I don't have a problem with the leash laws and certainly every dog owner should immediately clean up after their dog. However, the nicest trail by my house is a no dog trail. Not just "Dogs Must Be Leashed", but no dogs under any circumstances, ever. I can walk my dog on leash on a busy downtown sidewalk, but not on a leash on a trail?
I fully understand that many dogs are really not in control even with the green tags. There probably does need to be some better enforcement. However, I do not let my dog off leash - he is taking to training well but not at the point where I could responsibly let him off. So why can't I hike with him on leash on some of the nicest, closest trails to my house? If there are to be no-dog trails, even when leashed, then maybe we should have some no-talking trails, or no-running trails, or no taking-up-the-entire-path trails, or no...
This is one of the best buildings in Longmont. I am really glad it is getting a new use and a great one at that.
well, its good to know that we have solved all the crime problems - drugs, gangs, violence, abuse, etc. if the police have the time to work on this "problem". Seriously?
there may not be any city council meeting to address this project. It is a by-right project that only needs a staff level administrative modification. I think the city council could call it up however. You should email the city council members and encourage them to at least hold a public hearing.
Its clearly in both their interests to do that. With larger developers, the City has been known to sit down with property owners, developers, etc. to help resolve issues. Unfortunately this has only been on the largest projects (29th Street) and it is not an attitude that trickles down to smaller projects, typical homeowners, etc.
In my experience this kind of problem does not need the lessening of any zoning or health safety regulations, but rather an attitude at the City that would not be just a list of violations, but rather an approach to working with people that would sound more like "how can we help you with your building to bring it up to code and allow you to continue using the space?".
I think this facility has some merit, but I believe the location is a big problem. Surely we have learned the lesson from so many other cities, that consolidating the very poor, whether that be homeless shelters or public housing, into a single location creates a huge problem that eventually has to be addressed at significant costs down the road. The out-of-sight, out-of-mind mentality of this location directly adjacent to the current shelter may have some advantages for Boulder Housing Partners and their concentration of services, but it does not serve the city well at all. Dispersed services have found to work in other cities and do not make one section of the city bear the burden unfairly. If any city council members lived north of Wonderland, there would be opposition from within their ranks, but I fear that won't happen. And, if you think this part of the city doesn't have neighborhoods, you are gravely mistaken. Some of the most dense, and pleasant new housing in the city is located immediately north and east of this location. Keep the facility, but find a better location, homelessness should not be even more ghettoized.
any explanation as to why it does this? Is the part that hangs over space the "public" or "private"? what is the thought behind this probably expensive engineering to create a not-so-nice space below if there isn't some meaning behind this kind of a move?
I'm excited to see the movie. I grew up in Kentucky and watched every Derby like a minor religion. None of them compare to Secretariat's sub-2:00 race and the Triple Crown, especially the amazing Belmont 25 length win.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
mgerwing 
Creation