The City is obligated to supply the water by the terms of the Annexation agreement.
If you read some more, you'll find that almost all additional capacity available to the City would be taken up by SB700 if built out to completion. So, what about any other construction in town? What about other developments seeking annexation in the meantime? Do we really want to give SB700 a monopoly on all future development by promising them all the current and future excess capacity available?
What if the water supply decreases due to a change in climate?
Look, I'm not against SB700 at all. I just think that some critical connection of the dots has been missed in the thought process and anyone taking the time to analyze the whole picture should have some valid questions that need to be answered. SB700's marketing pitch to the Council is contained in the Annexation Agreement, but it's complex and does not address the pitfalls which are obvious to anyone taking the time to understand it.
People really need to understand that there's potential for the City to be forced to supply water to SB700 to a degree that, should the supply change, EVERYBODY could be faced with rationing and shortages down the line. And where will the SB700 developers be at that point? They'll still be counting their money back in Las Vegas and we'll be taking Navy showers (wet down, shut off the water, soap up, rinse off) and watching our grass die.
The SB700 annexation argument has been all "pro," with no real examination of the risks and pitfalls which can occur if things don't go as planned. We've already beaten the "affordable housing" issue to death and found that it's an empty promise which cannot be realized in the real world. You've got to understand that this pitch has been made by people who are used to convincing other people that everything will be great, but there's no guarantee. How many business plans do you think don't work out? According to statistics, about 90% of them fail in the first year.
Personally, whether SB700 is approved or not makes no difference to me. The value of my own property will go up either way. The risk people run in the City is being stuck in a contract that costs them money personally down the line or impacts their lifestyles (traffic, etc) while the developers make their profits. If SB700 only had the best interest of current residents in mind, they would not be asking for anything back from the City. If they cannot proceed without the City agreeing to bear additional expense, that ought to make you question every line of the agreement, and weigh the possible outcomes.
Don't drink the Kool-Aid. Get the facts and vote for what serves YOU best. I guarantee, that's what the SB700 developers are going for -- what's best for THEM. It sounds too good to be true, which means it probably is.
I have worked with several of the inspectors over the years, and younger people do come into the department and learn the ropes. Carl was one of them. He moved up into his current position when the previous building official left the post.
The inspector who approved my last "rough" several years ago is one of those younger people who came in with good qualifications and now has years of experience. He would no doubt be one to mentor a replacement for the next inspector to retire.
Your logic of cutting services by reducing staff would mean -- guess what -- that the person with the most longevity would be retained. So, you lay off the younger ones and keep the geezers who are closest to retirement age (I myself am on the verge of geezing, so it's okay for me to say that).
Average age and experience can be deceptive. One data point in a small population can skew the numbers, so don't assume that everybody has been there for 27 years. For example, 3 times 27 is 81, so the numbers going into that average could be 40, 25 and 16. 2 times 27 is 54, so that could be 35 and 19.
Also, you've got to realize that the inspectors who work on the commercial jobs are the same ones who inspect homes, To think that you can hire someone off the street who has been building houses to come in and inspect a commercial job is wishful thinking. The codes for commercial buildings are much different than for homes (stairs, for example) and it takes a breadth of knowledge and experience to do the job properly. If an inspector is not "sure" about something, they go back to town and research it. Do you want to create a situation where ALL building projects are slowed down because a novice inspector has to go hit the books or confer with the boss due to a lack of experience?
It's also a fact that people already living here for a number of years don't have the challenge of finding affordable housing so they can stay on the job. Should we create a situation where the salaries have to be raised to pay someone enough to live here when it's time to hire replacements?
The real issue here is that the City and County have mismanaged the building department finances. They've already cut the staff from 13 to 9.
It's unfortunate that the 158% number is the only thing that people see. In truth, fees should have been raised in the past, but business was so good that the surplusses would have been confiscated by the County for other purposes (as was done with $1.4 million already).
You can hire a new cop or fire fighter or clerk right off the street. Sorry, but it's true. 90 days of training won't cut it for a building inspector in these parts. If you want to wait until a few roofs collapse in SB700 affordable housing projects to figure it out, good luck with that.
So, it's clear you are speaking from an abstract point of view based on peripheral knowledge of the building business. I am speaking from the standpoint of someone who started with a blank sheet of paper and a bare piece of ground and hands-on built houses while managing the finances, the subs, the permits and all the rest. I was putting my own finances and income at risk (posting collateral to secure the building loans) and taking on the responsibility for everything from plans to the final coat of paint.
Along the way, I saw what kind of work some local subs do, and you'd be surprised how much doing the cheapest job and charging the most money for it governs the local licensed electricians and plumbers. If you haven't been double billed by an excavator, you haven't dealt with one of them very much. (Don't read a blast at Fred Duckels from this. I tried to hire him and he was too busy to work on my project.)
The RCBD staff is the most competent advocate a home buyer can have in this county. They live here, and they understand their responsiblity to protect their neighbors. They're also protecting their own livelihood and reputations.
Back to your original analogy, the RCBD is the final "supervisor" who makes sure the job was done right. They are a partner in the process, not an adversary. The fact that many local folks in the building business consider them to be adversaries is a reflection of who really does the job right, and who tries to get away with doing the minimum job to look complete for the lowest price.
Do they make errors. Sure. They err on the side of safety and quality when it happens. Their experience with problems through the years equips them to prevent future problems.
So, although I will never build another project in this county that requires a building permit, I know that anything I may buy and move into later was done right because the RCBD approved it. The cost of keeping the experienced people around pales in comparison to the cost of a few collapsed roofs or walls would inflict on the City and County.
Your comments show just how ignorant you are about the way things are done around here. I don't mean to be insulting, but "ignorance" is the only term that applies.
How does a person trying to get an "affordable" home constructed go about hiring a "competent general contractor" that has good "trusted subs." The reality is that people in the market for a place to live are going to take the lowest bidder, and the builders who are in high demand are building high-end homes.
In fact, you have nailed my argument exactly. It doesn't matter WHO you hire to build as long as the RCBD is doing the plan review and inspections.
As a matter of fact, I have built homes both for spec and for my own occupancy in Routt County, and have found that a good working relationship with the plans examiners and inspectors is an extremely valuable part of the process. Why? In the first place, you know you've got to build to the code and the local standards (and there are some standards which only apply around here), so following the guidelines and listening to the inspectors makes it all go much easier. You can also go in and speak to the inspectors about specific questions and get an answer so that you do it right the first time.
So, for a person with any kind of carpentry skills and an understanding of the basic codes, you can build it yourself. I've done it. My first spec house was the first house I ever built. It was the first house I ever worked on. I had to hire the electrical, mechanical and plumbing work out because of licensing requirements when building a home for someone else to occupy, but I did a full working-man share of the labor and supervised the subs (including framing carpenters) who worked for me.
When I built my own home, I did at least half of the work myself. I did all of the foundation construction, wiring, plumbing and mechanical installation myself.
When the RCBD inspects your work and approves it, it is safe and well done, or you have to tear out what's wrong and fix it. The hardest part for most people around here seems to be a willingness to listen to the plans examiners and inspectors, and follow their direction. A lot of construction people resent what they see as nit-picking, but the RCBD is protecting the people who will live in the place in the future, and they are also protecting the City and County from legal liability due to sub-standard construction. When the RCBD says it's okay, the City and County are standing behind them and will pay the price if there's legal action later. Hiring a private inspector to approve work done under a Routt County building permit leaves the government holding the bag when Joe Blow leaves town in six months.
Your argument holds exactly the same merit as looking for the doctor who will perform your coronary bypass operation for the lowest price.
For one thing, honesty is in desperately short supply around here. Try buying that "skill" on the street in Steamboat.
You'd be better off firing cops or cutting their pay.
Building inspection and plan review are about PUBLIC SAFETY. Remember the kid who (allegedly) suffocated for lack of a smoke detector. If that apartment had been inspected by RCBD there would have been at least one smoke detector wired in to the home's electrical system.
Why do people shun permits and inspections? To save money. What does that do? It puts lives in danger.
Some of the code requirements are silly, and as a result I have three smoke detectors within 25 feet of each other in a second floor loft, bedroom and stairway area. On the other hand, building materials are inherently more hazardous than in the past (resins in chip board for sheathing and floor underlayment versus plywood or solid tongue and groove sheathing and flooring). A 2x10 rafter is much harder to set on fire than a truss made out of 2x4s. FIre blocking in walls prevents drafts from feeding fires, and drywall and fire resistive doors prevents fires from spreading into the house from the garage.
You may not know anyone whose house burned down, but I do. I also know someone whose house blew up from a natural gas leak.
If you really want to trust someone who doesn't have an in-depth knowledge of local codes and conditions to safeguard you and your family (such as, uh, not putting the propane regulator in a place where ice can fall on it -- didn't this happen in Phippsburg or Oak Creek and cause a death in the last year or so?) then I wish you luck, because you're taking a gamble if you hire someone from out of town, or someone who can be paid off to approve a sub-standard structure or appliance installation.
Like it or not, we have a huge problem around here with drug and alcohol abuse. A guy finishing a job at the end of the day may not be as "sharp" as he should be, and it doesn't take much of an error to result in a serious defect that may not be visible until tragedy occurs. Nick a wire, or disturb a gas fitting, and some day you may have a fire as a result. That's the day when everything else being right makes the difference.
We keep police officers and fire fighters on the job because of what they are able to do when the need arises. It's the same for building inspection. I'd much rather live in a town without a fire department than in a house that was inspected by somebody who was bribed to let it pass.
You are dancing around the issue. The City has to pay for the capacity improvements.
The tap fees are not collected until the building permit is issued. Taps are not authorized until there is capacity to support them. In this case, the egg always comes before the chicken. The water must be supplied FIRST, and then the tap fees are paid.
So what if the water bills don't go up? The money still has to come from the City, so where will the City get it? Out of the general fund.
So, either sales tax revenues go up to cover it, or a city property tax is levied, or some other City service is cut to absorb the cost.
The fact that there is no plan to raise water bills for current residents doesn't mean that there is no increased cost or trade-off to City taxpayers.
So, somebody will argue, "The City doesn't have to build the capacity until there's a need for it."
Wrong.
The Annexation agreement requires the City to provide the potable water requirement specified therein. There's nothing that lets the City off the hook except a decrease in the amount of available water from the sources specified in the agreement.
So, SB700 can sue the City to make them provide the water, and that means somebody will have to pay for it now, and collect the tap fees later.
How do you propose to solve this dilemma? Gonna go out back and shake your money tree and give it to the City?
You either don't understand the situation, or you're blowing smoke. Which is it?
When the Steamboat Lake Water and Sanitation District built a new treatment plant last year, to increase capacity necessary to serve up to 300 homes from the current 150+, user fees doubled from $150 to $300 per quarter.
Current residents of the Steamboat Lakes Subdivision are paying for capacity that future home owners will enjoy. The tap fees to cover the construction of the new facility won't be collected until homes are constructed.
This is a real-world, local example of what can happen -- that's "can" happen -- when people with a vested interest in selling vacant lots get involved with making decisions on increasing water and sewer capacity to serve new homes. The owners of the vacant lots which have not tapped into the system pay nothing in increased fees until the taps go in. The other 150+ homeowners got socked with a $50 per month increase which provides them with absolutely NO benefit except the promise of new neighbors.
Providing water to SB700 is absolutely going to require tax money to fund the infrastructure improvements, because the tap fees won't be paid until homes are constructed. Steamboat customers may not pay any more in water and sewer rates, but if the City has to spend tax money to build the increased capacity, it has to come from somewhere. Unless sales tax revenues increase to cover it, or a city property tax is levied, then some current City expenditures will have to be cut to pay for SB700 water in advance of tap fee collections.
Cracking down on illegal employment of non-resident aliens would send a lot more of them packing.
In order to get marijuana legalized for the general public, it's going to take 50 years for the attitudes to change. If that happened today, the United States would be only one of THREE countries which authorize it for lawful use by adults. Maybe after another 100 countries legalize it, including Canada and Mexico, we'll have no choice.
The fact that resale prices are falling does not mean that building costs will also go down. Nobody will build something new just to sell it for a loss. Nobody will lend money for such a project either.
The only thing that's going to bring prices down is a bunch of foreclosures and the banks eating the losses. If that happens, it will bring the "comparables" down and make it impossible to build a home and sell it for a profit. The result will be no construction until prices go up to where they were in the past.
I lived in a town in California where half the homes were abandoned by the onwers after defense spending cutbacks in the Clinton years. Because of the location (near areas where movies are often made in the Mojave desert) there were some high-end homes built, but as far as market rate housing, nothing was built for 9 or 10 years. The existing vacant homes were bought at bargain prices by retirees and disabled persons who didn't need jobs to live. Eventually, as the inventory was bought up, economic conditions improved (due to the 9/11/2001 attacks and resulting increases in defense spending) and people started building spec homes again.
That model fits Steamboat in a recession where economic factors cut tourist dollars. We've seen some homes resold for lower prices, but nobody is building "new" homes for sale at low prices. Ain't gonna happen as a general rule.
SB700 will sit vacant until the market improves, and little, if any, affordable housing will come from it. In the meantime, the City has agreed to provide potable water to the development (ahead of collection of tap fees) and can be sued by the developers to make the city spend tax money from other sources to provide the water and sewer capacity required by the annexation agreement.
People have got to stop and think 2 or 3 steps ahead to understand what can happen. The only people getting a good deal are the SB700 developers, and anyone who digs into the details can figure it out for themself.
Petition for 700 vote succeeds
C3,
The City is obligated to supply the water by the terms of the Annexation agreement.
If you read some more, you'll find that almost all additional capacity available to the City would be taken up by SB700 if built out to completion. So, what about any other construction in town? What about other developments seeking annexation in the meantime? Do we really want to give SB700 a monopoly on all future development by promising them all the current and future excess capacity available?
What if the water supply decreases due to a change in climate?
Look, I'm not against SB700 at all. I just think that some critical connection of the dots has been missed in the thought process and anyone taking the time to analyze the whole picture should have some valid questions that need to be answered. SB700's marketing pitch to the Council is contained in the Annexation Agreement, but it's complex and does not address the pitfalls which are obvious to anyone taking the time to understand it.
People really need to understand that there's potential for the City to be forced to supply water to SB700 to a degree that, should the supply change, EVERYBODY could be faced with rationing and shortages down the line. And where will the SB700 developers be at that point? They'll still be counting their money back in Las Vegas and we'll be taking Navy showers (wet down, shut off the water, soap up, rinse off) and watching our grass die.
The SB700 annexation argument has been all "pro," with no real examination of the risks and pitfalls which can occur if things don't go as planned. We've already beaten the "affordable housing" issue to death and found that it's an empty promise which cannot be realized in the real world. You've got to understand that this pitch has been made by people who are used to convincing other people that everything will be great, but there's no guarantee. How many business plans do you think don't work out? According to statistics, about 90% of them fail in the first year.
Personally, whether SB700 is approved or not makes no difference to me. The value of my own property will go up either way. The risk people run in the City is being stuck in a contract that costs them money personally down the line or impacts their lifestyles (traffic, etc) while the developers make their profits. If SB700 only had the best interest of current residents in mind, they would not be asking for anything back from the City. If they cannot proceed without the City agreeing to bear additional expense, that ought to make you question every line of the agreement, and weigh the possible outcomes.
Don't drink the Kool-Aid. Get the facts and vote for what serves YOU best. I guarantee, that's what the SB700 developers are going for -- what's best for THEM. It sounds too good to be true, which means it probably is.
November 22, 2009 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Struggling building department seeks 58 percent fee increase
;Scott,
I have worked with several of the inspectors over the years, and younger people do come into the department and learn the ropes. Carl was one of them. He moved up into his current position when the previous building official left the post.
The inspector who approved my last "rough" several years ago is one of those younger people who came in with good qualifications and now has years of experience. He would no doubt be one to mentor a replacement for the next inspector to retire.
Your logic of cutting services by reducing staff would mean -- guess what -- that the person with the most longevity would be retained. So, you lay off the younger ones and keep the geezers who are closest to retirement age (I myself am on the verge of geezing, so it's okay for me to say that).
Average age and experience can be deceptive. One data point in a small population can skew the numbers, so don't assume that everybody has been there for 27 years. For example, 3 times 27 is 81, so the numbers going into that average could be 40, 25 and 16. 2 times 27 is 54, so that could be 35 and 19.
Also, you've got to realize that the inspectors who work on the commercial jobs are the same ones who inspect homes, To think that you can hire someone off the street who has been building houses to come in and inspect a commercial job is wishful thinking. The codes for commercial buildings are much different than for homes (stairs, for example) and it takes a breadth of knowledge and experience to do the job properly. If an inspector is not "sure" about something, they go back to town and research it. Do you want to create a situation where ALL building projects are slowed down because a novice inspector has to go hit the books or confer with the boss due to a lack of experience?
It's also a fact that people already living here for a number of years don't have the challenge of finding affordable housing so they can stay on the job. Should we create a situation where the salaries have to be raised to pay someone enough to live here when it's time to hire replacements?
The real issue here is that the City and County have mismanaged the building department finances. They've already cut the staff from 13 to 9.
It's unfortunate that the 158% number is the only thing that people see. In truth, fees should have been raised in the past, but business was so good that the surplusses would have been confiscated by the County for other purposes (as was done with $1.4 million already).
You can hire a new cop or fire fighter or clerk right off the street. Sorry, but it's true. 90 days of training won't cut it for a building inspector in these parts. If you want to wait until a few roofs collapse in SB700 affordable housing projects to figure it out, good luck with that.
November 22, 2009 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Struggling building department seeks 58 percent fee increase
So, it's clear you are speaking from an abstract point of view based on peripheral knowledge of the building business. I am speaking from the standpoint of someone who started with a blank sheet of paper and a bare piece of ground and hands-on built houses while managing the finances, the subs, the permits and all the rest. I was putting my own finances and income at risk (posting collateral to secure the building loans) and taking on the responsibility for everything from plans to the final coat of paint.
Along the way, I saw what kind of work some local subs do, and you'd be surprised how much doing the cheapest job and charging the most money for it governs the local licensed electricians and plumbers. If you haven't been double billed by an excavator, you haven't dealt with one of them very much. (Don't read a blast at Fred Duckels from this. I tried to hire him and he was too busy to work on my project.)
The RCBD staff is the most competent advocate a home buyer can have in this county. They live here, and they understand their responsiblity to protect their neighbors. They're also protecting their own livelihood and reputations.
Back to your original analogy, the RCBD is the final "supervisor" who makes sure the job was done right. They are a partner in the process, not an adversary. The fact that many local folks in the building business consider them to be adversaries is a reflection of who really does the job right, and who tries to get away with doing the minimum job to look complete for the lowest price.
Do they make errors. Sure. They err on the side of safety and quality when it happens. Their experience with problems through the years equips them to prevent future problems.
So, although I will never build another project in this county that requires a building permit, I know that anything I may buy and move into later was done right because the RCBD approved it. The cost of keeping the experienced people around pales in comparison to the cost of a few collapsed roofs or walls would inflict on the City and County.
November 21, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Struggling building department seeks 58 percent fee increase
Scott,
Your comments show just how ignorant you are about the way things are done around here. I don't mean to be insulting, but "ignorance" is the only term that applies.
How does a person trying to get an "affordable" home constructed go about hiring a "competent general contractor" that has good "trusted subs." The reality is that people in the market for a place to live are going to take the lowest bidder, and the builders who are in high demand are building high-end homes.
In fact, you have nailed my argument exactly. It doesn't matter WHO you hire to build as long as the RCBD is doing the plan review and inspections.
As a matter of fact, I have built homes both for spec and for my own occupancy in Routt County, and have found that a good working relationship with the plans examiners and inspectors is an extremely valuable part of the process. Why? In the first place, you know you've got to build to the code and the local standards (and there are some standards which only apply around here), so following the guidelines and listening to the inspectors makes it all go much easier. You can also go in and speak to the inspectors about specific questions and get an answer so that you do it right the first time.
So, for a person with any kind of carpentry skills and an understanding of the basic codes, you can build it yourself. I've done it. My first spec house was the first house I ever built. It was the first house I ever worked on. I had to hire the electrical, mechanical and plumbing work out because of licensing requirements when building a home for someone else to occupy, but I did a full working-man share of the labor and supervised the subs (including framing carpenters) who worked for me.
When I built my own home, I did at least half of the work myself. I did all of the foundation construction, wiring, plumbing and mechanical installation myself.
When the RCBD inspects your work and approves it, it is safe and well done, or you have to tear out what's wrong and fix it. The hardest part for most people around here seems to be a willingness to listen to the plans examiners and inspectors, and follow their direction. A lot of construction people resent what they see as nit-picking, but the RCBD is protecting the people who will live in the place in the future, and they are also protecting the City and County from legal liability due to sub-standard construction. When the RCBD says it's okay, the City and County are standing behind them and will pay the price if there's legal action later. Hiring a private inspector to approve work done under a Routt County building permit leaves the government holding the bag when Joe Blow leaves town in six months.
(cont)
November 21, 2009 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Struggling building department seeks 58 percent fee increase
Scott,
Your argument holds exactly the same merit as looking for the doctor who will perform your coronary bypass operation for the lowest price.
For one thing, honesty is in desperately short supply around here. Try buying that "skill" on the street in Steamboat.
You'd be better off firing cops or cutting their pay.
Building inspection and plan review are about PUBLIC SAFETY. Remember the kid who (allegedly) suffocated for lack of a smoke detector. If that apartment had been inspected by RCBD there would have been at least one smoke detector wired in to the home's electrical system.
Why do people shun permits and inspections? To save money. What does that do? It puts lives in danger.
Some of the code requirements are silly, and as a result I have three smoke detectors within 25 feet of each other in a second floor loft, bedroom and stairway area. On the other hand, building materials are inherently more hazardous than in the past (resins in chip board for sheathing and floor underlayment versus plywood or solid tongue and groove sheathing and flooring). A 2x10 rafter is much harder to set on fire than a truss made out of 2x4s. FIre blocking in walls prevents drafts from feeding fires, and drywall and fire resistive doors prevents fires from spreading into the house from the garage.
You may not know anyone whose house burned down, but I do. I also know someone whose house blew up from a natural gas leak.
If you really want to trust someone who doesn't have an in-depth knowledge of local codes and conditions to safeguard you and your family (such as, uh, not putting the propane regulator in a place where ice can fall on it -- didn't this happen in Phippsburg or Oak Creek and cause a death in the last year or so?) then I wish you luck, because you're taking a gamble if you hire someone from out of town, or someone who can be paid off to approve a sub-standard structure or appliance installation.
Like it or not, we have a huge problem around here with drug and alcohol abuse. A guy finishing a job at the end of the day may not be as "sharp" as he should be, and it doesn't take much of an error to result in a serious defect that may not be visible until tragedy occurs. Nick a wire, or disturb a gas fitting, and some day you may have a fire as a result. That's the day when everything else being right makes the difference.
We keep police officers and fire fighters on the job because of what they are able to do when the need arises. It's the same for building inspection. I'd much rather live in a town without a fire department than in a house that was inspected by somebody who was bribed to let it pass.
November 20, 2009 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Petition for 700 vote succeeds
Pole,
You are dancing around the issue. The City has to pay for the capacity improvements.
The tap fees are not collected until the building permit is issued. Taps are not authorized until there is capacity to support them. In this case, the egg always comes before the chicken. The water must be supplied FIRST, and then the tap fees are paid.
So what if the water bills don't go up? The money still has to come from the City, so where will the City get it? Out of the general fund.
So, either sales tax revenues go up to cover it, or a city property tax is levied, or some other City service is cut to absorb the cost.
The fact that there is no plan to raise water bills for current residents doesn't mean that there is no increased cost or trade-off to City taxpayers.
So, somebody will argue, "The City doesn't have to build the capacity until there's a need for it."
Wrong.
The Annexation agreement requires the City to provide the potable water requirement specified therein. There's nothing that lets the City off the hook except a decrease in the amount of available water from the sources specified in the agreement.
So, SB700 can sue the City to make them provide the water, and that means somebody will have to pay for it now, and collect the tap fees later.
How do you propose to solve this dilemma? Gonna go out back and shake your money tree and give it to the City?
You either don't understand the situation, or you're blowing smoke. Which is it?
November 20, 2009 at 2:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steamboat 700 vote seems certain
poodle,
When the Steamboat Lake Water and Sanitation District built a new treatment plant last year, to increase capacity necessary to serve up to 300 homes from the current 150+, user fees doubled from $150 to $300 per quarter.
Current residents of the Steamboat Lakes Subdivision are paying for capacity that future home owners will enjoy. The tap fees to cover the construction of the new facility won't be collected until homes are constructed.
This is a real-world, local example of what can happen -- that's "can" happen -- when people with a vested interest in selling vacant lots get involved with making decisions on increasing water and sewer capacity to serve new homes. The owners of the vacant lots which have not tapped into the system pay nothing in increased fees until the taps go in. The other 150+ homeowners got socked with a $50 per month increase which provides them with absolutely NO benefit except the promise of new neighbors.
Providing water to SB700 is absolutely going to require tax money to fund the infrastructure improvements, because the tap fees won't be paid until homes are constructed. Steamboat customers may not pay any more in water and sewer rates, but if the City has to spend tax money to build the increased capacity, it has to come from somewhere. Unless sales tax revenues increase to cover it, or a city property tax is levied, then some current City expenditures will have to be cut to pay for SB700 water in advance of tap fee collections.
November 20, 2009 at 2:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
The Record for Nov. 18
Try "green meteor."
November 20, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
White seeks marijuana change
Cracking down on illegal employment of non-resident aliens would send a lot more of them packing.
In order to get marijuana legalized for the general public, it's going to take 50 years for the attitudes to change. If that happened today, the United States would be only one of THREE countries which authorize it for lawful use by adults. Maybe after another 100 countries legalize it, including Canada and Mexico, we'll have no choice.
So don't hold your breath.
November 19, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Petition for 700 vote succeeds
housepoor,
The fact that resale prices are falling does not mean that building costs will also go down. Nobody will build something new just to sell it for a loss. Nobody will lend money for such a project either.
The only thing that's going to bring prices down is a bunch of foreclosures and the banks eating the losses. If that happens, it will bring the "comparables" down and make it impossible to build a home and sell it for a profit. The result will be no construction until prices go up to where they were in the past.
I lived in a town in California where half the homes were abandoned by the onwers after defense spending cutbacks in the Clinton years. Because of the location (near areas where movies are often made in the Mojave desert) there were some high-end homes built, but as far as market rate housing, nothing was built for 9 or 10 years. The existing vacant homes were bought at bargain prices by retirees and disabled persons who didn't need jobs to live. Eventually, as the inventory was bought up, economic conditions improved (due to the 9/11/2001 attacks and resulting increases in defense spending) and people started building spec homes again.
That model fits Steamboat in a recession where economic factors cut tourist dollars. We've seen some homes resold for lower prices, but nobody is building "new" homes for sale at low prices. Ain't gonna happen as a general rule.
SB700 will sit vacant until the market improves, and little, if any, affordable housing will come from it. In the meantime, the City has agreed to provide potable water to the development (ahead of collection of tap fees) and can be sued by the developers to make the city spend tax money from other sources to provide the water and sewer capacity required by the annexation agreement.
People have got to stop and think 2 or 3 steps ahead to understand what can happen. The only people getting a good deal are the SB700 developers, and anyone who digs into the details can figure it out for themself.
November 19, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )