Jump to content
The comment about OTHS is completely off the mark. The proponents of the rec center were not in favor of using any of the OTHS facilities, and discussions with the PO never went very far--the arguments were that the City would have to pay for moving the PO--and now we find that isn't true!
In earlier fora I have suggested that a definition of the 'need' for 'affordable' housing must be made. Who is it that needs the housing and why do they need it? As I then mentioned, I suspect that we are not providing housing for lawyers so that they can live in town, but rather expect that the law firms will pay so that they can hire lawyers. I further suspect that the same applies to doctors, either in private practice or at the hospital, as well as other medical professionals. We expect that their practices and / or the hospital will pay them appropriately. Ditto teachers. The School Board has the means to determine adequate salaries for teachers to insure that sufficient numbers are hired. Until we have a definition of the problem discussion of potential solutions is largely tilting at windmills. Please can we define the problem?
There seems to have been no response to my query earlier on list of those who need affordable housing, numbers, occupations, etc. That causes me to think that we do not have any kind of handle on the 'problem' itself! Suggest we define the 'problem' before we get any distance down the road towards options for solving the 'problem'. Also, to Steve's credit, I think the discussion here veered away from his basic point which I thought was the the annexation discussion is the largest, most important we have had, and we all need to participate in it, or else suffer the consequences of a not well thought out 'solution' which impacts, roads, water, sewers, school, etc etc etc.
A good start might be to establish just what the unmet housing needs are. I haven't lived here all that long-not a decade yet-but I do not recall seeing a simple chart describing the various groups who need housing. For example, in personal conversations I have heard some law firms have trouble attracting lawyers because of the cost of housing, but can't really see the city jumping in to make sure that the lawyer supply here is not impacted adversely. Also, have heard that teachers who move here can't afford houses, but wonder why this is a problem for the city rather than the school district. Does anyone have a simple chart or table which describes how big the 'problem' is and how fast it is changing?
The Pilot needs to be much more sensitive to the people in these communities. While it certainly may print its' viewpoint, it must take care to not be the instrument of divisiveness, which it appeared to have been during the last election. That it supported the rec center and the voters overwhelmingly rejected it should tell the leadership of the newspaper that it is not being prudent in how it stewards its privileged position here.
My guess is that Margaret's book shelves do not contain the 20 or 30 or more cookbooks that many older cooks have accumulated over the years. When we look at the Food Channel, or those books, or any other source of recipes, we treat them as additional information in the context of a large library of information, not as standalones.
I have earlier said, and would like to remind the bloggers here that the City and the County have a major long term project, Vision 2030 underway, which is an excellent medium for better communicating and understanding the housing issues and providing long term solutions for them. If you are truly interested in the community, the county get involved in Vision 2030. See their website:
Thanks for your note, and for helping Books by trying to answer my question. First, I have talked to the architects, way back when they first made their presentations on the various rc options. I asked specifically how they arrived at their cost estimates, and was told by them what I have written above. If you understand differently, I have no problem with you going step by step as I did through the methodology that you understand they used to arrive at their costing for the $34 million rc. I believe I am doing only what any person being asked to make a serious decision would do--try to understand all the relevant factual information to the best of their ability. If you are saying that $24 million is the full estimated cost of building the rc in SS in 2009, then please do be clear about that, and as I requested above, present the method that the architects used to arrive at the $24 mill. Thanks.
You refer to an ad hoc citizens committee. Who were they, what did they do, did they make a recommendation? What was it?
Yes, I read your posting in response to stompk. Did you read mine? I asked if the mehtodology I described was the one used by the architect consultants? If it was, then the 30% isn't a buffer. It is a step in the process to arrive at an estimated cost for construction in SS versus the locations where the other previously constructed facilities were built, or a Steamboat factor as I called it. It is obvious to anyone living / building here that our costs of construction are greater than other parts of CO, and in some other parts of the country. It is misleading to call the 30% addition a buffer. A buffer would be an additional amount one. would add AFTER one arrived at an estimate for SS. If my description of the method used by the architect is not correct, please describe as I did stepwise the method they used, to justify that the 30% is really a 'buffer'
Also, it is highly misleading to argue that we should make a yes decision now on the basis that it would cost more in the future. This assumes that 'yes' decision is a foregone conclusion and it is only a matter of time before a city funded recreation center is built. Those supporting the recreation center at this time still need to successfully argue that a recreation center paid for by the city ought to be built now. It is not obvious that some other entity (private) would not come along and build a facility negating the argument that the public needs to fund one. The supporters of a publicly funded recreation center have not made the case why this facility is required, they have for the most part argued that one is 'wanted' by a segment of the population.
Sorry, should have said five steps, not three
Last login: Saturday, September 20, 2014
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |