.
Though, D.2 requiring property posting had been properly done for prior projects and mentioned in staff reports as being met. So somehow, something done previously correctly both in posting on the property and mentioned in the staff report on previous recent land use changes was missed for the most controversial project in years for the town.
And today, it was posted on the building that the proposed new 3 story building is to be heard on August 27th and it still makes no sense to me that a requirement for a 15 day notice is met by a 7 day notice.
I don't know who in town hall is preparing staff reports and deciding that 7 days is close enough to 15 days to meet the town code, but geez whiz Batman.
Mr. Shilling's analysis found that about 1 in 5 Americans hold a government job or a job reliant on federal spending. A similar number receive Social Security or a government pension. About 19 million others get food stamps, 2 million get subsidized housing, and 5 million get education grants. For all these categories, Mr. Shilling counted dependents as well as the direct recipients of government income.
So, Fred Duckels and his dependents feed at the government trough according to Mr Shilling because Duckels Construction does road projects for government.
Shilling's number is pretty silly and largely misleading as shown above. It creates a false impression that people counted as receiving assistance as being in favor of government assistance programs. I know Fred Duckels doesn't consider himself as part of a voting bloc supporting government assistance programs.
In the USA, the states receiving the most government assistance per capita vote the most Republican. So the idea of a voting bloc for government assistance is simply false.
The philosophy in city government and Forest Service that it matters whether someone does something as an individual vs with a paid guide or paid service makes no sense. It makes no sense that commercial tubing is prohibited on a section of river which allows noncommercial tubing. Not having to share with commercial tubing companies makes the upper section more attractive to individual tubers. It never made any sense to hope that banning commercial tubers from a section of river would do anything other than increase private citizens use of that section.
If tubing puts too much pressure on a section of river then institute fees on that section to reduce usage. Charge $5 fee per tuber whether commercial or private citizen for the upper section. And keep below 5th street free.
Adding a special tax for tubes sold in the city limits is just more complex government rules that now has to decide what might be used to float the river. And that is a lot of work just to raise some money.
I also note that a lot of money was used to move rocks in the river to provide a better habitat for fish (and a better ride for tubers and kayaking). How sure are we that it is working? Might it have worsened the situation due to whatever complex interactions?
I would also survey the river above and below downtown to see if the apparent problem with the fishery is a general problem facing the river or limited to downtown. Maybe tubing has nothing to do with it.
Last login: Saturday, August 23, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.