Please tell me how anything I've written is stupid or unintelligent. I also thought I was engaged in an intelligent debate about an issue, not a personal name calling match. I present reasonable talking points based on facts and examples, yet somehow, I'm the stupid one. Nice job stepping up to the plate and acting like an adult....I also have been a coach and worked with young people for the past 10 years. I try to set a good example by not resorting to name calling when I dont get my way or people disagree with me.
What do bears have to do with this?...or maybe I'm just unintelligent and dont get your reference.
Oh yeah, the city is paying for a runway and hangar already. $1.2 million annually....double what the one time cost of a new skate park would be. The 2007 budget for the Ice Rink calls for $270k in General Tax Support. You never answered my question why that is worthy of our tax dollars and a skatepark isnt.
Once again, and I dont know how to explain this in simpler terms, the proposed concrete skatepark is not part of the $34 million price tag for the rec center nor will it be funded from the proposed $3.4 million property tax increase. I would be happy to expand in the current location, but it isnt the ideal spot for a larger facility given the limitations I listed earlier. Take a tape measure over there, measure out an additional 10k sq ft and tell me where it goes. You cant do it without ripping out underground gas lines or existing parking which would raise the cost significantly. Go take a look at other skateparks around Colorado. Aspen (13,000 sq ft), Silverthorne (11,000), Boulder (17,000), Fairplay (7500), Kremmling (10,000), Winter Park (9000), Edwards (18,000), Carbondale (15,000), Salida (8000), Trinidad, Pueblo, Westminster, Aurora, Centennial, the list could go on and on. All of these are concrete, inground facilities. Why have all these communities invested in skateparks like this? Because there was a portion of their community that wanted it and concrete is inexpensive and durable compared to the above ground structures like the ones in our park. Winter Park has a full time population of just over 1000 residents. Their City officials and council felt that a new park was an appropriate use of funds that would benefit a significant portion of their residents and visitors. Steamboat is 10x their size and our park isn't half the facility theirs is. But its not about keeping up with the Jones, its about recognizing that skateboarding and skateparks are just as valid and important as ballfields and ice rinks. Its about having a facility that meets the needs of the users and is up to a current acceptable standard just like roofing the ice rink, putting plastic on the Howelsen jumps or a new golf clubhouse. Once again, our proposal is to do this with a minimum of funding from the city- less than the yearly loss the city takes on the ice rink or Howelsen Hill. Regardless of where it's placed (rec center or not) an inground, concrete skatepark is gonna cost the same and not burden the taxpayers anymore than an additional soccer field. If you're such an advocate of relieving the taxpayer burden, would you be in favor of raising all the fees at the ice rink to actually cover all the expenses? Maybe we should eliminate a soccer field or two? After all, you should be ok with adequate facilities, right?
What about the ice rink and the local soccer fields? Are hockey and soccer the only acceptable forms of activities the city should support? The SSWSC, SSYSA and the SSYHA are all valid organizations in town, why not a Skateboard group? You of all people should understand where we're coming from. Where would hockey be in this town if a group of citizens hadn't stepped up to make it happen? How about the expenses we incur for Triple Crown and the ballfields? We spend gobs of money supporting a ton of activities in Steamboat. Take a look at the parks and rec budget sometime and see how much is spent on soccer/ball fields, Howelsen Hill and the Ice Rink. A skatepark wont even touch a fraction of that expense. Give me one good reason why a skatepark isnt worthy of the same support as soccer or hockey.
I'm there often, just about everyday for the past several years. I've been a skater for over 25 years and I've spent the past 4 years working with the city on this project and raising money for a new skatepark, so dont accuse me of ignorance on the subject. The primary users are teens, so go there after school or in the early evening and see how many are there. We'd love to build a new park at the current site but there is very little room for expansion given underground gas lines, railroad boundaries or tearing up existing parking areas. The current configuration is outdated and expensive to build and maintain. Once again, the new skatepark can be constructed without any new taxes and minimal city funding, hence why it is a separate project that is only included in the overall rec center plans. Please read my full post. It will be funded with minimal expense from the city, the majority will be funded by state grants (GoCo, for example), private financial donations and labor/material donations. The rec center is simply a great opportunity to combine the two projects.
How much time have you spent with teenagers other than your own? How often do the parents have complete control or influence on their kid's behavior? You were a teenager once...did you do everything you're parents told you? The fact of the matter is that many kids in town are lacking stable home lives, good adult role models or adult influence. Am I saying that a teen center and/or skatepark will solve those problems...absolutely not. There are a ton of factors in helping kids make good decisions...good schools, stable home lives, good role models and the opportunity to make choices that dont involve drugs or alcohol. All I'm saying is that it can help. All a skatepark can do is provide a place where kids feel welcome and appreciated which can help with confidence and self esteem maybe leading to better choices.....just like any other youth focused facility.
Just to clarify how the skatepark fits in with the rec center. Its part of the overall plan and foorprint at the site, but is not included in the funding or construction of the rec center. The current skatepark is a little over 6000 sq ft which is relatively small for skaters to move around in. Once you get more than 8-10 people at one time, it gets pretty crowded. Crowded means dangerous to younger and more inexperienced users. Just for comparison, Kremmeling just constructed a 10,000 sq ft park and Winter Park just opened a 9,000 sq ft park. What is being proposed on the rec center site is an inground, concrete park around 15k-20k sq ft. The size and scope of this park will make it much more accessible to skaters of all ages and abilities. Concrete parks are extremely durable, low maintenence and relatively inexpensive (around $22-28 per sq ft). Just for comparison, a turf soccer field comes in at roughly the same price. The skatepark project will be funded outside of the rec center project not with the proposed property tax, but through grants, donations and private funding with maybe some help from the city. A new concrete skatepark has been discussed for the past 10 years and the rec center plans is the best chance to get it done. I hope that helps your understanding of the skatepark portion of the rec center.
On another note, one of the top priorities in this community is youth and teen activities. Comes up time and time again on the community surveys. Our current teen and youth centers are laughable. The rec center naysayers seem to have jumped on the the group advocating the project saying they are selfish or "just trying to line their own pockets". The major focus of the rec center is teen and youth activity. We have a pretty big teen drug and alcohol problem in this town. Why? Maybe cuz there's nothing supervised for them to do after school if they dont play a team sport or particpate in the SSWSC. Maybe, just maybe, better teen and youth facilities will help some of these kids make better choices. Its worked in other communities and can work here. Consider the possibility that the rec center group is trying to build something that will help and support our kids for the next several decades as Steamboat continues to grow and diversify. I'm voting yes, you're more than welcome to vote no, but please consider all the angles and the long term implications. For good or bad, Steamboat is growing (and fast). Over the decades, there have been many huge projects that people have claimed would ruin Steamboat (i.e the ski area). How many people in Steamboat didnt want John Fetcher and friends to build a chairlift cuz it might ruin the small town quaintness? Seemed to work out ok in the long run.
to your first question- That's not the point. In your original post, you are taking council to task for not "taking control" of the situation. Once again, by putting it to vote, they are letting the tax paying citizens decide if its sound economics. You're complaining about the process, now you're part of the process. If you dont like the idea, you are more than welcome to vote no and lobby everyone you know to vote no. My point was simply that the process has been effective, thorough and democratic. Now its up to you and the voters of Steamboat to decide if this is a project that is desired.
To your 2nd question- if you had bothered to attend ANY of the numerous PUBLIC forums held on the subject, you would see that the consultants did, in fact, calculate a "Steamboat Factor" into their estimates as well as develop a profit/loss statement and estimate of operating expenses including proposed fees. I cant explain the cost overruns in the tennis bubble, but that's irrelevant to the current discussion.
Your 3rd statement is blatantly incorrect and not factual. The committee advocating the rec center is made up of private citizens. The committee formed by the city council was advisory in nature and the council is not bound by their recommendations (which as you stated, was a mix of pros and cons) much like every other committee and board the council works with. Council did the responsible thing and is placing it on the ballot to let the voters decide.
You're missing my point entirely. Read my previous post and tell me where I stated that I am a proponent of the rec center. Just for the record, I am in favor of it, but thats beside the point. My post merely points out that a public process was followed and now its in the hands of the voters. I served on the Park and Rec Commission and I've attended most of the council meetings on the subject. I believe that in this case, council has acted responsibly and with such a large $$$ figure are asking the voters to decide on its fate. If it is approved without a vote, then we have a problem, I agree with you on that. Once again, you are more than welcome to vote no....simple democracy in action.
To Mfishon- its not part of the ballot language as far as I know, but the consultants have prepared an estimated cost and fee structure for local vs non-local use. Its part of the public record and should be available for anyone to look over.
Michelle Lichtenfels: Support rec center
Addlip....of course its a democracy...you voted, didnt you?
October 28, 2007 at 10:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rec center up to voters
Please tell me how anything I've written is stupid or unintelligent. I also thought I was engaged in an intelligent debate about an issue, not a personal name calling match. I present reasonable talking points based on facts and examples, yet somehow, I'm the stupid one. Nice job stepping up to the plate and acting like an adult....I also have been a coach and worked with young people for the past 10 years. I try to set a good example by not resorting to name calling when I dont get my way or people disagree with me.
What do bears have to do with this?...or maybe I'm just unintelligent and dont get your reference.
Oh yeah, the city is paying for a runway and hangar already. $1.2 million annually....double what the one time cost of a new skate park would be. The 2007 budget for the Ice Rink calls for $270k in General Tax Support. You never answered my question why that is worthy of our tax dollars and a skatepark isnt.
September 6, 2007 at 5:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rec center up to voters
Once again, and I dont know how to explain this in simpler terms, the proposed concrete skatepark is not part of the $34 million price tag for the rec center nor will it be funded from the proposed $3.4 million property tax increase. I would be happy to expand in the current location, but it isnt the ideal spot for a larger facility given the limitations I listed earlier. Take a tape measure over there, measure out an additional 10k sq ft and tell me where it goes. You cant do it without ripping out underground gas lines or existing parking which would raise the cost significantly. Go take a look at other skateparks around Colorado. Aspen (13,000 sq ft), Silverthorne (11,000), Boulder (17,000), Fairplay (7500), Kremmling (10,000), Winter Park (9000), Edwards (18,000), Carbondale (15,000), Salida (8000), Trinidad, Pueblo, Westminster, Aurora, Centennial, the list could go on and on. All of these are concrete, inground facilities. Why have all these communities invested in skateparks like this? Because there was a portion of their community that wanted it and concrete is inexpensive and durable compared to the above ground structures like the ones in our park. Winter Park has a full time population of just over 1000 residents. Their City officials and council felt that a new park was an appropriate use of funds that would benefit a significant portion of their residents and visitors. Steamboat is 10x their size and our park isn't half the facility theirs is. But its not about keeping up with the Jones, its about recognizing that skateboarding and skateparks are just as valid and important as ballfields and ice rinks. Its about having a facility that meets the needs of the users and is up to a current acceptable standard just like roofing the ice rink, putting plastic on the Howelsen jumps or a new golf clubhouse. Once again, our proposal is to do this with a minimum of funding from the city- less than the yearly loss the city takes on the ice rink or Howelsen Hill. Regardless of where it's placed (rec center or not) an inground, concrete skatepark is gonna cost the same and not burden the taxpayers anymore than an additional soccer field. If you're such an advocate of relieving the taxpayer burden, would you be in favor of raising all the fees at the ice rink to actually cover all the expenses? Maybe we should eliminate a soccer field or two? After all, you should be ok with adequate facilities, right?
September 6, 2007 at 3:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rec center up to voters
What about the ice rink and the local soccer fields? Are hockey and soccer the only acceptable forms of activities the city should support? The SSWSC, SSYSA and the SSYHA are all valid organizations in town, why not a Skateboard group? You of all people should understand where we're coming from. Where would hockey be in this town if a group of citizens hadn't stepped up to make it happen? How about the expenses we incur for Triple Crown and the ballfields? We spend gobs of money supporting a ton of activities in Steamboat. Take a look at the parks and rec budget sometime and see how much is spent on soccer/ball fields, Howelsen Hill and the Ice Rink. A skatepark wont even touch a fraction of that expense. Give me one good reason why a skatepark isnt worthy of the same support as soccer or hockey.
Additional police and EMT?!? for what?
September 6, 2007 at 1:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rec center up to voters
Colobob-
I'm there often, just about everyday for the past several years. I've been a skater for over 25 years and I've spent the past 4 years working with the city on this project and raising money for a new skatepark, so dont accuse me of ignorance on the subject. The primary users are teens, so go there after school or in the early evening and see how many are there. We'd love to build a new park at the current site but there is very little room for expansion given underground gas lines, railroad boundaries or tearing up existing parking areas. The current configuration is outdated and expensive to build and maintain. Once again, the new skatepark can be constructed without any new taxes and minimal city funding, hence why it is a separate project that is only included in the overall rec center plans. Please read my full post. It will be funded with minimal expense from the city, the majority will be funded by state grants (GoCo, for example), private financial donations and labor/material donations. The rec center is simply a great opportunity to combine the two projects.
How much time have you spent with teenagers other than your own? How often do the parents have complete control or influence on their kid's behavior? You were a teenager once...did you do everything you're parents told you? The fact of the matter is that many kids in town are lacking stable home lives, good adult role models or adult influence. Am I saying that a teen center and/or skatepark will solve those problems...absolutely not. There are a ton of factors in helping kids make good decisions...good schools, stable home lives, good role models and the opportunity to make choices that dont involve drugs or alcohol. All I'm saying is that it can help. All a skatepark can do is provide a place where kids feel welcome and appreciated which can help with confidence and self esteem maybe leading to better choices.....just like any other youth focused facility.
September 6, 2007 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rec center up to voters
Excellent and eloquent response, fish. Care to elaborate?
September 6, 2007 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Rec center up to voters
Colobob-
Just to clarify how the skatepark fits in with the rec center. Its part of the overall plan and foorprint at the site, but is not included in the funding or construction of the rec center. The current skatepark is a little over 6000 sq ft which is relatively small for skaters to move around in. Once you get more than 8-10 people at one time, it gets pretty crowded. Crowded means dangerous to younger and more inexperienced users. Just for comparison, Kremmeling just constructed a 10,000 sq ft park and Winter Park just opened a 9,000 sq ft park. What is being proposed on the rec center site is an inground, concrete park around 15k-20k sq ft. The size and scope of this park will make it much more accessible to skaters of all ages and abilities. Concrete parks are extremely durable, low maintenence and relatively inexpensive (around $22-28 per sq ft). Just for comparison, a turf soccer field comes in at roughly the same price. The skatepark project will be funded outside of the rec center project not with the proposed property tax, but through grants, donations and private funding with maybe some help from the city. A new concrete skatepark has been discussed for the past 10 years and the rec center plans is the best chance to get it done. I hope that helps your understanding of the skatepark portion of the rec center.
On another note, one of the top priorities in this community is youth and teen activities. Comes up time and time again on the community surveys. Our current teen and youth centers are laughable. The rec center naysayers seem to have jumped on the the group advocating the project saying they are selfish or "just trying to line their own pockets". The major focus of the rec center is teen and youth activity. We have a pretty big teen drug and alcohol problem in this town. Why? Maybe cuz there's nothing supervised for them to do after school if they dont play a team sport or particpate in the SSWSC. Maybe, just maybe, better teen and youth facilities will help some of these kids make better choices. Its worked in other communities and can work here. Consider the possibility that the rec center group is trying to build something that will help and support our kids for the next several decades as Steamboat continues to grow and diversify. I'm voting yes, you're more than welcome to vote no, but please consider all the angles and the long term implications. For good or bad, Steamboat is growing (and fast). Over the decades, there have been many huge projects that people have claimed would ruin Steamboat (i.e the ski area). How many people in Steamboat didnt want John Fetcher and friends to build a chairlift cuz it might ruin the small town quaintness? Seemed to work out ok in the long run.
September 6, 2007 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Work slated to stabilize historic More Barn
id04sp-
One of the "cowboys" is actually a cowgirl....not very "brokeback".
August 31, 2007 at 8:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Council to debate ballot language
You dont get it, do you? Did you even read what I wrote?
My previous points and posts are neither pro or con in regards to the rec center.
My point is remarkably simple.....if you dont want it, vote no.
This has NOTHING to do with the color of the tennis bubble.
August 30, 2007 at 9:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Council to debate ballot language
To answer WZ007:
to your first question- That's not the point. In your original post, you are taking council to task for not "taking control" of the situation. Once again, by putting it to vote, they are letting the tax paying citizens decide if its sound economics. You're complaining about the process, now you're part of the process. If you dont like the idea, you are more than welcome to vote no and lobby everyone you know to vote no. My point was simply that the process has been effective, thorough and democratic. Now its up to you and the voters of Steamboat to decide if this is a project that is desired.
To your 2nd question- if you had bothered to attend ANY of the numerous PUBLIC forums held on the subject, you would see that the consultants did, in fact, calculate a "Steamboat Factor" into their estimates as well as develop a profit/loss statement and estimate of operating expenses including proposed fees. I cant explain the cost overruns in the tennis bubble, but that's irrelevant to the current discussion.
Your 3rd statement is blatantly incorrect and not factual. The committee advocating the rec center is made up of private citizens. The committee formed by the city council was advisory in nature and the council is not bound by their recommendations (which as you stated, was a mix of pros and cons) much like every other committee and board the council works with. Council did the responsible thing and is placing it on the ballot to let the voters decide.
You're missing my point entirely. Read my previous post and tell me where I stated that I am a proponent of the rec center. Just for the record, I am in favor of it, but thats beside the point. My post merely points out that a public process was followed and now its in the hands of the voters. I served on the Park and Rec Commission and I've attended most of the council meetings on the subject. I believe that in this case, council has acted responsibly and with such a large $$$ figure are asking the voters to decide on its fate. If it is approved without a vote, then we have a problem, I agree with you on that. Once again, you are more than welcome to vote no....simple democracy in action.
To Mfishon- its not part of the ballot language as far as I know, but the consultants have prepared an estimated cost and fee structure for local vs non-local use. Its part of the public record and should be available for anyone to look over.
Vote yes or no as ya'll see fit...simple as that.
August 28, 2007 at 11:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )