Jump to content
Good comment Cresean. A minimum standard in mobile home HOA's would benefit everyone in them.
One local excavator wrote this comment to the Williams item:
"The fact of the matter is that we desperately need low cost housing in Steamboat irregardless of its location. In the past 3 years I have lost 3 employees because they moved to Hayden or Craig. The housing there was cheaper and the prices of gas prohibitive."
I support the mobile home park in this location, assuming wetlands mitigation is possible, and feel they should have sent this back for Planning Commission to try to shape a workable project. Low income housing should be a strong priority, particularly when delivered by the free market.
Scott, part of the discussion that night was our lack of other parcels zoned for mobile homes. They are reviewing the affordable housing goals and codes of the City, and added this topic to that agenda. There is a decent chance the AH codes will be repealed altogether, with 2 on Council already in support of repeal.
I tried to find a copy of the Sheriff's Oath a few weeks ago. It is referenced frequently by Sheriff Wiggins, and indirectly referenced in this lawsuit:
III. P ARTIES
1. The Sheriffs of 54 Colorado Counties
I could not find in the lawsuit where they base, "has the primary obligation to obey the Constitution of the United States of America...over any other purported enactment."
Can any one provide the Oath Wiggins is talking about?
This lawsuit is the crux of months of debate - the gun laws' constitutionality question.
Scott has actually read the lawsuit. And posted its link for you. So fellas, which is the more likely direction of Oz?
1) a continued interest in laughing at the guy smart enough to read the lawsuit.
2) reading the lawsuit and having your own opinion on of it.
Libertarian. That explains your ongoing statist complaint. Statism is the polar opposite of libertarianism. You should spend less time labeling people. Presumption is no argument.
I think early on most Americans, and the founders, were statists. It certainly was more called for then - they were building a nation. Important examples of our early politics have already been brought up in this thread: Shays rebellion of 1786 and it's quashing. Also the creation of the Military Acts of 1792, one passed May 2 and one passed May 8. These seem to be examples of statism.
We have different needs today.
I meant to write: Obviously, government does NOT have the luxury of planning only for the next quarter.
Mark, your last post says you will not respect THIS government. Your post just before that says you will not respect government period. I'll take that as progress. The Declaration of Independence does respect both people and government.
I above posted that Routt County and Colorado platforms of Democrats have called for repeal of the Patriot Act. Their platforms have done this for many years. I cannot find any Republican platform that even mentions it.
Senator Udall, a Democrat, voted against it. 17 other Dem Senators voted against it. 4 Republicans voted against it.
Maybe someday you'll stop lumping people into the bad box and the good box. In some cases liberals are the ones fighting to maintain your liberties.
I'm not trying to defend our elected officials. But as I posted above, our Declaration of Independence clearly points to government as a foundation for liberties and freedoms.
Be in control of your sporting reward.
Paddle the Yampa!
You cannot lose. :)
Mark, respect for government allows room to respect the individual.
You omit some words that make a difference.
"That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Can you agree that government is necessary to deliver safety and happiness?
I do not read the Declaration as support for 100 men to rebel. "it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another". Again, through the Federalist Papers the founders consistently queue a state, at a minimum, as the proper resistor to tyranny. The treatment of the Shays Rebellion in 1786, seems emblematic of that position.
Last login: Tuesday, May 21, 2013
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2013 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.