Jump to content
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.
It was Pine St which had the "controversial" sidewalk. As I recall it was originally proposed because it could also serve the high school. 1st draft which was cutting trees was dropped, 2nd draft went around most of the trees, and finally the sidewalk was largely eliminated from North side of street, but it was too late. The complaint was noisy enough that city decided to spend the $$ elsewhere. We live on Pine St. The extra yard is nice, but we prefered having the sidewalks and a safer, more pedestrian friendly street.
Built our sidewalk in 2000. A useless investment until others are built to continue it.
"specifically on Yampa Street"
Hi Scott Ford, I support your views on delivering infrastructure via the CIP, but I do cringe every time you post this idea: Yampa St only. Do you say this simply as an attempt to spend less, or you think Oak Street is fine as is? I can agree with you that the cost for infrastructure proposed is oversized, but the 50-50 suggestion of sharing of sidewalk costs (which I support) means sidewalks for ALL of downtown are now $800,000 dollars out of a total URA bill of $8 million. Cut the spending somewhere else! Oak Street and the side streets need sidewalks every bit as much as Yampa Street .
There are 3 streets that make downtown vital and attractive to new businesses of all sizes and flavors. You cannot ignore any of these streets. The Urban Land Institute agrees all streets should see investment in a comprehensive manner.
Why would all investment go to the most expensive section of downtown, an area where parking is always going to be a challenge because one side of it can never provide parking relief. The rest of downtown offers lower rents and better access. The economics of the free market should have the broadest possible market with which to grow.
decided to post below
Stating the obvious, public trust requires transparency. I'll agree with comments above, the editorial leaves too much room for half measures. But this is a step in the right direction, and acknowledges flaws elsewhere in city process. Thank you editor, for paying this attention to our community's standards.
My hope is this investigator publicly confirms that every part of our city government handled this matter with excellent ethic and expediency.
In the same year a formal development application came for Phase I of the above. The approval expired 3 years later.
What did not expire was City vacating 3rd Street and Yampa Street R.O.W.s on the RiverWalk parcel and selling that acreage to RiverWalk. This should be reflected on the consultant's report but it is not. Their URA district map still shows those city streets within RiverWalk.
The 2006 document I refer to was a "pre-application", common for large projects seeking early city feedback. There was no formal approval.
Perhaps someone can explain why the URA impact report expects the downtown district's new and re-development additions to bring 40,000 sq ft commercial and 50 residential units. But RiverWalk alone submitted documents in 2006 planning to build 35,000 sq ft. commercial and 75 residential units.
Isn't this consultant significantly underestimating the TIF revenue?
Last login: Monday, June 22, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.