Stuart Orzach

Stuart Orzach 3 days, 3 hours ago on Some community members continue to call for more enforcement of Yampa River rules

Doug,

Thanks for clarifying you comments. Perhaps the Property Management Companies are de facto commercial tubing operations. I wonder if your regulations contain clear definitions.

How big a problem is alcohol on the river?

How much of the trash on the river emanates from sources other than tubers et al? There's plenty of trash along the banks of the creeks right now, and much of it will end up in the river. There's a lot of wind blown trash that unfortunately ends up there too.

Please tailor your solutions narrowly to address the problems. Make sure you have clear objectives and can measure your results. Keep in mind that you will never achieve 100% compliance with any regulation and it is not worth trying to do so.

I'm not a fan of throwing money at "feel good" ideas.

The best solutions are often indirect and totally counter intuitive.

Thanks.

0

Stuart Orzach 3 days, 3 hours ago on Jim Clark: Why do we have to call it 'Mud Season'?

Jim,

It's called Mud Season because it's mud season. No explanation is needed. If you lure tourists here by creating false expectations they may be disappointed to find that it snows half the time and that the trails are too (please pardon my language) muddy to use.

Never have I heard Fall referred to as a second Mud Season because it's not.

Scott W.- Thank you for coining a phrase. It's obvious that we have all suffered a "temporary lapse of marketing" but, fortunately, Jim has arrived just in time to save us.

0

Stuart Orzach 4 days, 1 hour ago on Some community members continue to call for more enforcement of Yampa River rules

Don't talk to me about user fees! This City takes in more than enough revenue, and it excels at wasting it. I'm disappointed that so many community members are willing to reach into other people's pockets even before they've defined the problem, figured out what's causing it. and demonstrated the efficacy and superiority of their proposed solution.

0

Stuart Orzach 4 days, 9 hours ago on Margaret Stees: Honesty not always best

Ken- That is the best video I have seen on the subject of Citizens' rights, and appropriate conduct, during interactions with the police.

Though this incident didn't involve the SSPD, there is a broader lesson here. The best possible outcome of the investigation of the Steamboat Springs Police Dept. will only constitute a partial and temporary solution to our problems. If nothing else changes, the situation in our City will slowly and inexorably gravitate back towards the national mean.

The rest of the solution involves citizens learning how to protect themselves.

I highly recommend that everyone watch the video that is linked to Ken's post. It will be well worth your 40 minutes to learn how things really work.

0

Stuart Orzach 2 weeks, 3 days ago on Our View: Integrity of investigation compromised

This problem is metastatic. It's hard to say where it starts and where it ends.

Americans love their "Boogeyman", but simply excising two individuals won't take us where we need to go.

A thorough investigation is mandatory. The timing of this crisis could not be more auspicious. This is the place where the inquiry into whether or not we need a new Police Station should have started. In a free country, free people get to choose what type of policing they want. Size and location of the building are subordinate to that.

The money already budgeted for the ill-conceived and intrusive License Plate Reader (LPR) would be better spent on this investigation.

0

Stuart Orzach 3 weeks, 5 days ago on Letter to the editor: Former City Council members address current council about police department allegations

Having thoroughly studied Dave's letter, I totally agree with the recommendations contained in this Letter To The Editor, and I think it all constitutes common sense. To do any less than what is recommended would be irresponsible to say the least. Based on the totality of the allegations and the nature of some of them, it would be highly inappropriate for the City Manager to handle it, and way beyond the purview of the City Council. This calls for an independent, external review. The scope of the problem could very well extend beyond the Police Department itself. The wrongdoing that is alleged does not take place in a vacuum.

0

Stuart Orzach 1 month ago on Building a friendlier downtown: Downtown URA Q&A

A More Comprehensive Definition of Blight from the Blight Study:

Please note the requirement that the area be "a menace to public health, safety, morals or welfare".

2.0 Definition of Blight

A determination of blight is a cumulative conclusion based on the presence of several physical, environmental, and social factors defined by state law. Indeed, blight is often attributable to a multiplicity of conditions, which, in combination, tend to contribute to the phenomenon of deterioration of an area. For purposes of this Survey, the definition of a blighted area is based upon the definition articulated in the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, as follows:

“Blighted area” means an area that, in its present condition and use and, by reason of the presence of at least four of the following factors, substantially impairs or arrests the sound growth of the municipality, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic or social liability, and is a menace to the public health, safety, morals, or welfare:

(a) Slum, deteriorated, or deteriorating structures;

(b) Predominance of defective or inadequate street layout;

(c) Faulty lot layout in relation to size, adequacy, accessibility, or usefulness;

(d) Unsanitary or unsafe conditions;

(e) Deterioration of site or other improvements;

(f) Unusual topography or inadequate public improvements or utilities;

(g) Defective or unusual conditions of title rendering the title non-marketable;

(h) The existence of conditions that endanger life or property by fire or other causes;

(i) Buildings that are unsafe or unhealthy for persons to live or work in because of building code violations, dilapidations, deterioration, defective design, physical construction, or faulty or inadequate facilities;

(j) Environmental contamination of buildings or property;

(k.5) The existence of health, safety, or welfare factors requiring high levels of municipal services or substantial physical underutilization or vacancy of sites, buildings, or other improvements;

0

Stuart Orzach 1 month, 1 week ago on Our view: More bang for URA’s bucks

On last November's ballot, the Downtown stakeholders failed, for the second time, to approve a BID (Business Improvement District) Tax, in spite of a massive get-out-the-vote campaign. This would have helped maintain some of the proposed new infrastructure and demonstrated to Council that they are willing to put some skin in the game.

At their September 2nd meeting, the City Council majority approved a motion that stated, in part, that if the BID Tax failed, the URA/TIF discussion is over. Then they reneged on it. But they didn't stop there. At their March 3rd meeting, they engaged in one of the saddest episodes of historical revision I have ever witnessed. They all claimed to have not said, not meant, or not heard what they clearly said, and meant on September 2nd. The reason it's so tragic is that history is preserved, on line, for all to see. I could quote them, but I don't want to be accused of taking words out of context.

I suggest that citizens do their civic duty. Go to the City's website and watch your elected representatives in action. View the videotapes of the meetings. Read the Minutes. For those who only have time for the Cliff Notes version, go to the 3:34 mark in the September 2nd meeting and listen to the motion, the emphatic repetition of the motion, and the vote to approve it.

The Editor is selling dreams. Can she explain, in language that an intelligent voter can understand, exactly how a URA (Urban Renewal Authority) and TIF (Tax Increment Financing) actually work? If so, please do so.

0

Prev