Jump to content
An unnecessarily grand plan which could just as easily be proven foolhardy by changing demographics as the District's last grand plan. I will be voting against it.
Seriously, an entire article about a poster, that doesn't include a pic of the said image?
The owner and dog both got off lightly. The dog should have been euthanased and the owner given a much heftier fine. What's next, this dog attacking a kid?
Scott W politely describes the current options as "very expensive, even more expensive and super duper expensive." I'd call them the "taxpayers are a bottomless pit of money, let's fund every possible thing on our wish list" options. Whatever you call them, they're DOA.
The redevelopment of Soda Creek - not that long ago - was based on demographic projections that turned out to be wrong. Now we're talking a $75M or $100M bond issue based on different demographic projections that could just as easily turn out to be wrong. We need a $20M option to get us through the next 5-10 years.
So they are talking a 25-40% increase in property taxes going to the school district, just to cover the capital costs, and possibly more to cover additional operating costs.
It ought to work roughly like this: ten per cent more kids = ten percent more families = ten percent more houses = ten percent more property tax revenue = funding to educate ten percent more kids without raising the mill levy.
So why this massive increase in taxes? Are we really going to have huge growth in student numbers without a corresponding increase in the tax base? I doubt it.
The real reason is that there is no school facility sufficiently palatial that we can't throw more money at making it even fancier - I mean people are talking about remodeling at Soda Creek where we just spend many millions of dollars replacing the entire school!
Yet all this extra spending gets us nothing in terms of improved education outcomes.
I'm with the judge on this one. Senior government officials should be held to a higher standard than the average citizen. But especially in this case. If a senior official in the Department of Natural Resources for Pete's sake can't be expected to know and follow this particular law, then how could there be any justice in prosecuting the average Joe for this offence?
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!
Last login: Monday, November 23, 2015
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2016 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |