Jump to content
From the first article on this council decision, this storyline troubles me. The council choice was wrong, and ripe fruit for the ensuing criticism. But I cannot recall Pilot journalism like this. Two council members getting a series of critical articles is new. The first article was more critical than most. Now with public sentiment heavily against the privileges taken, the Pilot is continues to single out two on council for particular blame?
Yes the police department had problems. But the troubling and downward trend of "public trust" over the past few years was in no way limited to police department ethics. Not even close. This was merely the last straw. City administration made a sequence of decisions over the preceding years that called into question the desire of our city to provide open and requisite process for its decisions.
The police department was in the mix, and early. The 2012-13 proposed sale of the police station without engaging a realty listing before the full market was my first concern with city process. Also disturbing, the sale had paperwork ready to sign yet no one had a clue where the next police facility would be? After that sale fell through via public pressure, the city remained almost entirely focused on moving the police facility. To the Iron Horse, to the Stockbridge, to Pine Grove Road, to here, to there... In hindsight I have to wonder how the city handling of the police department's ethical issues might have been affected by this push for a new police facility.
For what its worth, the early CC packet argument to move the police station was not even about facility inadequacies. The first reason given for moving the police department was to remove a commercial dead zone from Yampa Street. This move was to be about revitalizing Yampa Street.
Its great to see new leadership and the potential that brings. Just remember, our "public trust" problems have been top to bottom in city government, and not limited to one city department.
Gotta love the extra fat 63 Ford pickup floating thru the rendering on its own axis. The 3 people beyond it are walking on a sidewalk that is somehow 15 feet wide. A very artistic rendering, that one.
Dude! You're in! True locals are the ones with smiles. Your grin says it all. :)
Enjoyed the read. I still have my notebook from early years here - a seasonal planner for the sports I loved and hoped to love, with a column to rate how well I invested my time over that season. Some seasons I absolutely nailed it. Sounds like your bucket list. So many ways to play, so little time.
I suggest one path to never feeling like a tourist: Adjust your goal from crossing things off the bucket list, to becoming damn good at 2 or 3 or them. Skill will take your fun meter way further than money will. Dabbling here and there is for tourists, and passion ain't about money.
Stick with your 2 wheel drive and spend your dough on better toys. Trust me, the guys and gals in the rusty two wheel drives are having way more fun than those in the expensive SUVs.
Have a great day!
Ken, perhaps if a condo hallway matched the attraction of Maribou's commons your analogy would make sense. The commons of Maribou is not the same as one's home.
Maribou, Storm Mountain Ranch, etc, certainly have the right to lock their gates. That is their privilege, if they so choose. A disappointing choice, but so be it. What brings me to post is this newspaper endorsing that choice. If Maribou and Strom Mountain Ranch needn't share their commons, why should anyone else?
There is a metaphorical gate on Rabbit Ears Pass, and the same ethic applies. We may not own the valley but we are, or were, those "friendly locals." Our warm welcome to guests is part of the brochure.
Of course a ranch can lock its gate. The right to control access to one's property is a fundamental meaning of ownership.
But who does the Pilot think its kidding? Gated communities separate people by class. Its a net loss to the social fabric of the valley and everyone knows it.
Speaking of housing units, SB700 is on council agenda tonight. A Colorado developer is interested in working with the 700 property. They will be making a presentation to City Council. This is only a presentation, no development plan yet.
For some reason City doc links seem to change, so you may need this link if those don't work :
In regard to the merits of the question, I am troubled to read the Pilot's willingness to wholly ignore sensible counter arguments. Doug's link offers several to choose from.
With Hayden having placed infrastructure for many available lots, does the Pilot not grasp that Hayden needs growth to occur within their tax district?
I respect that our County government has been well run. But Steamboat Springs is trying to recover from very poor city government in recent years. Our recent council election was all about RESTORING TRUST in government. The Pilot is not helping with its willingness to bypass correct process. A recent editorial supported, in one project alone, 8 variances to local city codes. Seeing the subsequent vote - Kathi Meyer stood alone in recognizing this was going too far, it remains obvious that Steamboat City government is unwilling to follow rules.
There is no substitute for good process. Expediency can be "uncomplicated", but that choice to bypass correct process has burned the city time after time. Truly disappointed that the Pilot suggests a housing committee offers an uncomplicated route to bypass Routt Planning Commission. A far better editorial would say the Pilot is ready to support and facilitate a county master plan update.
The Pilot's practice of increasingly one-sided editorials is concerning. One-sided editorials issued in tandem with Pilot polls will achieve a self-serving result that poorly serves public interest.
The Pilot editorial could easily homor the opposing arguments but does not. In the hearing, Commissioner Brookshire has a lot of support for these sentiments:
"Commissioner Brookshire stated that it is totally obvious that the regulations could not be relaxed without significant changes to the Master Plan. He said that he does not want rural Routt County to compete for growth with the municipalities that want it. He stated that growth should be directed to the municipalities and designated growth centers. Commissioner Brookshire also cited concerns with increased traffic on County Roads, as well as with increased demand for infrastructure, fire and emergency services and maintenance costs to the County. He said that he is not opposed to SDUs on properties like the Frisell subdivision which is served by a good road and other infrastructure and is adjacent to the City, but suggested that this example is the exception to the rule."
Thanks Doug, is there also text or a link for the rationale given by County Planning Commission?
Last login: Sunday, June 19, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |