"The irregular boundaries of the district were originally drawn to capture as much of the nightly rental bed base as possible."
Whilst minimising the number of registered voters living inside the district. There's a bunch of nightly rental condos within 100 yards of where I live on the mountain and they're outside the LMD.
A classic case of gerrymandering. Now that the LMD is drawing on a city wide tax base it is time for this democratic deficit to be addressed.
I live in a small community in part because I want to engage with real people who I have the opportunity to know, not with anonymous entities - I could do that via a hundred other websites.
Whilst there are some anonymous posters who contribute to the debate in a rational and civil manner, on balance the anonymous comments are much less civil and much less rational. I generally find them a waste of time.
As I've mentioned to Brent before, I think the best solution is to allow those of us who chose not to engage with the anonymous posters to be able to simply hide their comments. Then they have a choice to make - keep talking to themselves or come out of the shadows and be part of our community.
Scott is right - I guarantee that Denver is blacklisted by the IOC for all time. Hell would freeze over (and be the Winter Olympic venue) before Denver will ever be awarded the games again.
Plus there'd need to be HUGE bucket of money from somewhere (hint: our pockets) to solve the I-70 bottleneck. No thanks.
"...when the money becomes available" When the money becomes available I'm going to be getting me a private jet.
Other than expanding on mountain dining which will generate additional revenue, I would be surprised to see any of this in less than 5 years, maybe 10.
If the District is getting an extra $300,000 from the state for an extra 56 students enrolled, shouldn't that be used to fund an additional 2-3 teachers? The cost of a $90,000 salary once benefits and pension are funded is at least $150,000, so we're wasting half this money on another administrator. Remember this when the teachers union starts bleating about student teacher ratios.
Maybe the perception of value has something to do with the demographic we're targeting? We've been selling ourselves short with an image that appeals to the price sensitive end of the market (who are still going to think it's expensive and therefore not good value).
Or we can just leave it as the best kept secret in skiing only to be shared with the deserving few who appreciate what we've got here!
As a location neutral worker, to me improved air service does not necessarily mean the same thing as it does for Ski Corp. I'm less interested in the daily services to major hubs - they are a nightmare on business trips when you miss your connection and they don't help with the problem in the off season when there are very limited flights out of YVRA.
I understand however that the direct flights are what attracts skiers.
I know the people at Ski Corp who run the air program and they are good people (I was previously a member of the Airport Commission), but I think the bar needs to be set pretty high in terms of accountability if we're going to ask everyone to pay for this every time they spend money in Steamboat.
So I would like to see more data on the following:
1. What is the forecast for total seats and passengers without this additional revenue i.e. with whatever we can afford with just the current revenue sources including the lodging tax?
2. How do we know that we won't just be subsidizing empty seats i.e. what evidence is there that additional seats will mean additional passengers?
3. Which flights provide the best value in terms of additional visitors per $ spent on revenue guarantees - if we have to cut back, it would be nice to know which services to cut first
4. How is the program run to ensure accountability on the part of the airlines? How do we know they are chasing good load factors and yields and not just relying on the revenue guarantee? Do we have any control over how the seats are sold?
5. What is the basis for the claim that each additional passenger will spend $1100 or whatever the figure was? Are we just averaging the spend or do we have some analysis on what the additional passengers who only come because additional seats are available will spend? I'm worried that we're subsidizing the price sensitive customers to come here (those with more money to spend are coming anyway) and that they may spend much less than the average visitor.
I'm with Sandra Sharp on this. Hers is not the popular stance - everyone wants to show they care about children and education - but it is the one supported by the data. We've been steadily increasing real spending per pupil for over 40 years in this country without any measurable improvement in education outcomes. The only rational conclusion is that lack of money is not the source of our education problems.
I'm also not terribly sympathetic to arguments that our kids are really going to suffer without extra-curricular activities like band and music and art. Sure it's nice for kids to have these options, but when everyone is hurting is it really necessary to ask others to pay for your kids to do these things?
Steamboat's Bill Stuart likely to fill Local Marketing District board opening
"The irregular boundaries of the district were originally drawn to capture as much of the nightly rental bed base as possible."
Whilst minimising the number of registered voters living inside the district. There's a bunch of nightly rental condos within 100 yards of where I live on the mountain and they're outside the LMD.
A classic case of gerrymandering. Now that the LMD is drawing on a city wide tax base it is time for this democratic deficit to be addressed.
February 7, 2012 at 9:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Brent Boyer: What's in a name?
I live in a small community in part because I want to engage with real people who I have the opportunity to know, not with anonymous entities - I could do that via a hundred other websites.
Whilst there are some anonymous posters who contribute to the debate in a rational and civil manner, on balance the anonymous comments are much less civil and much less rational. I generally find them a waste of time.
As I've mentioned to Brent before, I think the best solution is to allow those of us who chose not to engage with the anonymous posters to be able to simply hide their comments. Then they have a choice to make - keep talking to themselves or come out of the shadows and be part of our community.
January 31, 2012 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Denver committee to ponder future Olympic bid in Colorado
Scott is right - I guarantee that Denver is blacklisted by the IOC for all time. Hell would freeze over (and be the Winter Olympic venue) before Denver will ever be awarded the games again.
Plus there'd need to be HUGE bucket of money from somewhere (hint: our pockets) to solve the I-70 bottleneck. No thanks.
December 17, 2011 at 8:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Officials have big plans in mind for Steamboat Ski Area
"...when the money becomes available" When the money becomes available I'm going to be getting me a private jet.
Other than expanding on mountain dining which will generate additional revenue, I would be surprised to see any of this in less than 5 years, maybe 10.
November 30, 2011 at 9:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
New position aims to bridge system gap at Steamboat School District
If the District is getting an extra $300,000 from the state for an extra 56 students enrolled, shouldn't that be used to fund an additional 2-3 teachers? The cost of a $90,000 salary once benefits and pension are funded is at least $150,000, so we're wasting half this money on another administrator. Remember this when the teachers union starts bleating about student teacher ratios.
November 6, 2011 at 8:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Jim Gill: Yes on Referendum 2B
The School District is so short of money they just decided to employ another highly paid administrator. This is not getting my vote.
October 21, 2011 at 7:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
SKI Magazine’s annual rankings place Steamboat at 8th
Maybe the perception of value has something to do with the demographic we're targeting? We've been selling ourselves short with an image that appeals to the price sensitive end of the market (who are still going to think it's expensive and therefore not good value).
Or we can just leave it as the best kept secret in skiing only to be shared with the deserving few who appreciate what we've got here!
October 15, 2011 at 11:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Scott Bideau: Changes needed
As a location neutral worker, to me improved air service does not necessarily mean the same thing as it does for Ski Corp. I'm less interested in the daily services to major hubs - they are a nightmare on business trips when you miss your connection and they don't help with the problem in the off season when there are very limited flights out of YVRA.
I understand however that the direct flights are what attracts skiers.
I know the people at Ski Corp who run the air program and they are good people (I was previously a member of the Airport Commission), but I think the bar needs to be set pretty high in terms of accountability if we're going to ask everyone to pay for this every time they spend money in Steamboat.
So I would like to see more data on the following:
1. What is the forecast for total seats and passengers without this additional revenue i.e. with whatever we can afford with just the current revenue sources including the lodging tax?
2. How do we know that we won't just be subsidizing empty seats i.e. what evidence is there that additional seats will mean additional passengers?
3. Which flights provide the best value in terms of additional visitors per $ spent on revenue guarantees - if we have to cut back, it would be nice to know which services to cut first
4. How is the program run to ensure accountability on the part of the airlines? How do we know they are chasing good load factors and yields and not just relying on the revenue guarantee? Do we have any control over how the seats are sold?
5. What is the basis for the claim that each additional passenger will spend $1100 or whatever the figure was? Are we just averaging the spend or do we have some analysis on what the additional passengers who only come because additional seats are available will spend? I'm worried that we're subsidizing the price sensitive customers to come here (those with more money to spend are coming anyway) and that they may spend much less than the average visitor.
October 12, 2011 at 9:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steamboat School Board candidates divided on Prop 103
I'm with Sandra Sharp on this. Hers is not the popular stance - everyone wants to show they care about children and education - but it is the one supported by the data. We've been steadily increasing real spending per pupil for over 40 years in this country without any measurable improvement in education outcomes. The only rational conclusion is that lack of money is not the source of our education problems.
I'm also not terribly sympathetic to arguments that our kids are really going to suffer without extra-curricular activities like band and music and art. Sure it's nice for kids to have these options, but when everyone is hurting is it really necessary to ask others to pay for your kids to do these things?
October 11, 2011 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
About 150 ride with Andy Schleck in Steamboat
Very cool. Especially like the smile on the face of the kid in front!
August 15, 2011 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )