Jump to content
I think government charters and constitutions generally describe that government is promote the general welfare and individual rights set limits on what government is allowed to do.
It would be possible for a government to say that largely vacant second homes are needed to solve the local affordable housing issue and therefore seize those homes. That happens in some countries. In the US we have Constitutional protections against seizure of property. And so on.
"Nearly everything government touches is distorted or destroyed in spite of what might be good intentions."
That may be overstating it a bit because we haven't quite destroyed roads and so on. I think the general point is well taken because government tends to design programs with desired outcomes without considering the long term effects of what are now the incentives. So rent control sounds like a good idea without considering that it destroys the ability to make money building apts so the apt shortage is made worse. That is a simple case, but that sort of unintended consequences is all too typical.
I think it is reasonable to examine how government limits supply by various regulations. For instance, SB allows 5 adults to live in an apt or condo. Meanwhile, SB sets a maximum of 3 adults in a single family house unless all are related. Thus, effectively eliminating legally sharing a house.
BLS says that median family income for Steamboat is $64K.
I guess you are seeking to be proven wrong again.
I have no idea how you come to the conclusion that if median income is $64K that highest income is limited to $133K.
I understand statistics. It is the housing task force that set their goal of 60% of median incoming being able to afford a home.
In Steamboat 60% of median family income is about $40,000. So the housing task force is saying a family's combine income of $40,000 should be enough to buy a SB house. From a free market, not communist perspective, that is absurd.
"permanently employed people in the entry-level market who seek to purchase homes for less than $310,000."
And like to pay less than $500 for a season pass, have a mobile plan with unlimited data for less than $20 a month, eat at a nice restaurant for less than $10 per person and so on.
From a free marker, not communist perspective, it is absurd that people earning only 60% of the area's average income should be expected to be able to afford to buy a local house.
Where did I "demand support"?
I merely pointed out the verifiable fact that Hillary was not fired by the Watergate committee and, in fact, remained on the committee until it was done and was disbanded.
I think the county should allow what I would call ag style grow operations which I would define as in greenhouses with modest usage of electricity.
I would want to encourage building local greenhouses, but I would want them suitable for local food production if the country ever legalizes pot and it isn't economical to grow much pot locally. I would want the immediate usage for growing pot to create useful longer term infrastructure.
I would also suggest that such greenhouses be located in economically disadvantaged parts of the county where more jobs are needed. In particular, South Routt property tax base is highly dependent upon Twentymile Coal and coal is a declining industry because fracking has dropped the price of nat gas and China has nearly stopped importing coal. Some tax producing commercial land in South Routt is very much needed.
By the way, Hillary was not fired from the Watergate committee. She served until it was disbanded. Jerry Zeifman was not her boss and did not fire her. Her boss was Peter Rodino. Those are verified facts.
The allegations by Jerry Zeifman originated in 2008. He wrote a book about Hillary in 1995 that didn't include this allegation.
Somewhat hypocritical to claim a thread is being polluted after posting " I would vote for Castro before Hillary" and the thread has two posts featuring pictures of Hitler.
So you'd rather the USA became orthodox communist instead of electing a politician that doesn't tell the truth and is criticized for being too close to Wall Street? Looks like you are the one that is delusional.
I think whoever wins this year will cause that party to lose the next two or three presidential elections. The one that gets elected will cause a generational shift away from that party.
Last login: Sunday, June 19, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |