Jump to content
"...the crash's financial impact on the city will likely be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars."
I'm trying to figure out how this can be, when the deductible is $50,000. I think it's because the following "the value of the totaled bus is much less than the cost of a replacement" should actually read "the INSURED value of the totaled bus is much less than the cost of a replacement."
Put aside the idiot driving on bald tires with no insurance. If the bus had crashed with no other vehicle involved, the city is fine with insurance that doesn't actually cover the cost of replacing the bus? What exactly is the point of insurance, if not to replace what you lost?
If we accept both of the following propositions as true:
What is stopping the problem from being solved?
I know, people want to live in Steamboat. And I want to drive a Ferrarri. Nobody is entitled to these luxuries (Yes, living here is a luxury. It's a world class resort. If it was easy everyone would be here!)
Surely a home in Hayden you can afford and a 25 mile commute is still a pretty sweet deal compared to a lot of other places people could live and work.
"Kingston also questioned whether the addition of new towers and bridges for the coaster would create more congestion for skiers in the area."
Because, you know. the people who run the ski area for a living wouldn't possibly have thought of that.
Why should I have to spend money on expensive bear proof containers when I'm very careful about my trash so I don't have bear problems.
How about stepping up enforcement and allowing offenders the choice of a citation or buying a bear proof trash can?
"Why being in a more visible location was rejected in preference for the flood plain wasn't explained."
Simple. Other people's money.
First rule of holes: If you find yourself in one, stop digging. If we really have this massive backlog of deferred maintenance then we need to stop building new infrastructure and adding to the problem.
What is the logic by which purchasers of lift tickets (don't kid yourself that Ski Corp is somehow going to pay this tax) should be the only ones to fund transit, or anything else? If there's a case for new government programs, make the case to the voters and then raise the general level of taxes to fund them.
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!
Last login: Friday, October 7, 2016
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |