Jump to content
Ever since Sandy Hook, I see gun politics differently. At that time 85% of Americans supported laws for registering new gun owners. But the U.S. Senate declined. The NRA has clout, but not that much clout. Not all the lobbies were in plain view.
The surface politics of weapons in the U.S. may be about the 2nd amendment. I think the inner politics touch on the larger arms industry. While we argue laws on semi-automatics, a global industry is selling tanks, warplanes, and bombs. What's the difference? Schoolyard shootings make you unhappy? Mass migrations are occurring around the globe today in the form of refugees running from war.
The NRA is loud, and Boeing doesn't have to say a word.
Most of us don't own guns.
"The Pew Research Center has tracked gun ownership since 1993, and our surveys largely confirm the General Social Survey trend. In our December 1993 survey, 45% reported having a gun in their household; in early 1994, the GSS found 44% saying they had a gun in their home. A January 2013 Pew Research Center survey found 33% saying they had a gun, rifle or pistol in their home, as did 34% in the 2012 wave of the General Social Survey.
The Gallup Organization has been tracking gun ownership in their surveys over this time period as well, but their trend suggests no consistent decline. A Gallup survey in May 1972 found 43% reporting having a gun in their home. The percentage subsequently fluctuated a great deal, reaching a high of 51% in 1993 and a low of 34% in 1999 – but the percentage saying they had a gun in their home last year was the same as it was 40 years earlier (43%)."
In sum, gun ownership in the U.S. is either stable or declining.
Great writing, people, and information. Thanks Eugene!
Feedback from the City AH coordinator in 2009:
Part of the AH program problem in Steamboat related to the choice of AH units offered. Most developers chose to provide for the 80% AMI (annual medium income) level, and found those units priced too close to the free market units to be a real draw. They could have done fewer units at 50% AMI and found more demand. But understandable that condos would opt for the higher incomes as a better mix in their project. Creating the units in another location was a good option for some.
The recession saw bank financing options withdrawn for many products, particularly deed restricted mortgages. Steamboat was the last resort community in Colorado to step into AH programs. The timing right before the recession could not have been worse.
One fundamental change in AH goals makes sense to me. Stop trying to mix AH throughout the community and go ahead and accept pockets of downzoned land in the west area. SB700 was so large, on a scale that probably backfired in how many bases it had to have covered. Small annexations may be the best answer.
The legal blight standard is more about precedent than common sense. A judge would be obligated to read precedent set in other Colorado blight findings. That will allow a very low bar as to what qualifies.
The consultant report concerns me, with grossly understating new development and thus revenues going into this TIF. RiverWalk alone proposed in 2006 what this consultant says we'll see in the whole of downtown in 25 years. Ridiculous.
And this can be expected as well:
"In its original 2007 budget, the URA was expected to garner $7.8 million in revenues."
Today, 10 years in, the base area URA is bonded at 18 million.
I'm surprised the County Commission has had so little to say. Comments in a blog, I appreciate. But where is the County position?
I had asked city staff last week about a typo in the URA/TIF Impact Report on City website: The one I downloaded has pages 6, 7, and 8 that are exactly repeated as pages 10, 11, and 12. It may be there is other information that should have been on pages 10, 11 and 12. They are looking into it.
Personally I'm good with some City $$ in these sidewalks. The 50-50 is a balance that will help non-profits like Horizons and the Tread of Pioneers. Older CIPs did have the city paying for them. Were those councils wrong?
One thing is for sure, waiting for owners to do these on their own will not get the job completed. Some need a push, or help, and I support both. Again, many thanks to my neighbors who have already stepped up.
Hi Scott Ford, thanks for your comments. I'm in agreement and hope your views prevail.
I made the effort to speak about sidewalks with my Oak Street peers in 2013. I managed to have few actual conversations, but certainly encountered views similar to yours - the owners should pay. Most of my peers were absent from the 2013 conversation, I think largely because there were no improvements (carrots) for them at the time. So I tried to bring their views to the table via surveys. Question 5 is "who pays". I think responses correlate with who has yet to build their own. No surprise there. Thought the 2013 survey might interest you.
Scott W, basic sidewalks would be great.
We liked choosing how to light our piece of sidewalk, and it was easy to install. In the early conversation I suggested Oak St owners do their lights themselves. It would be neat character. City staff said uniform circuits and dependable lighting trumped that. Still a choice there?
Priority - who goes first in CIP - trivial in my view.
Another 5 years of people walking in the street, or walking in the dark, ANYWHERE downtown - not trivial in my view. These sidewalks and lights are long overdue.
Last login: yesterday
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.