Jump to content
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?
The city has now put some of their URA consultant's work on the city website in the planning department webpages:
From the only president to have won a Pulitzer Prize:
“The very word “secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and secret proceedings..."
“…that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment— the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution — not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"
—but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.”
A condition of justice ought to suffice. I agree with the principle. Applying the principle? Justice for 300 million citizens is not simple or static. Applying the principle requires institutions. A court needs laws to define what is just. And of course these disappoint, even in the purest seeking of justice for 300 million. Add corruption and power. But it remains, we have to seek justice and to do that we have to make laws.
Tom, many of your posts focus on bad politicians. "Politicians are mostly the same... parasites. There is ALWAYS a secret agenda. They ONLY want your money." Consider this: What is the only realistic solution or remedy to your post? Vote them all out? That only works when voters are accurately informed about issues and candidates. Democracy is only as good as its press.
Yes, but "doing something" never looked like this.
A newspaper is supposed to play an important role pursuing high ethics in its community. The Pilot covered this story: "Steamboat City Council member pushes for more transparency after city's hiring of his relative stirs controversy"
How much does the Pilot care about City Hall ethics? Does it publish pretense?
I also don't understand why Overstreet got all the Pilot's attention. These breaches of protocol involve other city councilors and a council president. The Pilot doesn't mention those folks?
Wake up Wedel. How many positive performance reviews will it take to convince you?
Last login: Tuesday, May 26, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.