The Steamboat Pilot & Today

Gadfly (anonymous)
September 23, 2007 at 10:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This may be one of the worst business decisions ever! The $5.8 million will require more than a $12 million payback. The monthly debt service per unit (40 units) will be $1,033 alone; add operating costs and the average monthly rent per "affordable unit" will be closer to $2,000. Affordable? I'm told the City will be subsidizing these rents, but that was nowhere in the Council's printed materials. How much? For how long? How will you keep those 40 units filled? Who pays the bills when there are empty units? Another example of how this group doesn't think things through. And why did the housing authority have to find out about this deal by reading it in the paper? Incompetent, incompetent, incompetent.

living42day (anonymous)
September 23, 2007 at 10:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

why is this being done without going to a vote? Is there a thoughtful business plan for how this would work. I doubt it very seriously. I hope the newspaper stays after the city to produce it and I think we will find it thrown together as an afterthought and full of holes. Do we really think the City can efficiently manage a 40 unit rental project.
Calling this incompetent graces the originators with two much forethought.

stormpeakco (anonymous)
September 24, 2007 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's time that the city earnestly tries to place the cash where their mouth is. One may debate that in a resort community the term, affordable housing, contain mutually exclusive words. I'm willing to support the powers that be and designate a portion of my tax dollars toward this relatively modest project. This is far more attractive than the proposed $34M recreation center. Ideally after a couple of years, par value rental fees should balance costs without continuing large subsidies. Perhaps an outside property management firm should manage this and their compensation should be tied to revenue neutral goals.

If this project fails then we may place the affordable housing myth to rest and resell the riverside site which will clearly appreciate. If successful, we'll be the pride of the Rockies and will have improved sprawl and the traffic nightmare with an efficient bus system (all users should be a nominal fee).

signed, a non-businessman citizen

portagetheyampa (anonymous)
September 24, 2007 at 7:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The city should not be in the landlord business to provide affordable housing. This is the responsibility of private business. It sounds like this project ,similar to the proposal to build a rec center (of which we already have one!), is very expensive and will benefit a few.

Why can't our tax dollars be spent on things that benefit our entire community?

seeuski (anonymous)
September 24, 2007 at 8:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

This is a win win situation for the city and future employees. The total future payout is not that bad when you consider that all the interest is calculated into that figure and there will be tax deductions that are not calculated in, that lesson that final number. As to having private enterprises buy and provide low cost housing, keep dreaming. That peice of property on the open market would cost so much you could not afford to rent at reasonable rates and the pressure to develope for big money would end any chance of affordable housing. This has been tried before and never seems to get done.
Good job Steamboat in a good investment for the town and the future.

steamvent (anonymous)
September 25, 2007 at 6:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The city needs some place to house all the employees required to staff Parks & Rec, the new recreation center and all the other social baubles they have created. Gadfly is right ... will somebody please keep track of ALL the costs of this public funded housing? This is going to make one of those new homes at Catamount look like a bargain. If the public won't vote for affordable housing, just do an end around. When you vote in November ... VOTE FOR A NEW COUNCIL!

colobob (anonymous)
September 26, 2007 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It would be cheaper in the long run if city employees were given a raise. City employees should be treated the same as everyone else. If necessary they should commute just as others who who work here but live outside the community have to do. Many people in Steamboat commute on a daily basis and the city isn't subsidizing their rent or paying a portion of their mortgage. Now they are going to ask these people to pay for someone elses housing. What's wrong with that picture? Commuting is a way of life for millions of people around the country why should a SELECT group of people be treated differently? The arguement that city jobs would be left unfulfilled because of nonsubsidized housing is bulloney and nothing more than an argument or scare tactic to push through a bad idea.
With all of the other tax proposals facing the people of this city this one and the rec. ctr. are two of the worst. Why not subsidize EVERYONE'S housing? It would make the same amount of sense. At least it would serve all instead of the few. This is one bad idea that if approved will cost the taxpayers a fortune. The cost for absbestos removal alone could be catastrophic. At least if this were a private venture owners could price rent high enough to recover costs and show a profit. In addition the tax revenue from a private venture would add to the citys coffers instead of draining it. Vote no!

living42day (anonymous)
September 28, 2007 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

You are not going to get a chance to vote on this! the city is employing some creative financing mechanisms that go around the citizens ability to vote on this. this lease/purchase arrangement not only bypasses voters, it is a more expensive way to finance. There is no good reason not to allow citizens to vote on this.

stimpy (anonymous)
September 28, 2007 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What I don't understand is how the city can use the money in the fund for city employee housing? Isn't for affortable housing, not affortable city employee housing? I know the city said it would let other people rent units, but only if there were any left after city employees had first dibs. Doesn't seem right to me.

colobob (anonymous)
September 28, 2007 at 5:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Doesn't seem right to a lot of people stimpy unless you're in city government or a city employee. The real politics will start if and when there are available units left after city employees get their units. I've got a feeling we aint seen nothin yet. Steamvent has the right idea. I think it's time to send the council a clear message by voting them all out. Its time that government in Steamboat was "of the people, for the people, and by the people." It's a shame what a handful of people are doing to this community and it's time for a change.

buck (anonymous)
September 28, 2007 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is socalism, pure and simple. So is this city council more Marxists (example: "Historic Preservation Renovation Mortatorium) or Socialists? Vote them all out. We'd be better off with NO city council.