Hi Karen. It seems to me, with that logic, that SB700 should also be comfortable having no time limit on the prices for those homes offered in the attainable program. If attainable home prices are inevitable, why did they seek a 120 day time limit on the attainable home prices?
I do not expect everything to come on line at once. But nor do I expect the opposite - for homes to be continually coming on line. For supply to keep prices low, there would be a new 30+ unit multi-family project every 6 months or less. I don’t think we should rely on that happening. We could also see a two year gap between larger 160+ unit multi-family projects. In that event the price time limit becomes a conflict with a central goal of the annexation – workers finding free market homes. I just don't see why we should entertain that possibility.
If it’s our goal to see workers in these homes, consider also the effect a price time window will have on the likely buyer. Wealthier buyers, and second home buyers, have much more nimble financing ability. Workers at lower incomes will need more bank scrutiny and more time to get financing.
If attainable prices are inevitable, and a price time frame is irrelevant, that's great. Let's not have any price time frames in the program.
I know your PC also improved the AA, and appreciate your scrutiny with John Eastman of the 12.5 AH acres. That gave us all something to work from.
Its a little strange to look around. There are folks who were fans of the annexation from day one, and folks who were against it from day one. Few of them tried to shape any of its details into something better. But I have to appreciate those who stood up, even if outside Centennial Hall. I personally prefer what a professional racing veteran said. He rarely came in first but he made it to every finish line. He said, "You can't win if you don't show up". So I worked on it. So did you. Thanks for showing up.
Curtis, We were both there. Surely you realize the attainability details are yet to be written. Unlike the finalized Community Housing section of the agreement (which relies on two further Exhibits, G and H), the Attainability Section is a sketch that relies on further work and negotiation. Here is how the annexation agreement reads:
"... the first final plat within the Property shall not occur until the City Council has first approved a program for housing attainability (“Attainability Program”)."
Yes they pulled the 120 days, my post above points that out, but that in no way means the Attainability Program will not have a time frame limiting the attainable offerings.
In my opinion, the 120 day attainability limit sought by SB700 completely contradicted their verbal promises on "attainability as a matter of natural course". Are you comfortable with a time limit on attainable prices, given attainable prices are the central reason for annexing this parcel?
I don't know if these numbers are still applicable, but earlier studies in Maine and in Austin TX found that 14% of a dollar spent in a chain stayed in the local economy. The studies found that 45% of a dollar spent in a locally owned store stayed in the local economy. That's 31 cents of every dollar getting recirculated in Steamboat if you shop at locally owned stores.
On the other hand the City wants those sales tax dolllars a Target would capture. The logic being a Target here keeps our dollars from flowing toward I-70.
Will this recession turn the City pro Big Box and against local businesses?
Others point to the damage the internet does. Perhaps this area is ripe for a City audit. Is that City tax you paid for your Dell actually getting here?
Yes! to what Julie Green has said. This debate should be respectful and civil. The principle exercised in this ballot is a cornerstone of our basic rights. The Let's Vote group deserves none of the above criticism.
Those of you who scold opponents of SB700 for killing attainable housing in Steamboat have NOT been paying attention. I agree with you that attainable housing would be the WHOLE POINT, but there may be no attainable housing in SB700. By your own standard, it could be that you too should vote against SB700.
The Oct 13th draft of the annexation agreement gave you fair warning:
SB700 has promised many many times that attainability is a natural market for them. Yet when pressed to put that in writing (for the cheapest 30% of their 1600 free market units), the SB700 promise evaporated and became "we are willing to offer attainable prices on that product for 120 days".
Council rejected the time frame in the agreement, but the actual "attainability program" is yet to be written. A time limit on attainable prices may return in the program, making attainability just so much illusion. If you have any real interest in attainability for locals, and in SB700's "being what they claim", you will show as much interest in that program as I do.
I will urge city council to have that program written before the ballot, as it will determine for me whether SB700 will deliver what we all hope for - homes for our workers.
Sorry, Karen. I over reacted to your comments. I should be thicker skinned. We all think we are on a side that is doing what's best for Steamboat. No crime in that.
Karen, It's fair to say you and the Pilot became strong proponents of the annexation months ago. (That's fine in your case.) But it's also fair to say, since you both became proponents the annexation has improved A LOT in the benefit it offers to this community. I don't recall you or the Pilot asking for those changes to the agreement. Maybe you did Karen?
To my knowledge, Community Alliance members were alone in this community in requesting improvements to the agreement. Certainly CAYV sought the improvements made to the affordability and attainability of the agreement. At the same time Community Alliance went through a nightmare of criticism in this blog and in the Pilot.
In the thread above I made comments that are both pro and con. Thanks so much for tagging me as an underhanded villain.
Regardless of which side you sit on, it should make sense to you that dialogue between us on issues is better than no dialogue. To my knowledge I have yet to sway one fellow’s vote, and maybe I never will, but he is willing to talk and so am I. I suppose I could try cold stares? I now respect the work of another city councilor I actually campaigned against two years ago. He absorbs public comment in general. Without his support, there would be no attainability section in the annexation agreement.
And I’m weary of the many trenches around us. Our common future, on many levels, is daunting. The trenches do get some things done, but those are few, in my opinion. If there is no middle ground where we work together, eventually we are screwed.
My apologies to those I unwittingly exposed to criticism in this website.
And thanks Scott for a thoughtful entry.
Snowbow, I put business leaders in my list for two reasons. First, as council considers how to guide our economy into the short term and long term future, I wnated to pose an appealing “new ideas” direction to for them to weigh beside the proposed “new ideas” direction of rethinking local ordinances. Second, I think those people/groups would have a lot of good ideas. Hey, feel free to offer your own new ideas.
Steamboat 700 petitioners claim 1,334 signatures
Cool.I hope it doesn't come back in the "Attainability Program". That's my current concern.
Have a nice Thanksgiving.
November 15, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steamboat 700 petitioners claim 1,334 signatures
Hi Karen.
It seems to me, with that logic, that SB700 should also be comfortable having no time limit on the prices for those homes offered in the attainable program. If attainable home prices are inevitable, why did they seek a 120 day time limit on the attainable home prices?
I do not expect everything to come on line at once. But nor do I expect the opposite - for homes to be continually coming on line. For supply to keep prices low, there would be a new 30+ unit multi-family project every 6 months or less. I don’t think we should rely on that happening. We could also see a two year gap between larger 160+ unit multi-family projects. In that event the price time limit becomes a conflict with a central goal of the annexation – workers finding free market homes. I just don't see why we should entertain that possibility.
If it’s our goal to see workers in these homes, consider also the effect a price time window will have on the likely buyer. Wealthier buyers, and second home buyers, have much more nimble financing ability. Workers at lower incomes will need more bank scrutiny and more time to get financing.
If attainable prices are inevitable, and a price time frame is irrelevant, that's great. Let's not have any price time frames in the program.
November 14, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Committee collecting signatures to put Steamboat 700 to vote
That's a nice compliment. Thanks.
I know your PC also improved the AA, and appreciate your scrutiny with John Eastman of the 12.5 AH acres. That gave us all something to work from.
Its a little strange to look around. There are folks who were fans of the annexation from day one, and folks who were against it from day one. Few of them tried to shape any of its details into something better. But I have to appreciate those who stood up, even if outside Centennial Hall. I personally prefer what a professional racing veteran said. He rarely came in first but he made it to every finish line. He said, "You can't win if you don't show up". So I worked on it. So did you. Thanks for showing up.
November 14, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steamboat 700 petitioners claim 1,334 signatures
Curtis,
We were both there. Surely you realize the attainability details are yet to be written. Unlike the finalized Community Housing section of the agreement (which relies on two further Exhibits, G and H), the Attainability Section is a sketch that relies on further work and negotiation. Here is how the annexation agreement reads:
"... the first final plat within the Property shall not occur until the City Council has first approved a program for housing attainability (“Attainability Program”)."
Yes they pulled the 120 days, my post above points that out, but that in no way means the Attainability Program will not have a time frame limiting the attainable offerings.
In my opinion, the 120 day attainability limit sought by SB700 completely contradicted their verbal promises on "attainability as a matter of natural course". Are you comfortable with a time limit on attainable prices, given attainable prices are the central reason for annexing this parcel?
November 14, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Big box store discussion returns to Steamboat
I don't know if these numbers are still applicable, but earlier studies in Maine and in Austin TX found that 14% of a dollar spent in a chain stayed in the local economy. The studies found that 45% of a dollar spent in a locally owned store stayed in the local economy. That's 31 cents of every dollar getting recirculated in Steamboat if you shop at locally owned stores.
On the other hand the City wants those sales tax dolllars a Target would capture. The logic being a Target here keeps our dollars from flowing toward I-70.
Will this recession turn the City pro Big Box and against local businesses?
Others point to the damage the internet does. Perhaps this area is ripe for a City audit. Is that City tax you paid for your Dell actually getting here?
November 13, 2009 at 10:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Steamboat 700 petitioners claim 1,334 signatures
Yes! to what Julie Green has said. This debate should be respectful and civil. The principle exercised in this ballot is a cornerstone of our basic rights. The Let's Vote group deserves none of the above criticism.
Those of you who scold opponents of SB700 for killing attainable housing in Steamboat have NOT been paying attention. I agree with you that attainable housing would be the WHOLE POINT, but there may be no attainable housing in SB700. By your own standard, it could be that you too should vote against SB700.
The Oct 13th draft of the annexation agreement gave you fair warning:
SB700 has promised many many times that attainability is a natural market for them. Yet when pressed to put that in writing (for the cheapest 30% of their 1600 free market units), the SB700 promise evaporated and became "we are willing to offer attainable prices on that product for 120 days".
Council rejected the time frame in the agreement, but the actual "attainability program" is yet to be written. A time limit on attainable prices may return in the program, making attainability just so much illusion. If you have any real interest in attainability for locals, and in SB700's "being what they claim", you will show as much interest in that program as I do.
I will urge city council to have that program written before the ballot, as it will determine for me whether SB700 will deliver what we all hope for - homes for our workers.
November 13, 2009 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Committee collecting signatures to put Steamboat 700 to vote
Sorry, Karen. I over reacted to your comments. I should be thicker skinned. We all think we are on a side that is doing what's best for Steamboat. No crime in that.
November 9, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Committee collecting signatures to put Steamboat 700 to vote
Karen,
It's fair to say you and the Pilot became strong proponents of the annexation months ago. (That's fine in your case.) But it's also fair to say, since you both became proponents the annexation has improved A LOT in the benefit it offers to this community. I don't recall you or the Pilot asking for those changes to the agreement. Maybe you did Karen?
To my knowledge, Community Alliance members were alone in this community in requesting improvements to the agreement. Certainly CAYV sought the improvements made to the affordability and attainability of the agreement. At the same time Community Alliance went through a nightmare of criticism in this blog and in the Pilot.
In the thread above I made comments that are both pro and con. Thanks so much for tagging me as an underhanded villain.
November 9, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Our View: Jump right in, City Council
Regardless of which side you sit on, it should make sense to you that dialogue between us on issues is better than no dialogue. To my knowledge I have yet to sway one fellow’s vote, and maybe I never will, but he is willing to talk and so am I. I suppose I could try cold stares? I now respect the work of another city councilor I actually campaigned against two years ago. He absorbs public comment in general. Without his support, there would be no attainability section in the annexation agreement.
And I’m weary of the many trenches around us. Our common future, on many levels, is daunting. The trenches do get some things done, but those are few, in my opinion. If there is no middle ground where we work together, eventually we are screwed.
November 9, 2009 at 10:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Our View: Jump right in, City Council
My apologies to those I unwittingly exposed to criticism in this website.
And thanks Scott for a thoughtful entry.
Snowbow,
I put business leaders in my list for two reasons. First, as council considers how to guide our economy into the short term and long term future, I wnated to pose an appealing “new ideas” direction to for them to weigh beside the proposed “new ideas” direction of rethinking local ordinances. Second, I think those people/groups would have a lot of good ideas. Hey, feel free to offer your own new ideas.
November 9, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )