Jump to content
This example highlights the pointlessness of so many zoning regulations. You can live downtown in a condo right on Lincoln, you can stay downtown in a motel right on Lincoln, but you can't live downtown in a motel right on Lincoln. Because zoning...
Why on earth would a resort community which constantly has trouble attracting seasonal workers have regs against dormitory style accommodation which is the perfect solution for most seasonal workers (most of whom are single or here alone, and many of whom are young, barely out college where they are used to living in a dorm).
What the city ought to be doing is help rather than hinder - how about a zoning solution that lets the business community build a great big dorm somewhere convenient and solve this seasonal worker accommodation problem once and for all. It would even help the city attract seasonal bus drivers!
It's a classic example of "be very careful what you ask for." We ditched the previous city manager because he wasn't taking a high enough profile in the community. Now we've got a city manager who seems to be the de facto mayor, setting the political agenda.
I couldn't agree more with George on the SST funding issue. There's a bunch of places where $100K could have been saved with far less visible impact. Messing with the bus service which is a lifeline not only for locals but for the tourism industry just indicates that the Council doesn't have a clear vision of what the city's fundamental responsibilities are. Hint - it's not pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into recreation facilities that are used by a very small section of the community.
We're in desperate need of some real leadership and long-term planning from our ELECTED representatives. Unfortunately it's hard to see it happening given that our system is for term-limited, part-time city councillors.
Does anyone other than me see a problem with what is effectively a half million dollar a year downtown parking tax?
Surely it would be much more cost effective to put some extra resources into enforcing the existing parking regulations downtown.
Are we really to believe that people who live in Steamboat - not the old folks in the home, but people who are healthy enough to work there - can't walk two or three hundred yards from the car park across US 40 because, horror of horrors, snow? Seriously, you can walk that far in the City Market car park!
Un-#$@%-believable. We spent tens of millions of dollars knocking down and replacing an existing school because it wasn't fancy enough only to find what we actually needed was more capacity (assuming these forecasts of enrollment growth are more reliable than the previous forecasts of no enrollment growth that led us to waste money in this way in the first place).
Forgive me if I'm not ready to pay even higher taxes to fund this bottomless financial pit we call the school district. At every turn there are demands for more money which only seem to fund ever more palatial facilities and more administrators, but never seem to improve education outcomes. Enough already!
The purchase price information wasn't provided in the previous article on this issue, but it confirms what I thought. Most people who bought in 2005 are selling for about what they purchased for. If this seller accepted that reality and dropped the price to $155,000 he wouldn't have any trouble selling. This guy is simply trying to use the political process to make an unearned gain. Zero sympathy from me.
A million bucks to add a couple of small parks to Yampa St? If that's the rate we're going to spend at, what's the total budget for the total Yampa St revitalisation? Please, I don't really want to know the answer. I might faint.
Jack, don't go walking up there. The local residents who think the park belongs to them might string you up!
Seriously, it's time the City stopped letting this guy take us for fools. We've cut him heaps of slack, far more than 99.9999999% of people who payed too much at the top of the market have ever received.
Based on the numbers Mark Ruckman presented above, and assuming the asking price is realistic, we simply aren't facing that big a loss if we foreclose. And who is to say we'll do better by waiting even longer? That was the argument the last time this came up for review.
The words "I can't sell my property" should always, always, always be followed by "at the price I'm asking."
There is some price at which this condo will sell with the deed restriction in place. Let us say for the sake of argument that price is $160,000 instead of $180,000. How does that notional $20,000 penalty compare to the difference between the original purchase price and the open market value at the time? We can probably calculate that by looking at the price per square foot the non-restricted units in this development fetched vs the restricted unit. If it was purchased when the market was hot, my bet is the implicit subsidy at the time was greater than the penalty is now, meaning the now seller is still coming out ahead. OK, they aren't going to make the capital gain they might have expected, but nobody who bought in that market will.
For future reference, if we ever try this deed restricted housing nonsense again, the implicit subsidy ought to be calculated at the time of purchase and considered the housing authority's share of the equity. Then on subsequent resale the option of selling without the deed restriction and paying the housing authority its share can be offered to the seller. Right now, this seller is trying to have it both ways.
Last login: yesterday
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2015 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.