Jump to content
In order to stabilize an organization changes in policy or culture are needed. If there is more transparency then that has changed. Though, there is reason to believe that in seven months many areas where issues problems were need to change. One would hope that a plan for improvement could have been laid out.
Setting up feedback loops in all areas so that problems and inefficiencies could be rooted out should occur. Though, generally you don't see that in government as some believe it is hovers responsibility to employ
You have more commercial space going in on Yampa, a large building going in on 12th and then the possibility of an additional stoplight at 10th street.
Maybe a little thought towards the traffic impacts and what the future will look like, prior to traffic being backed up all the time and there are little options to address the problem left. The parking lot at 10th street would allow one to one way traffic from 3rd to 10th street on Oak street allowing traffic to have synchronized lights both directions allowing traffic to flow through downtown without stopping. The same could be done on Yampa from 12th to 3rd with some thoughtful planning.
Doing something in the near future might just alleviate either dealing with traffic congestion that may make Steamboat Springs a less desirable destination. At what time does the city model what the future is going to look like in a proactive manner as opposed to dealing with things in a reactionary fashion. Banking some of the funds for construction until there is again less construction going on and helping even out the economy as opposed to seeing that ones wallet is full and spending it was the thought process behind keneysian economics, however that seems to never happen as agencies seem to spend all cash available to justify a need for more revenue.
my "crystal ball" would suggest that after this wave of construction, prices will again fall. but who knows what will happen in the future.
Not pro or anti pot, but the smell the grow facilities give off ought to be addressed more so than the fear that it will be any worse influence on kids than the liquor store.
I think that those in charge ought to consider that all children are different and learn differently, have differences in age, many times are a full year older than other students - leading to them appearing to be more gifted than other students.
If you want to have a NHL hockey player in Canada, then generally they need to be born in the first three months of the year.
If you have not read the outliers, do so it explains a lot. "In this stunning new book, Malcolm Gladwell takes us on an intellectual journey through the world of "outliers"--the best and the brightest, the most famous and the most successful. He asks the question: what makes high-achievers different?
His answer is that we pay too much attention to what successful people are like, and too little attention to where they are from: that is, their culture, their family, their generation, and the idiosyncratic experiences of their upbringing. Along the way he explains the secrets of software billionaires, what it takes to be a great soccer player, why Asians are good at math, and what made the Beatles the greatest rock band. (less)"
Maybe, the district ought to thoughtfully consider what the Montessori Charter School brings to the table and the benefits of a true montessori style education. The students become teachers to younger children, "clicks" generally do not form because the division by age is torn down, and a myriad of other factors that make it the best approach to education, IN MY OPINION.
I guess that we should then start with the foundation of ones health and not allow cigarettes, alcohol, etc be sold or consumed as that increases the cost of health care. Should we also say that people need to exercise for an hour a day and it is require that you attend the local gym at set times to workout with fellow comrades? How about I can't believe its butter, we should all be required to switch from butter to some "approved" substitute. Oops, that research is being found out to be wrong.
Who gets to decide what is right or wrong for the individual... That is where the real battle in the country resides that of the individual versus the collective. There are so many studies which show this or that works and yet many published studies can not be replicated. Where does it end, that all should eat oatmeal for breakfast every day and bean and rice for dinner every night so that we maintain our health?
Where do you draw the line? Universal healthcare for all needs will ultimately not work, unless you incorporate some individual responsibility within the system and reward those who eat well and live a healthy lifestyle. What works for one individual generally will not work for another because our ancestors needed to eat the food that grew in that region. In cattle it takes generations for a breed to acclimate to a new climate, because of the diet it allows.
Single payer, without individual responsibility will never work unless we move to a more dictatorial system which controls all of our lives... which it seems we are moving towards as many in government fail to listen all voices and actually hear what they have to say, standing steadfastly by their mandates coming from the enlightened ones.
By the way scroll up to read my reply on being able to use ones own medication in the hospital... though my mother was recently in the hospital and was allowed to use her own medicine... however, the nurse couldn't administer the medication some other "qualified" individual had to come in to give her, her medications. The system is broken and that was a good example, as is the cost disparity for an MRI locally versus getting it in Denver. The local hospital ought to allow one to schedule it in off times at a reduced rate to help control rising health care costs.
The hospital not allowing one to bring in the own medication is in violation of section seven of the Clayton act (I believe), which came about because Xerox required its customers to purchase its paper to be used in its copiers. Same just and essentially should be covered under the same rules.
The real problem with health care is that the consumer is not the one footing the bill. If allowed to participate in the process and help to mitigate costs both associated through better health through diet and exercise and being able to find a lower cost alternative then the costs of the system would decline. That was the beauty of an HSA, if you kept the costs associated with your health down, then you did get to keep part of what would have gone to the insurer.
Gee Scott, have you done any research on how Florida contracted for power generated in Colorado to be shipped there. That is a pretty long haul also, and yes China does have excess capacity available and if their goal is full employment of their population then putting in distribution to Europe might just make sense. It might not when looking at it from a financial situation, but from the situation of making another nation more dependent upon their country (geopolitics) then it makes a whole lot of sense.
Do you bother to read arguments that run counter to your beliefs? If China is planning on exporting its excess energy to Europe and say that it is created from its renewable investments while at the same time increasing coal plants as they are, then the whole climate agreement is such BS.
Can't believe that they can get away with that. Lets brings down western economies to the lowest common denominator.
That is f'd up, can't generate it locally but can burn the coal in China to export to Europe.
Last login: today
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |