Jump to content
As long as King Meek is calling the shots and dictating his will to a weak RE2 BOE, the current policy of pilfering the smaller local districts (Both RE1, Hayden and RE3, Soroco) will continue. He sees no problem at all at weakening the viabilty of the smaller, local neighbor school districts. The state gives him $7,000.00+ per out of district student that he siphons from RE1&3 (Soroco lost 40 students this year, 40 x 7000 = $280,000) and he couldn't care less of the dire effects that his policies have on all three school districts in Routt County. Soroco and Hayden may crumble and Steamboat will have to try and figure out how to handle all the extra students they don't have room for. RE 2 BOE needs to come up with a long term vision for its own district that either does not destroy its neighboring students or be prepared to absorb students from the whole county. It's time for the BOE to stand up to King Meek and his policies and attitude that is accelerating the destruction of the smaller local school districts in Routt County.
This was voted down by 4 to 1 based on every one of the items asked in this poll. While there may be some that voted against based on a single item, the cumulative effect of all these reasons made this DOA. The proposal was that bad.
That said, I do believe that Pat is correct however in saying that any future proposal has zero chance of passing if it involves moving the high school. It won't matter how much effort and time the BOE goes into convincing the majority of Steamboat otherwise. The majority of the people don't want it moved. BOE is way out of touch if they think otherwise and it will jeopardize passing any reasonable proposal if they try to push moving the high school again, period.
And the Romans built better roads 2000 years ago than we do today.
I would say that a 2000 year old Roman road is still better than the hack job they did on Yellow Jacket Pass this summer.
Allen, While it may not be nuanced enough for you to understand, Pat West is simply using the same arguments that gun advocates have used when they feel threatened by government infringing on personal liberties (in this case, to travel freely on public roads by means also freely chosen). Using the 2nd amendment himself, he is simply relating how most gun advocates would react if they themselves were under the threat of the government taking something from them. I believe he also is trying to show the irony of those "honest firearms owners" you refer to as having a double standard of holding personal liberty, freewill, and limited government as the highest ideals and values but seem to have no problem advocating that same government infringe on his personal liberty (to ride his bike on public roads)
No they weren't. They were barely "designed" at all and definitely served anything that could handle the terrain. Stop acting like you know everything.
Coal is the only way forward!
Only 19th century technology will save us from these Stalinists!
Hi Ken, I am not trying to be too sarcastic, just trying to show that there are limits and also a bit of hypocrisy. "Reasonable restrictions" does imply some restrictions should be in place. It seems obvious that grenades and missiles would fall into this category but if we are drawing a line, where do modern firearms fit into this? It would seem that it is reasonable that we don't want too many folks firing off grenade launchers then shouldn't we also consider limiting weapons that can kill 20 or more in a matter of seconds? Really, what's the difference between a grenade that can kill or maim say 12 people in one explosion and a Colt AR rigged auto with 20+rounds firing off all in a matter of seconds? I mean, couldn't owning either be considered "bearing arms"? Yet, we do limit one, but not the other. It seems that the Supreme Court has just chosen one form over the other based on a certain matrix but really, they are both the same as far as effect goes. Either way, reasonable restrictions to the 2nd are acknowledged and perhaps some modern firearms also qualify.
I'm curious why the Constitution limits me from having, say a grenade launcher or a maybe a SAM missile. Where does the Constitution limit me from these items in regards to "bearing arms shall not be abridged"?
"Perhaps you should watch the video I linked above to hear the comments like how the school district doesn't have to get city approval but reached out as a good neighbor..."
Scott B, do you realize how arrogant this sounds? To not have thorough interaction with the City and Feds on traffic concerns shows a total lack of due diligence by the BOE. This tact does not serve the district well.
You continue to spend a lot of political capital on a weak plan. This also shows lack of tact.
Jeff, I don't like favoritism, but that's an absolute drop in the bucket compared to tax break given to Major Oil for the past 4 decades.
-----Mark, resist if you choose, but someday soon even your snow machine will be powered by an electric motor capable of unleashing wwwaayyyy more power than even a dragster two stroker! Quiet, clean(er), and better performing, I would guess that when the product actually gets produced someday, you will find many new converts to snow machining!
Last login: Thursday, November 19, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.