Jump to content
I hope the City scrutinizes the personal financial affairs and habits of future City Manager candidates very closely. If you can't manage your own finances responsibly, how can you be expected to manage a City budget of tens of millions of dollars?
Did these Councillors forget they were elected to implement the will of the people? We voted overwhelmingly to regulate MJ like alcohol. Yet here they are adding another layer of subjective criteria over what a liquor store would face. Listen to the reasoning and they sound like total busy-bodies, people who think they know what's best for everyone else.
Scott Wedel beat me to it, but my first reaction was "where is the option to cut administrative costs?"
If the current small class sizes are so important, as we've been told in the past to justify more spending, why is cutting teacher numbers and having larger classes being put forward now? To scare us. "Oh no, we can't cut teachers, so we must have more money!"
"But as long as the stubborn ice layer that showed up last Scholarship Day doesn't return, skiers will probably not remember there weren't as many acres to ski on."
I skied about five acres last year before calling it quits, so it won't be hard to top!
Given that the School District seems to have a track record of buying land it isn't really sure it needs (Steamboat II, Whistler), rushing to buy another piece would be absolute folly.
I bet you enjoyed writing that report, Julian!
I have to admit, the All Blacks were deserved winners, but the Wallabies didn't disgrace themselves.
If it wasn't already blatantly obvious that the $92M plan was half-baked, and the process unnecessarily rushed, this is compelling proof. How many other glaring holes will we find when we dig a bit deeper? Time to step back, take a deep breath, engage properly with the community through a process that feels more like a shared journey than a forced march, and come back with a more realistic and less grandiose plan that the community can support.
We can't adopt a less ambitious and expensive plan that addresses the immediate capacity needs because, shock, horror, we might have to go back to the voters in five or ten years time? Really? Why would that be a problem, unless the proponents are afraid the projected enrollment growth won't come to pass, and realize we never really needed everything in the $92M plan...
To risk being stuck with having spent tens of millions of extra dollars on school infrastructure we don't need (and be saddled with the ongoing maintenance costs as well) is breathtakingly reckless.
I'm a registered libertarian and generally not a fan of governments getting involved in goods and services that can be provided in a competitive marketplace by the private sector. But in the case of internet services, there's a decided lack of proper competition, especially in the backhaul services. As Jon says, the big telcos have had a decade to get their acts together. I will therefore be voting YES.
Laura, the confidence with which you say "another short-term solution ... will be outgrown before it’s even completed" is breathtaking given how much uncertainty there is around the demographic forecasts. It's equally if not more likely that we'll find ourselves with far more school infrastructure than we actually need.
Those pushing this for this bond issue have become a parody of "something must be done, this is something, therefore it must be done."
It's almost as if the budget doesn't matter when spending other people's money...
Last login: Monday, June 13, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |