The Steamboat Pilot & Today

Larbolli7 (anonymous)
September 3, 2007 at 12:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Last time I checked Historic Buildings meant something to a community.But obviousilly community means nothing to Routt county..especially Steamboat.All the people moving into the region know NOTHING about the History of Routt county OR the town of Steamboat.So all of you "newbies" who have money and think you are doing best for Steamboat ....GO BACK TO WHER YOU CAME FROM AND TEAR DOWN YOUR OWN HISTORIC BUILDINGS! Northern Colorado don't need you here.

thecondoguy1 (anonymous)
September 4, 2007 at 8:48 a.m. (Suggest removal)

relax Larbolli, if you want to preserve sombody elses house for your own righteous reasons, go ahead and buy it with your own righteous money and do what you want with it, I don't see a problem, even for us "oldbies".
Good luck at that.............

sportzmama (anonymous)
September 4, 2007 at 11:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I just returned from a weekend in Breckenridge and the downtown area was really nice. They have done a great job of maintaining the integrity and history of the town. Something I see going by the wayside here. I don't think it's a bad idea to at least have "covenants" per se for historic buildings and homes. People should be able to do what they want to an extent, but it would be a shame to simply tear down the history of Steamboat. Now if things need to be done to make the home more energy efficient, etc. then of course those things should be done, but I don't see anything wrong with guidelines in order to preserve the integrity of the outside. This is done in countless communities across the country so what Steamboat is asking for is not out of the ordinary.

agentofchange (anonymous)
September 4, 2007 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This is just more control being exerted by the Socialists at the city level. To compare Brek to Steamboat is asurd. Brek had a totally different architechtural style and timeline.

Steamboat's older residences worth saving are long gone. Let the property owners alone! Stay out of their lives, government !!

How much of the taxpayers $$ will you spend on this ?? You have bigger fish to fry, like planning the much needed "Tom Leeson Stemboat Skyway" (which will totally bypass downtown). Want the details, (it's really cool) email me.

bubba (anonymous)
September 5, 2007 at 6:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

'Buildings that MAY have historic value.' Maybe they should figure out which ones DO have historic value, not just sweepingly suggest that anything over 50 might be historic, and figure out how to provide just compensation to the owners of those historical buildings for limiting the use of their own property, rather than limiting the rights of everyone who owns a building that MAY have significance.

Once again- doesn't historic mean that something happened there, or someone famous did something there, not just that it's old?

thecondoguy1 (anonymous)
September 5, 2007 at 8:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

agentofchange, good to read you again, it's been a while, don't be so stingy with that good thinking...............
Bubba, well that sounds like an idea............

zense (anonymous)
September 7, 2007 at 9:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

As with many issues, a small well organized special interest group pushes an agenda through without due process, without city council considering a) all sides of the issue, b) relevant facts, c) impacts on individuals as well as the community as a whole, or d) short and long term consequences for those who will be most severely affected.

For 90 days, city council has directly affected the real estate market, certain residents needing or wanting to sell their homes at full value (as their homes' values have potentially been reduced by a few hundred thousand), the construction and design industry, and fostered an atmosphere of fear and divisiveness.

Personally, I think historic preservation is a good thing. So are personal property rights. Historic preservation of public buildings has a very different purpose and should have very different guidelines than anything adopted for personal residences. It may not be appropriate for residences to keep certain historical details such as the same footprint, outdated single pane windows, poorly designed and badly built porches. Street views, character, and nice lines of an old house can be preserved even when their square footage is doubled. Some possibly "historic" houses are candidates for scraping, due to poorly built, crumbling bones. In what world is it this city's place to decide which house stays, by mandate, and which goes? Who will be unlucky enough to be saddled with a house designated historic, thus losing a large portion of their potential retirement? Who designates historic? Based on guidelines for dissimilar, maybe larger or older towns? Or on guidelines for public buildings in National Parks? What fund compensates an owner for extra costs of complying with mandatory restrictions when making necessary repairs? Who compensates a resident for lost value for a house that can’t be expanded when sold to the next owner?

If the city wishes to provide affordable housing, there are other ways to impose what would essentially be deed restrictions. Perhaps a few more of the thousands of new residences currently proposed west of Steamboat could be deed restricted?

If the city wanted to preserve the character of a small, ranching, ski town, perhaps zoning restrictions on chain stores would have been appropriate. Public buildings, public amenities, public spaces, and large commercial development projects are much more logical and visible places for which to mandate "Historical" or Character Preservation, the key words being public, and large.

How quaint it would be to drive through town and see small houses built 100 years ago. For whom? Tourists? Future condo owners in the new giant downtown developments? Will cute downtown houses be a major selling point for these developers?

What power you have, city council members. Please wield it wisely with an appropriate arsenal of facts and with proper input from affected citizens.