Jump to content
Yeah, and when the Nazis killed millions of Jews there were some that were dangerous criminals that they "got ONE right".
Racism and xenophobic comments are not wrong because it gets "ONE right", but about all that are gotten wrong.
An interesting part of the internment of Japanese during WW2 is that most knew it was wrong, but were not willing to stand up to the ignorant public and racist politicians stoking fears. FDR knew it was wrong, but he wasn't willing to stand up. He even knew it was going to hurt the war effort by removing workers in very short supply on the west coast. Ironically, Hawaii refused to go along with internment because those of Japanese descent were too essential to the island's operations and security.
The people that live in a secondary unit are not the same people that stay as guests in the large luxury house.
My point is that it is irrational to claim that having people living a secondary unit will have a significant impact compared to property's large luxury house with many guests. Many of these property owners bring a dozen or so people with them when they are here.
What puts stresses on rural roads etc is and will not be secondary units, but the massive main houses with their many guests. They are their guests tend to result in numerous delivery trips, professional housekeeping, catering and so on.
BTW, this is not the barn that is commonly shown with the ski area in the background. As far as I know, there is no poster of this barn. The barn of posters is now part of the Barn Village development and those developers followed their permit of both repairing the barn and retaining the view of barn with ski area behind.
This barn is between the ski area's remote parking lot and Mt Werner Road. That is why most of the background of the photo is the embankment of Mt Werner Road and only a little bit of the top of the ski area can be seen.
I wonder how much of the money raised to "save" this barn think it is the other, much more famous, barn.
People are not going to build an 800 sq ft secondary unit as a separate house. What exists today that were apparently illegal are secondary units on a part of the first floor or in a heated luxury garage or barn. Those tenants often have responsibilities to take of the horses and the overall property in return for reduced rent.
"Under the city’s charter, any change to the council’s salary or benefits must be voted upon by city residents" and that vote never happened. And yet they are knowingly being given that benefit by city staff and are accepting it.
How it is legally different than a $12K cash payment for each council member that was never approved by the voters? Would it be argued that it was fine to keep giving them $12K because it had been given out previously?
Seems obvious to me that giving a benefit to city council members without voter approval as required by city charter is straight out not legal. Continuing to spend $95K on benefits not legally allowed strikes me as being criminal by city council and city staff.
As a condition for their development, the owners committed to repair the barn. Yes, the city did a poor job in not having clear consequences for the developer ignoring that condition, but taxpayer money should not pay for this.
If a property owner can build a 6,000 sq ft house with 10 bedrooms and have 20 guests then on what basis complain about an 800 sq ft secondary unit?
What is done above where an 800 sq ft secondary unit after several sleights of hand suddenly becomes "two dwelling units per 35 acres is a big deal" is so misleading. The first dwelling unit is probably 4,000+ sq ft and this is not allowing another luxury house, but a secondary unit as part of their garage or whatever. Quite possibly some will take part of existing house and convert into a legal secondary unit.
The URAAC should not be a pot of money to bail out developers. The URAAC money is supposed to be redevelopment money to make repairs to a blighted area. If they have removed all of the blight then they should disband and return their $400K to the county, library district, school district and so on.
"Treatment" is such a vague definition that no one should try to give a general success rate. In some places, people busted with pot are assigned "treatment" and they have no inclination to quit. There are also different levels of "wanting it to work" as there are different levels of motivation. It seems that most treatment methods claim much higher level of success than overall treatment methods.
As for "it not being available" it has been shown over and over again that attempting to limit supply does not work. That scarcity due to some arrests just increases the motivation for others to bring it in.
Baltimore in the 70s had a campaign to go after all of the heroin drug dealers. It was reasonably successful and the price of heroin more than doubled. The theft rate also skyrocketed because many of the addicts had to steal more to pay for their drugs. There was no evidence that it reduced drug use.
Probably makes sense that people with drug issues can get effective treatment without waiting too long, but a whole lot of the expensive stay at a place treatment does not seen particularly effective. The hardest part of treatment appears to be creating a new lifestyle that doesn't include the drugs or alcohol so it often means new friends, new job and new living situation.
"Every $1 invested in viable treatment options for substance use disorders saves $4 in health care costs and $7 in criminal justice costs" Vivek Murthy, U.S. surgeon general.
Last login: Wednesday, November 9, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |