Hi YVB - I do not have a Facebook account either. However, I may get one if for no other reason this seems to be the way my children communicate with each other all the time.
In an effort to be clear about your position, if (and this is a big "IF") the Pilot/Today starts using Facebook to post comments on their articles you are done posting?
Phobe - I think your comment has some merit. The Pilot/Today wins when there are more page views. According to Scott S, they are averaging about 1 million unique page views a month. If the integration with Facebook were to occur and all of its intertwined connections worldwide, would this increase unique page views from "friends" just curious about what we posted? Perhaps.
Scott S, said repeatedly during Wednesday's discussions regarding the comments has nothing to do with money. I am going to take him at his word.
In the end, this will come down to a business decision that the Pilot/Today will make. We cannot forget it is their paper and they need to do what they think is in their best interest. I appreciate balancing act between community service and what supports the long-term interest of the paper. I am not going to second-guess them.
I agree with you that almost any system can be subverted. Sometimes it is just too much work. If one's view of the world is that we are headed to an Orwellian end, you likely could teach a workshop on how to subvert Facebook targeted to those who are fearful and yet want to continuing posting.
I doubt anyone will give you their names when they sign up. Also, need to be sure nobody sneaks a camera or a recording device into the room. All cells phones must be checked at the door and all lights kept off.
I still think subverting the system is too much work just so one can continue posting. I think for the most part what is being said (including me) is usually noise. Most "noise" is not all that important. However, I make an attempt to always keep my "noise" polite, but that is who I am.
Since I am not familiar with Facebook, does it allow one to "hide" comments from others?
An option that other papers across the country have done is to integrate their articles comment section with the poster's Facebook account. Apparently, this is very doable and there is a great deal of technical support that allows papers to do this very easily. What this would mean? - No Facebook account means no posting. It is my understanding that Facebook is against anonymity and therefore makes it almost impossible to do anything anonymously.
I think there is a reasonable likelihood that the drift will be toward integrating the posting section of Pilot/Today with Facebook. There is a lot of momentum with other newspapers (large and small) doing this and many advantages. Many of the advantages have to do with elements of "social media" I do not fully understand. To put it simply, the paper gets more visibility with a larger network of folks exponentially.
This maybe a very attractive option for the Pilot/Today because it is relatively low cost and very low maintenance option to adopt. It also shits the anonymous vs. non-anonymous issue to a Facebook policy and the Pilot/Today's decision to use Facebook as the framework for posting comments as a business decision.
I agree with Brian it was a worthwhile meeting. I gained some insights.
There is no easy answer to this one and it may need to simmer for some time before the Pilot staff makes a decision. Scott Stanford made a compelling case of why being anonymous has its place in the exchange of ideas and perspectives. However, it cannot be a shield to hide behind and spray vitriol.
Cindy - A very good point. Kevin - My office is downtown so you can be sure I am going to drop by. I need my New York folks fix once in awhile.
There are 129 commercial properties in the current BID boundary with a combined market value of $149.2 Million. This results in a taxable assessment value of about $40 million. Current mill levy within the BID is 42.071.
Using averages (which is a very blunt way of looking at this) a "typical" a commercial property owner in the BID boundaries is currently paying about $12,775 annually. The one mill increase means that they will be paying $13,080. Therefore, the one mill is essentially equal to the City's current support of $40,000. ($13,080-$12,775 =$305 x 129 properties=$39,345).
Current commercial property values in the BID range from $5 million to $20K, with the median value being just shy of $900K.
Before we get in the "weeds" discussing this tax, the better question to ask is, "Do we need an organization that essentially does what a traditional chamber of commerce has done?" With new leadership at the Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association - why not ask this question?
I understand that there is likely a host of reasons why they should remain separate. I understand the history. Nevertheless, if ever there was a time - now is the time to give serious thought to folding both the Mountain Village Partnership and Main Street Steamboat under one umbrella organization. There has to be some economies as well as leveraging that could be accomplished that would benefit all involved. Main Street may not need this tax if that happened.
I would be curious to hear of some of the reasons why consolidation into the Chamber would be a silly idea. I know I likely do not understand all the pieces to this puzzel.
We cannot forget that the Steamboat Pilot/Today owes nothing to those of us that participate actively in on-line forums. As a percentage of their daily readership, we as active "posters" represent a very small fraction. Those that often read the posting but do not post represent a wee-bit more.
As a percentage of the Today's readership, I would be surprised if both groups represent more than 2 to 3 percent of total readership. I do not think there is a huge upside for them in attracting additional unique visitor traffic to their site by hosting the online forums. I hope Brent and Scott Stanford discuss this on Wednesday. I am curious.
The Steamboat Pilot/Today I am sure views hosting the forums as a community service. As such, each us that post need to view our ability to post as a courtesy extended by the ownership of the paper to us and not a right.
It is within that context of that framework I have made the personal commitment to be polite (civil) at all times. This is a personal choice. I understand I am a "guest" and not an owner. I struggle when the posting discussions shift from "banter" to angry and caustic. Typically, I choose to leave. The world has enough negativity without having to be willingly showered in it.
I am not opposed to allowing folks to post anonymously, but I think it is appropriate for the Steamboat Pilot/Today to revisit the issue from time to time. After all, we are visiting their house when we make the decision to post.
To Brent, Scott Stanford and Suzanne - Thanks for putting up with us. I hope collectively as posters we do not become more trouble than we are worth.
Hi Brent - I plan on attending. This is a good topic to discuss.
Although I read many of the posting, I typically only post on topics that relate to local economic issues. For me reading the postings are a form of entertainment and sometimes where I gain additional insights and perspective to a topic.
The exchange that takes place in the postings is similar to an electronic version of the exchanges that take place in a coffee shop. There is a lot of banter - sometimes it becomes loud and occasionally pointed but it rarely becomes personal. The key difference is that I know the name of everyone sitting around the table. I often do not know the real name of the folks participating in the postings.
I understand why some folks are reluctant to use their real name and prefer to post using a screen name. I am OK with that, until the discussion becomes personal and or is outspoken against another individual in the community. It is at this point I think the ability to hide behind an anonymous screen name crosses the line.
It is OK for us to have opinions about one another in this community. It is not appropriate to use the Pilot's posting exchange as an open form to express them publicy and not own them. As a recent example, I cite the comments made concerning Bill Moser. I am confident the person posting the comments would not have made the exact same comments if they were sitting around the coffee shop and we knew who they were. (January 25th - Talks about Steamboat business improvement district tax to continue). Bill did not deserve this "rant" in a public fourm from an anonymous source. I think the posting person got carried away. It can happen very easily to any of us when we forget how public these postings are.
Here would be a rather simple policy to put into place -
If a posting comment is directed to someone participating in a line of discussion, as long as the comments do not become harassing or threatening, I think there is a great deal of latitude that should be allowed. If we take offence regarding a posting, we have the option of asking for it to be removed.
If, however, the pointed opinion is inappropriate and directed toward a member of the community not participating in the posting exchange. I do not think the poster should be banned - only warned and told they are at risk of losing the right to post anonymously. Use a version of the three strike rule and than just allow them to continue posting but not anonymously.
At a minimum, I think this approach would improve the civility of the exchanges taking place..
Good Morning Thomas - I am not too sure who Thomas Paine is in the context of Main Street, but I am sure you are civically involved in our community. Good for you! In addition, you write well - therefore share that ability with your online namesake.
I have not been too close to the "Main Street" board for some time. I am sadden to hear that your experience was less than satisfying and that was the reason for your decision to withdraw your involvement and support financially. I understand that it happens on occasion. There are limits to anyone's frustration with an organization.
I can appreciate your frustration that an organization (Main Street) that was formed primarily to support downtown merchants has become in your opinion diluted with a diverse spectrum of businesses with no or weak ties to frontline downtown merchants. However, by your own admission you have essentially taken your "ball and bat" and have gone home. As a result, you have lost "voice" which is more concerning from my perspective. Since I assume you are a merchant downtown, and likely benefit from Main Street's activities, however minimal that maybe, by not belonging, you are a "free-rider" by definition. On closer inspection I think each of us would find areas where we are "free-riders." I am not your judge.
One of the larger issues I think we as a community are working through is the questions of how many organizations do we need that have very similar purposes. We have a Main Street, Mountain Village Partnership, and the Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association. One cannot help but wonder if some consolidation would be in order. I am confident that at some level that Main Street and the MVP formed because there was a feeling amongst the merchants in those geographical locations that they would be better served apart from being perhaps a sub-committee of the Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association. Who knows?
I am not too sure what the motivations were and would appreciate insights from folks that do know. I would not be surprised if both groups felt specific needs were so unique that they could meet those need better themselves.
The question remains. Do we need three organizations that essentially do the same thing and differ primarily because of geographical focus? Maybe. However, I think it is a question worth asking.
Hi Scott W - The word "disaster" is over the top. Thanks for calling me on it.
I recall the golf studies as well -The studies highlighted that Steamboat Springs was losing market share to the Eagle/Vail valley and that the trend was going to continue."Do not build a city owned golf course that motivates visitors to come to Steamboat Springsand be prepared to be left behind." Alternatively, "If we want to diversify the local economy we must have golf and golf soon!" On the other hand, "How can we dare call ourselves a World Class Resort - without a quality golf experience?"
It seems that "Fear" talk trumps "Opportunity" talk more often than not. I guess fear based arguments are stronger or they would not be so prevalent - back then as they are today.
Hi YVB - This goes beyond Tracy lobbying for her job. That is way too shortsighted and is not the driving underlying motivation.. The Business Improvement District (BID) property tax is an attempt to limit the problem of "Free-riding". Simply put there are downtown merchants that benefit greatly from the efforts of Main Street such as the Farmer's Market, the Halloween Stroll, Small Business Saturday, etc.
The downtown businesses that belong to Mainstreet pay dues and contribute time and talent. There are some merchants that for whatever reason have declined to participate. After almost 10 years - I doubt very little can be done to have them join. Why should they? They benefit from Main Street's efforts but do not pay.
The Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association struggled with a similar "free-rider" problem in securing enough funding that a meaningful Summer Marketing campaign could be developed and implemented. Therefore, many businesses stepped forward and contributed to the Summer Marketing efforts above and beyond their SSCRA dues. Others businesses did not, but benefited from the efforts being made. These businesses were "Free-riders". To address this problem was the motivation behind allowing the City of Steamboat Springs to retain the "vendor fee" for summer marketing. The city has seemed to forgotten this - but that is another matter.
From my perspective, I do not think Main Street Board is asking for enough. I would like to see Mainstreet ask for a mil increase sufficient to eliminate the need for funding from the City's community support budget. The ongoing habit of going to the City Year after year is weird and creates a goofy type dependency subjects to the whims and personalities of the City Council at the time.
I do not think there is huge amount of education that needs to take place. This is not a community wide vote - it is special district vote. Even though many of the merchants do not own their space - their landlords likely understand very well the problem of "Free-Riders" and not being dependent on the city for funding year-after-year.
Tracy, without naming names you could quickly count the number of businesses downtown that benefit directly from Main Street's efforts but do not belong. What is that number?
In the way, back time of the mid 1980's the dream/goal of having a city owned golf course was to attract more summer visitors. As silly as this sounds now developing a city owned golf course was seen as the most important economic development activity the community could engage in. The message was pretty simple - without more golf capacity disaster awaited the summer tourism economy.
The hope was it would bring in more summer visitors. It was felt that way too many visitors did not come to Steamboat Springs or the ones that came did not stay as long as they could because of a relative few golf options available to them. There were endless comparisons to the Eagle/Vail Valley and how "we" were losing out.
The thought that Haymaker would be primarily a recreation amenity used by locals never entered into the discussion. It was acknowledged that locals would use it - but the motivation for building it was to attract visitors - in the hope, more and richer ones would come and they would stay longer. Since the Accommodation tax of 1% was used to finance it - it was felt that since "visitor" activity paid for it they would be the primary users. Obviously that has morphed over time.
Following a community vote to allocate the 1% Accommodation Tax to finance the building of a city owned golf course a golf committee was formed. They helped select the golf course designer and had input into what type of course should be built. The Golf Committee was made up of local golf enthusiast.
Guess what? Over time they viewed this as "their" course designed by locals for locals. Visitors were welcome to use it of course but they should pay more.
I know that when it was repeatedly brought to the attention of the Golf Committee that the initial intent of a city owned golf course was to attract visitors - and the price charged to visitors should reflect this intent, this was rebuffed by saying, "locals deserve a break. We have to put up with visitors all winter long. Summer Time is our time."
Oh, well. Like a lot of things in life it is what it is. No need to spend too much time fussing about it.
Brent Boyer: What's in a name?
Hi YVB -
I do not have a Facebook account either. However, I may get one if for no other reason this seems to be the way my children communicate with each other all the time.
In an effort to be clear about your position, if (and this is a big "IF") the Pilot/Today starts using Facebook to post comments on their articles you are done posting?
Phobe -
I think your comment has some merit. The Pilot/Today wins when there are more page views. According to Scott S, they are averaging about 1 million unique page views a month. If the integration with Facebook were to occur and all of its intertwined connections worldwide, would this increase unique page views from "friends" just curious about what we posted? Perhaps.
Scott S, said repeatedly during Wednesday's discussions regarding the comments has nothing to do with money. I am going to take him at his word.
In the end, this will come down to a business decision that the Pilot/Today will make. We cannot forget it is their paper and they need to do what they think is in their best interest. I appreciate balancing act between community service and what supports the long-term interest of the paper. I am not going to second-guess them.
I agree with you that almost any system can be subverted. Sometimes it is just too much work. If one's view of the world is that we are headed to an Orwellian end, you likely could teach a workshop on how to subvert Facebook targeted to those who are fearful and yet want to continuing posting.
I doubt anyone will give you their names when they sign up. Also, need to be sure nobody sneaks a camera or a recording device into the room. All cells phones must be checked at the door and all lights kept off.
I still think subverting the system is too much work just so one can continue posting. I think for the most part what is being said (including me) is usually noise. Most "noise" is not all that important. However, I make an attempt to always keep my "noise" polite, but that is who I am.
Since I am not familiar with Facebook, does it allow one to "hide" comments from others?
February 3, 2012 at 1:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Brent Boyer: What's in a name?
An option that other papers across the country have done is to integrate their articles comment section with the poster's Facebook account. Apparently, this is very doable and there is a great deal of technical support that allows papers to do this very easily. What this would mean? - No Facebook account means no posting. It is my understanding that Facebook is against anonymity and therefore makes it almost impossible to do anything anonymously.
I think there is a reasonable likelihood that the drift will be toward integrating the posting section of Pilot/Today with Facebook. There is a lot of momentum with other newspapers (large and small) doing this and many advantages. Many of the advantages have to do with elements of "social media" I do not fully understand. To put it simply, the paper gets more visibility with a larger network of folks exponentially.
This maybe a very attractive option for the Pilot/Today because it is relatively low cost and very low maintenance option to adopt. It also shits the anonymous vs. non-anonymous issue to a Facebook policy and the Pilot/Today's decision to use Facebook as the framework for posting comments as a business decision.
At a minimum we are not the only community struggling with this.
http://www.mediabistro.com/10000words...
February 3, 2012 at 10:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Brent Boyer: What's in a name?
I agree with Brian it was a worthwhile meeting. I gained some insights.
There is no easy answer to this one and it may need to simmer for some time before the Pilot staff makes a decision. Scott Stanford made a compelling case of why being anonymous has its place in the exchange of ideas and perspectives. However, it cannot be a shield to hide behind and spray vitriol.
Cindy - A very good point.
Kevin - My office is downtown so you can be sure I am going to drop by. I need my New York folks fix once in awhile.
February 1, 2012 at 9:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Our View: BID tax is right move
To put some realities to the BID discussion -
There are 129 commercial properties in the current BID boundary with a combined market value of $149.2 Million. This results in a taxable assessment value of about $40 million. Current mill levy within the BID is 42.071.
Using averages (which is a very blunt way of looking at this) a "typical" a commercial property owner in the BID boundaries is currently paying about $12,775 annually. The one mill increase means that they will be paying $13,080. Therefore, the one mill is essentially equal to the City's current support of $40,000. ($13,080-$12,775 =$305 x 129 properties=$39,345).
Current commercial property values in the BID range from $5 million to $20K, with the median value being just shy of $900K.
Before we get in the "weeds" discussing this tax, the better question to ask is, "Do we need an organization that essentially does what a traditional chamber of commerce has done?" With new leadership at the Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association - why not ask this question?
I understand that there is likely a host of reasons why they should remain separate. I understand the history. Nevertheless, if ever there was a time - now is the time to give serious thought to folding both the Mountain Village Partnership and Main Street Steamboat under one umbrella organization. There has to be some economies as well as leveraging that could be accomplished that would benefit all involved. Main Street may not need this tax if that happened.
I would be curious to hear of some of the reasons why consolidation into the Chamber would be a silly idea. I know I likely do not understand all the pieces to this puzzel.
Great Poem Sledneck!
February 1, 2012 at 8:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Brent Boyer: What's in a name?
We cannot forget that the Steamboat Pilot/Today owes nothing to those of us that participate actively in on-line forums. As a percentage of their daily readership, we as active "posters" represent a very small fraction. Those that often read the posting but do not post represent a wee-bit more.
As a percentage of the Today's readership, I would be surprised if both groups represent more than 2 to 3 percent of total readership. I do not think there is a huge upside for them in attracting additional unique visitor traffic to their site by hosting the online forums. I hope Brent and Scott Stanford discuss this on Wednesday. I am curious.
The Steamboat Pilot/Today I am sure views hosting the forums as a community service. As such, each us that post need to view our ability to post as a courtesy extended by the ownership of the paper to us and not a right.
It is within that context of that framework I have made the personal commitment to be polite (civil) at all times. This is a personal choice. I understand I am a "guest" and not an owner. I struggle when the posting discussions shift from "banter" to angry and caustic. Typically, I choose to leave. The world has enough negativity without having to be willingly showered in it.
I am not opposed to allowing folks to post anonymously, but I think it is appropriate for the Steamboat Pilot/Today to revisit the issue from time to time. After all, we are visiting their house when we make the decision to post.
To Brent, Scott Stanford and Suzanne -
Thanks for putting up with us. I hope collectively as posters we do not become more trouble than we are worth.
January 30, 2012 at 9:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Brent Boyer: What's in a name?
Hi Brent -
I plan on attending. This is a good topic to discuss.
Although I read many of the posting, I typically only post on topics that relate to local economic issues. For me reading the postings are a form of entertainment and sometimes where I gain additional insights and perspective to a topic.
The exchange that takes place in the postings is similar to an electronic version of the exchanges that take place in a coffee shop. There is a lot of banter - sometimes it becomes loud and occasionally pointed but it rarely becomes personal. The key difference is that I know the name of everyone sitting around the table. I often do not know the real name of the folks participating in the postings.
I understand why some folks are reluctant to use their real name and prefer to post using a screen name. I am OK with that, until the discussion becomes personal and or is outspoken against another individual in the community. It is at this point I think the ability to hide behind an anonymous screen name crosses the line.
It is OK for us to have opinions about one another in this community. It is not appropriate to use the Pilot's posting exchange as an open form to express them publicy and not own them. As a recent example, I cite the comments made concerning Bill Moser. I am confident the person posting the comments would not have made the exact same comments if they were sitting around the coffee shop and we knew who they were. (January 25th - Talks about Steamboat business improvement district tax to continue). Bill did not deserve this "rant" in a public fourm from an anonymous source. I think the posting person got carried away. It can happen very easily to any of us when we forget how public these postings are.
Here would be a rather simple policy to put into place -
If a posting comment is directed to someone participating in a line of discussion, as long as the comments do not become harassing or threatening, I think there is a great deal of latitude that should be allowed. If we take offence regarding a posting, we have the option of asking for it to be removed.
If, however, the pointed opinion is inappropriate and directed toward a member of the community not participating in the posting exchange. I do not think the poster should be banned - only warned and told they are at risk of losing the right to post anonymously. Use a version of the three strike rule and than just allow them to continue posting but not anonymously.
At a minimum, I think this approach would improve the civility of the exchanges taking place..
I would enjoy hearing about what others suggest.
January 29, 2012 at 8:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Talks about Steamboat business improvement district tax to continue
Good Morning Thomas -
I am not too sure who Thomas Paine is in the context of Main Street, but I am sure you are civically involved in our community. Good for you! In addition, you write well - therefore share that ability with your online namesake.
I have not been too close to the "Main Street" board for some time. I am sadden to hear that your experience was less than satisfying and that was the reason for your decision to withdraw your involvement and support financially. I understand that it happens on occasion. There are limits to anyone's frustration with an organization.
I can appreciate your frustration that an organization (Main Street) that was formed primarily to support downtown merchants has become in your opinion diluted with a diverse spectrum of businesses with no or weak ties to frontline downtown merchants. However, by your own admission you have essentially taken your "ball and bat" and have gone home. As a result, you have lost "voice" which is more concerning from my perspective. Since I assume you are a merchant downtown, and likely benefit from Main Street's activities, however minimal that maybe, by not belonging, you are a "free-rider" by definition. On closer inspection I think each of us would find areas where we are "free-riders." I am not your judge.
One of the larger issues I think we as a community are working through is the questions of how many organizations do we need that have very similar purposes. We have a Main Street, Mountain Village Partnership, and the Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association. One cannot help but wonder if some consolidation would be in order. I am confident that at some level that Main Street and the MVP formed because there was a feeling amongst the merchants in those geographical locations that they would be better served apart from being perhaps a sub-committee of the Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association. Who knows?
I am not too sure what the motivations were and would appreciate insights from folks that do know. I would not be surprised if both groups felt specific needs were so unique that they could meet those need better themselves.
The question remains. Do we need three organizations that essentially do the same thing and differ primarily because of geographical focus? Maybe. However, I think it is a question worth asking.
January 27, 2012 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Our View: Golf committee hits it straight
Hi Scott W -
The word "disaster" is over the top. Thanks for calling me on it.
I recall the golf studies as well -The studies highlighted that Steamboat Springs was losing market share to the Eagle/Vail valley and that the trend was going to continue."Do not build a city owned golf course that motivates visitors to come to Steamboat Springsand be prepared to be left behind." Alternatively, "If we want to diversify the local economy we must have golf and golf soon!" On the other hand, "How can we dare call ourselves a World Class Resort - without a quality golf experience?"
It seems that "Fear" talk trumps "Opportunity" talk more often than not. I guess fear based arguments are stronger or they would not be so prevalent - back then as they are today.
January 26, 2012 at 11:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Talks about Steamboat business improvement district tax to continue
Hi YVB -
This goes beyond Tracy lobbying for her job. That is way too shortsighted and is not the driving underlying motivation.. The Business Improvement District (BID) property tax is an attempt to limit the problem of "Free-riding". Simply put there are downtown merchants that benefit greatly from the efforts of Main Street such as the Farmer's Market, the Halloween Stroll, Small Business Saturday, etc.
The downtown businesses that belong to Mainstreet pay dues and contribute time and talent. There are some merchants that for whatever reason have declined to participate. After almost 10 years - I doubt very little can be done to have them join. Why should they? They benefit from Main Street's efforts but do not pay.
The Steamboat Springs Chamber Resort Association struggled with a similar "free-rider" problem in securing enough funding that a meaningful Summer Marketing campaign could be developed and implemented. Therefore, many businesses stepped forward and contributed to the Summer Marketing efforts above and beyond their SSCRA dues. Others businesses did not, but benefited from the efforts being made. These businesses were "Free-riders". To address this problem was the motivation behind allowing the City of Steamboat Springs to retain the "vendor fee" for summer marketing. The city has seemed to forgotten this - but that is another matter.
From my perspective, I do not think Main Street Board is asking for enough. I would like to see Mainstreet ask for a mil increase sufficient to eliminate the need for funding from the City's community support budget. The ongoing habit of going to the City Year after year is weird and creates a goofy type dependency subjects to the whims and personalities of the City Council at the time.
I do not think there is huge amount of education that needs to take place. This is not a community wide vote - it is special district vote. Even though many of the merchants do not own their space - their landlords likely understand very well the problem of "Free-Riders" and not being dependent on the city for funding year-after-year.
Tracy, without naming names you could quickly count the number of businesses downtown that benefit directly from Main Street's efforts but do not belong. What is that number?
January 26, 2012 at 9:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Our View: Golf committee hits it straight
As a wee-bit of historical background
In the way, back time of the mid 1980's the dream/goal of having a city owned golf course was to attract more summer visitors. As silly as this sounds now developing a city owned golf course was seen as the most important economic development activity the community could engage in. The message was pretty simple - without more golf capacity disaster awaited the summer tourism economy.
The hope was it would bring in more summer visitors. It was felt that way too many visitors did not come to Steamboat Springs or the ones that came did not stay as long as they could because of a relative few golf options available to them. There were endless comparisons to the Eagle/Vail Valley and how "we" were losing out.
The thought that Haymaker would be primarily a recreation amenity used by locals never entered into the discussion. It was acknowledged that locals would use it - but the motivation for building it was to attract visitors - in the hope, more and richer ones would come and they would stay longer. Since the Accommodation tax of 1% was used to finance it - it was felt that since "visitor" activity paid for it they would be the primary users. Obviously that has morphed over time.
Following a community vote to allocate the 1% Accommodation Tax to finance the building of a city owned golf course a golf committee was formed. They helped select the golf course designer and had input into what type of course should be built. The Golf Committee was made up of local golf enthusiast.
Guess what? Over time they viewed this as "their" course designed by locals for locals. Visitors were welcome to use it of course but they should pay more.
I know that when it was repeatedly brought to the attention of the Golf Committee that the initial intent of a city owned golf course was to attract visitors - and the price charged to visitors should reflect this intent, this was rebuffed by saying, "locals deserve a break. We have to put up with visitors all winter long. Summer Time is our time."
Oh, well. Like a lot of things in life it is what it is. No need to spend too much time fussing about it.
January 25, 2012 at 8:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )