Jump to content
I don't see a general issue of the school system graduating classes of racists, neo nazis and so on. I don't see this incident as indicating there is a large overall problem.
I see a specific issue of school administration not revealing to the students, parents and general public for two months that a very offensive incident occurred targeting a Jewish student. I have no idea how they talked themselves into believing that was an appropriate response, but it was most conclusively a terrible response. Yet, the letter from high school administration to parents fails to mention even that there was a two month delay and thus also fails to offer an apology of how they handled it so wrong and, most important, fails to promise that they have learned and won't make the same mistakes again.
It is also very poor to send that letter to parents at 3 pm on the Friday before Spring break. It is as if school administration intentionally waited until there is a week off so the issue will die down before school opens again. Thus, the letter and the timing of the letter only further indicates to me that the high school administration has thoroughly mishandled this issue.
I doubt that the school board wants to discuss this issue, but it has been so resoundingly poorly handled by the high school administration that this now needs to be on the agenda for the next school board meeting. They have to get to the bottom of how this was managed to be so poorly handled and make sure no future incident is this poorly handled.
School earlier said that they didn't get even a clear day of when swastika appeared on locker so looking at video probably shows a lot of people near locker, but not able to see their hands.
I just got an email letter from the school administration that yet again has no explanation of how it took two months to report it to parents, but promises to apparently punish everyone with a mandatory event. Mandatory events are such a show to please some people that are so good at repeating the already known obvious. They should have students take a quiz before and after the event to see what, if anything, is learned.
Looks to me that SB boys didn't win a "share" of the league title, but that they won the league title by winning the tie breakers. Yes, it might make more sense if teams with same records could be co-champions, but that is not how it works in Colorado. SSHS teams in other sports in other years have lost league titles on tie breakers so why shouldn't the boys basketball team celebrate being outright league champions by winning tiebreakers?
Water rights are a valid long term concern, but city has plenty of water rights for this development. That was confirmed by city staff at last week's coffee with council. City currently has sufficient water rights for all in fill development as well as this proposed annexation.
Future annexations of the parcel could reach the point of becoming short on water rights. But the city has very minimal water conservation efforts and summer outdoor watering more than doubles peak winter water usage during max tourism. It is far cheaper to pay for water conservation efforts than to pay for additional water rights and treatment plants.
So it is hardly unreasonable or irresponsible to collect an extra $16,000 per residence to create a fund for dealing with future water issues.
I think the bigger issue are those that think that developers, not the home buyers, will be paying for everything. Nothing will be built that is not paid by the home buyers so the more costs which city wishes to add to the project costs then the more expensive that housing prices must become before development is financially feasible. It is also quite possible that if costs are too much per resident then it becomes financially impossible to consider higher density and the property is broken into 35 acre estates. And then the "attainable housing" market in SB is done and gone moved to Hayden, OC or Stagecoach.
But let's not claim that attainable housing is an important community concern and then say it would be so easy to walk away from this proposal. Brynn Grey is a real developer that has done good projects in Breckenridge and Frisco which also survived the Great Recession in good shape. There is no reason to expect any other developer with a better resume. They are not developers that get something approved and then start renegotiating for better term. Their projects have delivered what they have promised.
I also think SB turning this down will have major repercussion with county cooperation on urban growth boundaries and area plans. The county agreed to stop approving regional subdivisions so that SB could grow by annexations. Yet, here is city 20 years later saying those plans are unworkable because there isn't enough water. County's logical response would be to recognize that city is not a partner in smart growth and thus tell property owners in the SB region to propose what they want with the water they have. That county is not going to maintain SB area growth boundaries when SB isn't willing to approve growth within those boundaries. That county is not going to push development into areas more distant from SB just because SB refuses to allow growth as was promised.
Obviously, having good communications with your kid is good. I just don't accept that a swastika on a Jewish student's car and near her locker has any moral ambiguity of being wrong. There is certainly grounds for a discussion on why it is an emotionally charged wrong.
I think the next step regarding students is a short simple reminder of what on school grounds should be expected to result in expulsion If anyone wants to question that or learn more about why some things are so offensive then they are welcome to have that conversation with their parents and/or school counselors.
The bigger next step should be from the school administration stating how they will better handle a similar sort of issue next time. Should be easy enough to say how long they can confidentially investigate and how it will be announced to the public.
The term "misguided" is not a good excuse because all sorts of serious crimes are committed by people that could also be called "misguided".
This is not like a 5 year using offensive words without knowing their meaning, but just knowing that it provokes a strong reaction.
I suppose it could be someone intending to be offensive, but not intending to be so offensive. That isn't described as "misguided", but more along the lines of being wrong, not evil.
Nor is this a topic of parents needing an open discussion with their kids because nearly all kids immediately recognize it is very wrong and wouldn't consider doing anything like that. I suppose parents of a troubled angry teen might want to make the point that doing something like can have major consequences far beyond conflicts with parents.
It is simply false that "so many" of hate crimes turn out to be hoaxes. Your link showing hoaxes compared to annual counts of hate crimes shows that hoaxes are about 1% of reported hate crimes.
Softbank? Well that could be interesting. Would have to expect that we will get better wireless coverage by Sprint.
While obviously Softbank didn't acquire any valuable technology, that doesn't mean that tech might not be a key part of the deal. Softbank may be seeking to demonstrate how to bring tech to tourism and specifically skiing in this world of social media, drones and so on.
"... 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.
Last login: Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |