Jump to content
"Parking meter revenue" is a tax, under a different name, on residents and tourists alike. Not one more dollar of taxpayers' money should be spent on this matter until the public is fully informed about its origins. It came out of nowhere and blindsided this Council. It is being pushed by staff, not the public or the Council. We need accountability. If some Council members are afraid that there won't be sufficient parking for future development, then perhaps they should be looking at ways to change the Development Code rather than reaching into people's pockets.
Please read the consultant's report and come down to the City Council meeting at 5:00 Tuesday and express your views directly to the decision makers. Too often, Citizens' Hall is devoid of ordinary citizens. Council faces a mostly empty room containing staff, consultants and maybe a few citizens with a narrow vested interest in a particular project. It's discouraging. A democracy that is not watched is quickly waylaid to serve other interests. The consultant's report can be found at the City's website. Go to the agenda for Tuesday and click on the supporting material for the first agenda item. It's about a lot more than just meters. There's too much to summarize here. I am disappointed at its contents and the fact that taxpayer money was wasted on it.
I'm surprised that the newspaper published a letter without the name(s) of the author(s) included. The names of members of the BID board are not common knowledge.
I'm looking at the names of the people on the editorial committee and wondering how many times, during the past 15 years, they have had the experience of actually getting up and making public comment in front of Council. Do they realize how many hours may have gone into preparing those comments, and how many hours Citizens sit there waiting for their agenda item to come up?.In my opinion, public process in this City leaves much to be desired. The subject of this editorial is just the tip of the iceberg. If Council has to be reminded to pay attention during public comment, then there is a problem. A little interaction with the public would hardly threaten to turn a 2 hour meeting into 4. Besides, efficiency is not the hallmark of democracy. I must also point out that Citizens' Hall is virtually devoid of Citizens. A Representative Democracy that is not watched closely, in person, not on TV, quickly ceases to be democratic.
Sure, Tom. When a line of cars that is stopped behind a choke point starts to move, the distance between the cars increases for a number of reasons. It can be anything from the fact that it's stressful, and perhaps risky, to ride someone's bumper continuously (think of bikes in a peloton), to people simply not paying attention and allowing space to build between them and the car in front of them as the line accelerates. Besides, we are taught to leave a safe distance between us and the car in front. Who can blame people for doing this? The line behaves like an accordion, or an inchworm, as it stops and goes. As a result, there is quite a bit of empty space between cars as they pass through the choke point, so fewer cars can pass in a given period of time. When cars proceed all the way to the choke point before merging, they come together like the teeth of a zipper. In fact, it is called the "zipper merge". They pass through the choke point very close together, and then spread apart after they have gone through it. All of this occurs with minimal stress or opportunity for distraction. If you want to delve into it more deeply, you can google "zipper merge" and read all about it. Additionally, the longer, single line behind the choke point, in the first scenario, can extend back and block intersections and driveways causing secondary problems.
It is absolutely true that traffic moves more quickly through a low speed choke point when people merge at the point of constriction. It may appear counter-intuitive. Let me know if I need to explain why. Take it from a New Yorker. We're very experienced at both travelling efficiently in heavy traffic, and rudeness, and we know the difference between the two. Thanks for this letter.
$146,000 is a lot of dog food. Aren't these Steamboat dogs? You know, the kind that learn to ski before they learn to walk? We should take Dogtown, USA to a whole new level. Construct a terrain park with all the snow, strap them onto snowboards and get their doggie dopamine levels elevated. I'm guessing its easier to scoop the poop when its frozen, too.
You know, $100,000 here and.$100,000 there, and pretty soon you're talking real money. Tax increase, anyone?
The bar is set so low that it is hard to imagine any area not meeting 4 of the 11 criteria. The law doesn't specify what is required to meet each criterion. It's wide open to interpretation.The supposedly adverse conditions do not have to be predominant. They only have to exist somewhere in the area. If no property owners in the area object, then only one condition has to be met. Meeting 5 conditions allows the City to exercise eminent domain.
However, meeting the requisite number of criteria is necessary but not sufficient to earn a blight designation.
According to the Colorado Urban Renewal Law, the blighted area must substantially impair or arrest the sound growth of the municipality, retard the provision of housing accommodations or constitute an economic or social liability, and be a liability to public safety, health, morals or welfare.
I strongly recommend that people read the actual study. There are too many important details to do it justice in a newspaper article. There is a link to the study above.
This will have an impact on the County and the School District. Also, the City Council, will be able to indebt the taxpayers. in order to pay for projects, in advance of actually garnering the anticipated incremental tax revenue. And whether we eventually garner the revenue or not, taxpayers will pay, and the anticipated projects will have priority over other uses for our money. Future Councils will find their hands tied.
Thank you, Scott Ford, for educating the public about how the City Council, acting as the Liquor Licensing Authority, performs its legal function within the constraints of State law. I hope and trust that you will continue to bring greater transparency to the operations of this City.
I am curious, though, how the State defines "need" and why there is a need for even one liquor store. Could you elaborate on the State's criteria for determining "need"?
Also, Scott, could you explain the basis for Mr. Sypert's claims concerning adding new jobs and additional tax revenue. Did he present evidence to demonstrate that the new store will increase demand for liquor, not just siphon that demand from existing liquor stores, or for that matter, from any other business where people might spend those dollars?
I urge the Chamber-Resort-Media Complex to work as hard on promoting local hiring as they do to promote local shopping. What I see, instead, is employers going to the ends of the Earth, and employing all means possible to suppress local wages.
Last login: Wednesday, October 29, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.