Jump to content
Allowing students in from other districts causes problems here and probably there. Unifying the districts seems the answer, with the utilization of technology so that the lectures can be viewed remotely, class offerings can be broader and more.
It is too bad that with the vast technological changes happening that are changing education the the leaders of the district fail to see how those can/be used to minimize the need for more square footage.
It would seem to me that more classrooms are needed at the elementary levels, which would greatly benefit from multiage classrooms so that the young kids are not at a disadvantage in relation to older ones (read the outliers) and that at the high school level using technology to allow more diversity in course offerings and the local college to provide additional square footage even if only virtual.
Btw multi age classrooms are less sensitive to one time waves of new kids, would allow schools to be smaller and located in neighborhoods requiring less bussing which is probably a significant line item in the budget, that when kids are not segregated by age they tend to segregate less on other issues and that all kids generally get to be leaders of others at some point.
Hmm that is Montessori based and is not there an effort to restart a charter school like that here which might help with crowding?
When measuring movement to the desired outcome, generally only one variable is examined. Take preservation of open space for example. It is admirable to do so, though in taking money from the masses and giving it to the land rich you have concentrated wealth, made housing more expensive by restricting available land to build on and given those receiving that capital a competitive advantage over those not receiving that gift. Excluding the preserved view, which in most recent transaction would have been preserved and in smith ranches deal that still may not occur, because of mineral development.
A better option might be in finding ways of preserving ag while creating jobs, low interest forgivable loans on some property that it is desired to preserve so that not just the land rich benefit from land preservation but a larger slice of life. Investing those tax dollars in ways to make ag profitable without simply making the operations larger. Thus the cooperative distribution system that takes products from here, a rural area, to an urban center, the front range as the coop the local coop was modeled after not what it is.
Heck develop a true coop that markets cull cows as ground beef, base it on grass production models so that the stomach and contents can be locally turned into dog food, creating more jobs for the outlying urban centers of oak creek Hayden etc
A 100% increase from 10-20 100 to 200 probably even 1000-2000 international travelers is not worth $500,000 spent annually plus how much more by the local host communities. People everywhere have short memories and the race probably requires long term spending to keep the awareness in ones mind.
What would the marginal reaction be for the locals of buying a cooperative distribution truck to take beer from butcher knife, bread from the bakery and whatever else from the valley, with advertising on the side of the truck to the front range once, twice a week and possibly pay someones wage to market product into the metro area to create brand awareness for the community on things that other Ski communities really can not offer as they are in box canyons and there is quite the agricultural tradition here?
Generally we drive the opposite direction.
Unfortunately, gauging the results of the race on hopeful international tourism is sketchy at best. In life we tend to manage for an individual variable, in this case being bike town USA and promoting it as that. Sales tax is the driving force of decisions of the city and today, the golden goose is tourism... yet slowly location neutral workers have been helping to replace the loss of industry that makes Steamboat Springs and Routt County unique.
Managing for the whole and monitoring and measuring what has the best marginal reaction for all desired outcomes towards what is vision 2030 seems to make more sense. My simple cheese label will probably have as much of a positive impact on people wanting to come visit Steamboat Springs as does all the TV exposure. That is as long as I get its distribution to the point I want.
Working towards systems that increase employment and wages, keep down the cost of housing (in relation to wages) and all the other variables that make the community what it is seems a better decision than throwing money at something without analyzing all the options out there to move ALL VARIABLES in a direction that the majority of people agree upon (without harming others). Wether it is a bike race, taking money from the masses and giving it to land riches ranchers to keep on keeping on or a myriad of other goals that really focus on one variable as most organizations only focus on pushing there agenda (recreation for handicapped individuals, music, flowers, or what have you) none of which are bad desired outcomes, however, if you are throwing money that is extorted from the tax payers, then it should not be moving one variable backwards while promoting another.
Doesn't seem to matter who serves in an elected position when the bureaucrats have all the power and seemingly golden parachutes and protection from any criticism from their fellow bureacrats.
Who cares any more as even when one steps forward to try and rationalize what they feel is best the government is always right and no one ml knows better than our fearless "indoctrinated" bureacrats.
No less sanitary than the elk, mountain lion, bird and every other crap that naturally is out there.
Though it probably is not going to save $$$, it probably costs more to have a goat herder tending to the herd, protecting them from the predators.
When the building department is funded directly by the expense that people have to spend, then they are not going to try and make things less expensive. Generally the builders do not care either as the more expensive a project is, the more money they will make. So generally, those that deal with the regulators the most care less about the extra expenses added by the building department, where the individual with skin in the game and tries to comprehend why something needs done and shows where that should not be required is simply ignored.
You want sustainability, then the building department needs funded in some other way than permit fees. Likewise the planning department should not be requiring people to obtain a permit for doing something on their property if it has no impacts upon others, excluding visual.
Do you not get that peak usage matches the peak production for solar panels. The utilities are happy with that as it allows them to not need to put in natural gas plants which are designed to cycle up quickly and be able to balance the system. Where as coal plants do not have that ability.
Gee and you agree that Solar is coming down in price and maybe so it is not what is making rates higher. A distributed power generation system is less subject to interruption. Yes the power lines from here to there are a utility cost and the utility should be compensated for anyone connected to the grid.
The grid is very old and needs updated and when that happens net metering should be put in place so that people can determine when to buy and sell power. Electric vehicles tied into the grid when not being used could help to smooth out power demand and supply discrepancies. However, without actually having a real debate and simply stating that renewable energy is the cause of high energy prices is a farce.
If you do not acknowledge the coal byproducts and associate a cost of them, then your true cost of production is born by society at large and in some cases, individuals carry more costs of that fallout from power production than others. Those tracking, waste water disposal sites that spray the waste water into the air, which then is returned to the earth downwind, gives those neighbors the joy of all the tracking chemicals that needed to be disposed of and that cheap energy is VERY EXPENSIVE to those burdened by that waste water disposal technique.
Selective fact checkin at its finest. We live in the age of google, when I can find out information to fit my viewpoints.
Last login: Thursday, August 27, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.