Jump to content
Steamboat Springs, CO
The original draft of my letter was rejected by the editor of the paper because it had "campaign" language in it. I had to re-write it. Any confusion about the fact that I am a candidate was caused by the paper's editorial policy.
I made a formal announcement about my candidacy some time ago and there should be an article here on the website. I don't expect Diane will be using this blog to debate issues and as such, neither will I. To the extent that the paper will publish my letters to the editor, I will use that format to get my positions out to the public.
Having worked together for many years we both know that you and I don't agree on some partisan issues. For my part I have tried to not let that negatively influence our friendship. I think civil discourse about both sides of an issue is an important step in finding middle ground when possible. With that in mind, I hope to have opportunities to debate Diane in the future. As to your question, I think the fact that 2/3 of the local electorate voted against Amendment 66, Diane's proposed solution to education reform, is a clear indicator that she is out of touch with the majority of her constituents.
I would agree with Mr. Peters first statement that my letter was erroneously titled. The title was not submitted by me, but placed on my letter by the paper.
The point of my letter was not that I am more or less partisan than Diane Mitsch-Busch. The point was that Diane avoids talking about her partisan votes in favor of the nicer sounding "bipartisan" sound bite.
I state "The reality is that there are partisan issues..." I did not state that either of the organizations I referenced are non-partisan. I merely put some information out there that people could check for themselves.
Diane and I have spoken and we have always been cordial and friendly. I think she is a smart, hard working woman, we just disagree on most policy issues. For my part, my comments will be based on the substance of the issues and Diane's voting record and not on personal attacks.
You'll be hearing a lot more from me on the issues in the coming months.
One of the things that I think gets overlooked with 66 is the impact that the 43% constitutional requirement will have on the non-education portion of the State budget. It is hard to predict what events might happen that could create the need to raise additional revenue for other State needs. The recent floods and the damage they caused comes to mind. While reserves may come to the rescue this time, that might not always be the case. If 66 passes, the first 43 cents of every dollar raised will have to go to education, leaving only 57 cents of the dollar remaining. So, if you need to raise a dollar in revenue to repair roads, build a prison, provide critical human services, or give other State workers a raise, you will actually need to raise more like $1.75 to net the $1.00 needed.(57% of $1.75 = $.9975) Fixing a set percentage, in the State Constitution, for any line item, is a seriously flawed approach to budgeting. In the future, this will put a squeeze on every other portion of the State budget and will be difficult to change once it becomes part of the Constitution. Colorado can do better. Vote No on 66!
My quote from above was from early on the Wednesday morning after the election and before I had a chance to look very closely at the details of the election results. The local republican party worked hard this election cycle and I believe did an excellent job of rallying the conservative base and swaying some independent voters. In fact, President Obama received 6.1% less of the Routt County vote in 2012 than he did in 2008. Mitt Romney received 5.4% more of the vote than did John McCain and the even more conservative Gary Johnson received 1.4% of the vote. However, Scott is right that we couldn't have won Routt County with just an improved voter turnout. The unaffiliated voters of Routt County clearly leaned to the left in this election. The local Republican party is open to people of all stripes that believe that the government should work for the people and not the other way around. We will continue to promote our philosophies that to insure freedom and liberty we must take personal responsibility, that government should play a limited role in our lives, that we know better than the government how to spend our money(lower taxes),that free market capitalism and success are to be embraced not demonized and that a military sufficient to deter our enemies is our best path to peace. Harvey rightly points out that the revenue for either Democratic or Republican priorities will soon be in jeopardy. We will soon see higher taxes, that is almost certain. The question is, will we see any serious attempt at cutting spending or will we continue to pretend that America is somehow immune to the effects of trying to live on borrowed money?
Ok. I thought the question was about how do we get the golf course to be self sufficient? I appreciate that there is some history behind the how and why of Haymaker, but the current question is, how do we minimize the negative effect Haymaker and other Enterprise Funds are having on the funds available for critical needs like fire, police, capital projects, etc? I maintain my position that we are throwing away potential revenue everytime that we allow a tee time to expire unused. The solution I offered will work regardless of good times or bad, because the discounts to locals will only be available if the tee times are available. If the economy improves and the course is full of out of town guests paying full price, that's great too. If not, a local can get a disount, enjoy a round of golf, and add revenue to the City coffers.
It seems to me that the vast majority of locals will play less rounds if the price goes up. Assuming tourist rounds remain static, the increases imposed on the locals will only lead to further decreases in revenue and increasing shortfalls for the City to cover. Since tee times are a perishable commodity, they should be sold as such. Just like a market puts the extra pallet of tomatoes on sale before they go bad. The real question is: How many tee times are going to waste and generating zero revenue? What if a local could call the course and buy an unsold tee time on the same afternoon it was about to expire and get a nice discount on it. Maybe 20%. Would the number of tee times sold inrease? Not everybody can plan on playing every week, but most of us might have an occasional afternoon where we could try to sneak in 9 holes. This concept is used in the lodging industry with websites that offer last minute discounts. Those that want to be guarenteed a tee time would still pay full price for the priveledge. Locals, that currently don't play at all, might play a few times a year if the price was right. If the City is going to subsidize this amenity, then as many locals as possible should be given an affordable opportunity to use it.
While I haven't always agreed with your positions over the years, I have appreciated your willingness to serve and bring your point of view to the discussion. Good luck to you and your family with your future ventures.
if you are having trouble viewing the video feed, as I am, you can listen to a live stream at www.kbcr.com
One possible solution to create an alternate route might be to build a bridge across the Yampa from Yampa Street by Double Z (12th St?)over to the Depot. The existing bridge by the library could be removed and that small portion of 13th St in front of the library could be vacated to connect the library and fart park parcels. Additional parking could be installed there and the resulting parcel would be a very nice entry way to the city. This would also allow for someone on the south of town or mountain to come down River Rd to Yampa St cross the river to 13th St and back across the river at James Brown Bridge. Thereby completing avoiding driving on Lincoln avenue at all. This would also provide a secondary route to get past the bottleneck at Lincoln and 13th(currently the only way to get through town). If that intersection was ever closed due to an accident there is no other way around. While this may be expensive, it likely would be less expensive than a tunnel under Howelsen that would net the same general result. I'm glad to see people are thinking about solving this challenge and look forward to seeing how it gets resolved.
Last login: Friday, February 14, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2014 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.