Paul_Throckmorton
105p30 comments posted · 0 followers · following 4
10 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Boulder considers midd... · 0 replies · +1 points
11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Less than half of Boul... · 1 reply · +5 points
11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Art Paolini: Maybe bic... · 0 replies · +25 points
11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Robert Chisholm: In de... · 1 reply · +1 points
11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Boulder DA to file cha... · 29 replies · +108 points
11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - \'Receptive audience:\... · 1 reply · +1 points
11 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Boulder considers time... · 1 reply · +9 points
Keep in mind that the problem presented here isn't that the neighbors can't park a single vehicle anywhere; like the rest of us, they have exclusive use to whatever parking areas they provide on their own property, as well as access to first-come first-served publicly-funded street parking. If I didn't supply parking on my own property, I too wouldn't have enough publicly-funded parking. However, I wouldn't consider that as the public's problem ... it would be my problem, and it is solvable by simply supplying my own parking space on my own lot, rather than insisting that others pay for me to have preferred parking on public land, while the majority of that public has diminished rights to that same parking. If I had the advantage of living within blocks of such a fabulous, publicly-funded park, I would gratefully supply every bit of my own parking.
Of course, there are multiple other ways in which to deal with parking issues, but I'm against almost any "solution" that creates a further imbalance between the rights of groups of citizens to the use of publicly-funded resources.
12 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Letters to the Editor ... · 1 reply · -2 points
The critical difference that I see is that, in the case of an HOA, the requirements were placed on the land when no one but the developer had paid for the land, which is not the case with regulations placed by a government, which are placed on resources that the government did not own. If the developer made a wise decision in attaching requirements to the future use of the land, in the sense that the net value that they receive for the land after the requirements are attached is higher than without those attachments, then the owner benefits to the degree that the decision increased the value of that resource (the land). Likewise, if the developer can't get as much for the land because of their decision, then they are the primary people to suffer the effects of their decision. I believe that it is this type of responsibility that leads to getting the most value out of the least resources.
12 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - Letters to the Editor ... · 0 replies · +2 points
In this case, a search there for "chaotic and unforgiving" (keeping the quotes) finds the phrase in one location in Obama's book, but does not show it as quoted above by hotfrog.
A search for "roll back the ownership society" does not find that phrase in any of Google Books' indexed books, but Obama's "The Audacity of Hope" does seem to contain "ownership society" five times (once in the index).
13 years ago @ Daily Camera.com: - New Superior Bike Park... · 0 replies · 0 points
Streetview makes it appear that the place is on the northeast or southeast corner, but a quick look didn't make it apparent: http://maps.google.com/maps?q=%22Rock+Creek+Parkw...