Thanks Rob. I wish you Boyers all the best. No lack of beautiful country where you are headed.

I share the high opinion of Brent's work. The irony is I reached that opinion years ago while complaining about Rob's columns, during Rob's first tenure at the Pilot. My complaint was we needed better balance from the paper. Rob's columns were fine, but only if an offsetting progressive column was also published. To his credit, Brent agreed that might be possible, offering me the audition to be that other writer. He asked for 5 sample Lewi columns. How many editors would go there?

The first 3 were easy and fairly good. On the 4th and 5th I struggled, realizing the big difference between writing for pleasure and writing for work. I made a point to avoid cherry picking the easy talking points and give both sides a fair shake. I found that incredibly hard to do column after column and at the same time be truly interesting. So I had to beg off the opportunity/responsibility to write a column. The experience helped me appreciate Rob's work, and also that of the Pilot writers.

The Pilot, and we all, had it good with Brent as editor. Happy trails Brent!

Scott Wedel,
As I understand it, any of these choices would next be on the November ballot to lock-in the new tax use for the longer term.

Scott Ford,
Thanks. Are you sure that special tax district is for Yampa St alone? I asked City staff about this after the Tuesday CC hearing and they still show a BID district of undefined size for ongoing maintenance of the Yampa St improvements and parks.

Hello Scott Ford,

Nice day! Enjoy yours!

In your observations of the meetings, did the CTAC speak to the funding sources needed to maintain these next accommodation tax improvements? CTAC recommended part of the accommodation tax should maintain the prior improvement, the golf course. But not these new projects?

A big thank you to our veterans!

Thanks for the good work in Steamboat, and best wishes in your Idaho endeavors.

Good comment Cresean. A minimum standard in mobile home HOA's would benefit everyone in them.

One local excavator wrote this comment to the Williams item:
"The fact of the matter is that we desperately need low cost housing in Steamboat irregardless of its location. In the past 3 years I have lost 3 employees because they moved to Hayden or Craig. The housing there was cheaper and the prices of gas prohibitive."

I support the mobile home park in this location, assuming wetlands mitigation is possible, and feel they should have sent this back for Planning Commission to try to shape a workable project. Low income housing should be a strong priority, particularly when delivered by the free market.

Scott, part of the discussion that night was our lack of other parcels zoned for mobile homes. They are reviewing the affordable housing goals and codes of the City, and added this topic to that agenda. There is a decent chance the AH codes will be repealed altogether, with 2 on Council already in support of repeal.

I tried to find a copy of the Sheriff's Oath a few weeks ago. It is referenced frequently by Sheriff Wiggins, and indirectly referenced in this lawsuit:

iii. p arties
a. Plaintiffs
1. The Sheriffs of 54 Colorado Counties

37. Each of the following Sheriffs of 54 Colorado counties (“the Sheriffs”) has the primary obligation to obey the Constitution of the United States of America. The Sheriffs bring this case pursuant to this primary obligation, which is supreme over any other purported enactment.

I could not find in the lawsuit where they base, "has the primary obligation to obey the Constitution of the United States of America...over any other purported enactment."

Can any one provide the Oath Wiggins is talking about?

This lawsuit is the crux of months of debate - the gun laws' constitutionality question.

Scott has actually read the lawsuit. And posted its link for you. So fellas, which is the more likely direction of Oz?

1) a continued interest in laughing at the guy smart enough to read the lawsuit.

Or

2) reading the lawsuit and having your own opinion on of it.

Libertarian. That explains your ongoing statist complaint. Statism is the polar opposite of libertarianism. You should spend less time labeling people. Presumption is no argument.

I think early on most Americans, and the founders, were statists. It certainly was more called for then - they were building a nation. Important examples of our early politics have already been brought up in this thread: Shays rebellion of 1786 and it's quashing. Also the creation of the Military Acts of 1792, one passed May 2 and one passed May 8. These seem to be examples of statism.

We have different needs today.

I meant to write: Obviously, government does NOT have the luxury of planning only for the next quarter.

Mark, your last post says you will not respect THIS government. Your post just before that says you will not respect government period. I'll take that as progress. The Declaration of Independence does respect both people and government.

I above posted that Routt County and Colorado platforms of Democrats have called for repeal of the Patriot Act. Their platforms have done this for many years. I cannot find any Republican platform that even mentions it.

Senator Udall, a Democrat, voted against it. 17 other Dem Senators voted against it. 4 Republicans voted against it.

Maybe someday you'll stop lumping people into the bad box and the good box. In some cases liberals are the ones fighting to maintain your liberties.