<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title>gdp's Comments</title>
		<language>en-us</language>
		<link>https://www.intensedebate.com/users/667123</link>
		<description>Comments by Alex_Schatz</description>
<item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Lafayette lifts cancellation of Waneka Lake paddleboat and canoe program - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_23429631#IDComment659283036</link>
<description>Lafayette has some very senior water rights.  Filling Waneka has nothing to do with the last 600 acre-feet in Lafayette&amp;#039;s water budget.  The weakest link is storage, as far as I recall - it is a problem, but the city is addressing it. </description>
<pubDate>Tue, 11 Jun 2013 16:22:10 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/ci_23429631#IDComment659283036</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Lafayette pushes forward on creating ballot measures on Xcel franchise agreement - Boulder Daily Cam</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_23295878/lafayette-pushes-forward-creating-ballot-measures-xcel-franchise#IDComment648071910</link>
<description>New clarification:  I&amp;#039;ve just been following the articles in the Camera.  This forced me to watch replay from the meeting...  1.  The franchise agreement must be referred to the voters.  I was unclear on that critical point, not having read Charter 14.2 in a while (to say the least).  2.  The testimony was equivocal, including proponents of alternative energy.  Worst-case has already happened in Berthoud, though apparently there is some sort of freedom in not receiving Xcel&amp;#039;s fees and potentially kicking residents out of various incentive programs.  As a resident who tries to pay attention but can&amp;#039;t follow every detail, it is concerning how confusing this will be on the ballot.  But I guess watching the meeting helps me understand why the City is writing two referred measures. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 18:44:09 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_23295878/lafayette-pushes-forward-creating-ballot-measures-xcel-franchise#IDComment648071910</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Lafayette pushes forward on creating ballot measures on Xcel franchise agreement - Boulder Daily Cam</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_23295878/lafayette-pushes-forward-creating-ballot-measures-xcel-franchise#IDComment648042034</link>
<description>Actually, I&amp;#039;m not really sure I know what it is, so the &amp;quot;potentially&amp;quot; was deliberate.  The gist of it is that Xcel generates baseload from fossil fuels, which people don&amp;#039;t like, so that the Lafayette franchise agreement becomes a target for...???  I&amp;#039;m just not sure what is accomplished if the City is supposed to be negotiating without clear goals.  I guess replace a 20-30 year agreement with a tax?  My comment is more about assuming that every vocal citizen is capable of passing direct legislation.  I understand the desire to do it right or not at all, but I also think preemptive action may lend more merit to a ballot issue than it necessarily deserves.  Let the advocate make the case - and in this case it doesn&amp;#039;t sound like the council is convinced. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 17:40:51 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_23295878/lafayette-pushes-forward-creating-ballot-measures-xcel-franchise#IDComment648042034</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Lafayette pushes forward on creating ballot measures on Xcel franchise agreement - Boulder Daily Cam</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_23295878/lafayette-pushes-forward-creating-ballot-measures-xcel-franchise#IDComment647888002</link>
<description>One of these years the strategy of putting a &amp;quot;lesser of two evils&amp;quot; referendum in front of a potentially ill-conceived citizen initiative will end up backfiring. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 12:18:40 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_23295878/lafayette-pushes-forward-creating-ballot-measures-xcel-franchise#IDComment647888002</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Audrey Rose Zapp - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/obits/ci_19995636#IDComment297356055</link>
<description>Audrey Zapp was certainly an unforgettable presence at Lafayette City Council (and Open Space, and Planning Commission) meetings.  Her enthusiasm and spirit for the environment will never die. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 20 Feb 2012 17:38:28 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/obits/ci_19995636#IDComment297356055</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Consultants describe vision for revitalizing Old Town Lafayette - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_18613242?source=rss#IDComment180125803</link>
<description>I am reserving judgment on any specifics of the current proposal until I can actually see it. Last night had some decent vignettes, but you couldn&amp;#039;t really see the text or read it.   Whatever the spark may be, the engine is private capital. As I understand it, many of the concepts regarding URA assistance and public-private partnership are seeing the light of day in this iteration.   I do beg to differ on whether &amp;quot;the City,&amp;quot; the amorphous blob of officialdom over the years, has cared about Public Road. My impression is that has received an inordinate amount of attention, because it is just such a handy political football. But it has been the physical/urban planning efforts, and following through on the recommendations or lessons learned therein, that have actually caused anything to change in the political sphere. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Aug 2011 17:17:20 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_18613242?source=rss#IDComment180125803</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Consultants describe vision for revitalizing Old Town Lafayette - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_18613242?source=rss#IDComment180120068</link>
<description>Well, Public Road resurfacing had only been on the bond extension plan for three years prior... </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Aug 2011 16:54:38 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_18613242?source=rss#IDComment180120068</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Consultants describe vision for revitalizing Old Town Lafayette - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_18613242?source=rss#IDComment180117394</link>
<description>I was one of those people that left early (but only due to need to be in three places at once - talk about making snap judgments @Ellipse), but my understanding is that the presentation last night was essentially a progress report.  The final report is not done, so the reaction here is limited to the 50 (that was my read on numbers, give or take) people qualified to give a first-hand report on progress and what was reported in the Camera&amp;#039;s story.  While it is easy to criticize these or past consultants - e.g., things that are painfully obvious to anyone who lives here take weeks and months to realize, and are then presented as a great epiphany - this study, including its methods and focus, is the direct outgrowth of all the past efforts.  It was a specific recommendation of the most recent, the Community Revitalization Program report.  What is clear is that there is a market out there, and Louisville caught fire almost overnight.  This effort needs to be given a fair chance to succeed.  It is a small cost for the potential gain.  And, from what I saw last night, it might contain the spark(s) that are needed in Lafayette. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 4 Aug 2011 16:44:16 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_18613242?source=rss#IDComment180117394</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Lowe\&#039;s had low property tax bills before nixing Lafayette plans - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_17646948#IDComment136551574</link>
<description>Once again, I don&amp;#039;t have time to read all the dissertations, but maybe a couple facts would help: First, the property was annexed and zoned C-1 as a result of the special election in 2007. Second, I&amp;#039;m not sure who had an expectancy that the property would be assessed as developed before it was actually developed. Long-standing law in Colorado is that classification for assessment is based on actual use.   It seems to me that what this story points out is that, four-years after the special election, there is still plenty of room to disagree what the vote was all about. </description>
<pubDate>Mon, 21 Mar 2011 19:18:27 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_17646948#IDComment136551574</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Lowe\&#039;s backs off plans in Lafayette - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_17614282#IDComment135365334</link>
<description>If you care for a discussion of philosophy, or of public policy in anything but retrospective view of what&amp;#039;s already happened, you have my contact information.  I hear the criticism that Lafayette promotes sprawl and ignores infrastructure needs, and that Public Road &amp;quot;continues to deteriorate.&amp;quot;  These are subjective pronouncements, at best, and I don&amp;#039;t happen to agree with any of it.  However, what I really fail to see how this argument relates to the economic development agreement with WalMart (before my time on council) or my personal record.  By the way, the WalMart and King Soopers incentives will both be retired within the year from what I recall. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 17:33:47 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_17614282#IDComment135365334</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Lowe\&#039;s backs off plans in Lafayette - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_17614282#IDComment135342955</link>
<description>As I have so far resisted correcting the many errors that appear in this blog, I will endeavor to continue letting people assume what they will, regardless of the facts.  However, this one bugs me.  I have practiced landscape architecture in varying capacities for some 17 years and taught urban planning for six semesters.  I have to say that the fact that the Waneka land was inside the Lafayette UGB (which has been in place and enforceable since 2003) was very important to me.  For those who have contacted me personally about the &amp;quot;Lowe&amp;#039;s&amp;quot; situation, I have written back in every instance, and at length if appropriate.  schatz4lafayette@comcast.net </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Mar 2011 15:40:16 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/lafayette-news/ci_17614282#IDComment135342955</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Lafayette council appoints former CU president Buechner - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_15564014#IDComment87903121</link>
<description>Are you the same as the old &amp;quot;condoguy&amp;quot;?  Oh well...  Just want to be clear, this was not about John Buechner, at all.  He is a good candidate and will do a great job.  My concern was/is with the process and particularly that we had 12 candidates in all, many of them very good. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 21 Jul 2010 16:49:38 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_15564014#IDComment87903121</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Louisville and Lafayette push for extensions on dispensary moratoriums - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_15304869?source=rss#IDComment80448017</link>
<description>The moratorium is justified by the lack of consensus in Lafayette, as well as the issue itself, which is constantly shifting underfoot (with state legislation, in particular, needing to be settled before knowing the real dimensions of the task at hand).  I also used to believe it should be simple to solve, but no longer.  For those who&amp;#039;d like to judge whether the council has attempted to roll up its sleeves, see the streaming archives at &lt;a href=&quot;http://cityoflafayette.granicus.com/viewpublisher.php?view_id=2&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;http://cityoflafayette.granicus.com/viewpublisher...&lt;/a&gt;  June 15 - Item VIII(W) June 1 - Item II (Workshop) April 20 (6:30 p.m. Workshop) April 6 - Item IV (topic during Leg. Update) Feb. 16 - Item VII(J) Feb. 2 - Item III (Workshop) And more back in 2009.  </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 17:12:44 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_15304869?source=rss#IDComment80448017</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Louisville and Lafayette push for extensions on dispensary moratoriums - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_15304869?source=rss#IDComment80442847</link>
<description>I followed the posted link but could find nothing that substantiates Lafayette voters favoring &amp;quot;complete legalization&amp;quot; of cannabis. This may or may not be true, but more relevant is perhaps that Boulder County voters favored medical marijuana in the 2000 election by a margin of 67 to 33 percent. I would expect that margin to be somewhat closer in Lafayette specifically today, and even the County in general given the reality of rampant abuse of the enacted law. Nonetheless, I suspect that the favorable result would still hold, so it would be contrary to the electorate and/or a waste of City resources to consider a ban in Lafayette.  The issue facing Lafayette and other local municipalities is where to put, and what standards to require of, dispensaries and grow operations in terms of land use regulation. It is a technical issue, and even at the broadest policy level has little to do with the results of any political polling that I&amp;#039;ve ever seen. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:24:46 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_15304869?source=rss#IDComment80442847</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Louisville and Lafayette push for extensions on dispensary moratoriums - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_15304869?source=rss#IDComment80442831</link>
<description>The coverage may create an impression that Lafayette is poised to follow Superior&amp;#039;s lead regarding dispensaries. In fact, the concept of a ban was discussed at the Lafayette council&amp;#039;s June 1 workshop meeting. However, there was not consensus to move forward with a council-legislated ban or a referendum to ban. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jun 2010 16:24:39 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/boulder-county-news/ci_15304869?source=rss#IDComment80442831</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : ConocoPhillips: 95-foot height needed on Louisville campus - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_14387334#IDComment56497205</link>
<description>Check the plans (PDF attached to article).  Sheet 187 of 199 shows dedication of public open space to connect trails along Turnpike and Northwest Parkway frontage.  Sheet 194 of 199 shows trail development, including an additional trail along northern boundary.  Trails are outside a security perimeter according to text on plan, so appears that no public parking is provided. </description>
<pubDate>Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:38:45 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_14387334#IDComment56497205</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Sunflower market to open in Lafayette - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_14226681#IDComment53200709</link>
<description>Intense Debate is destroying my work as fast as I can type it in, pretty discouraging. But that&amp;#039;s an aside.   Yes, the City is party to many intergovernmental agreements, the Boulder County Consortium of Cities, DRCOG, you name it. Revenue sharing has not only been recently discussed, but studied by an expert consultant and kicked around in some conceptual forms. It was more or less summarily dropped, the reason being that development in the County is so far along, it is perceived that the winners and losers are all predetermined. This isn&amp;#039;t necessarily the case if economic development continues to grow overall, and through revenue sharing made more efficient and less cutthroat. But there is ebbing, if ever sufficient, political will, and, at best, the research was not strongly supportive as applied to BoCo.   Annexation is controlled in Lafayette by IGAs and our own comp plan/urban growth boundary/charter provisions. &amp;quot;Sprawl&amp;quot; is only loosely defined in any literature and therefore entirely in the eye of the beholder. Just for perspective, Erie officials have stated they are proud of the fact that they will be twice as big as Lafayette in land area with half the population. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 19:09:50 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_14226681#IDComment53200709</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Sunflower market to open in Lafayette - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_14226681#IDComment53193033</link>
<description>Gad - Status quo is that any number of people believe the City was ripped off by WalMart in the EDA, but I cannot follow the reasoning. Your specific proof involves a map of Erie and the region that does not correspond to the geography I know. Your general proof involves the proposition that WalMart destroys towns, &amp;quot;period.&amp;quot; My difficulty with this is not that the proposition is necessarily right or wrong, but that it was/is not particularly relevant to the EDA. Significantly, WalMart was an existing condition in Lafayette at the time.   Potential grocery store saturation is a legitimate concern, but what we know that grocery store revenues have been growing with additional stores in Lafayette. There is also evidence of some &amp;quot;cannibalization&amp;quot; effect, but it is impossible to quantify or isolate that from other market and business forces that, for example, caused Albertson&amp;#039;s to close its doors.   Regional commercial and Main Street can and, in fact, must be compatible. They are not exclusive of each other. The challenge for Public Road is to define and build up an identity that will draw unique shops, services, perhaps mixed use, and so forth. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 18:07:15 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_14226681#IDComment53193033</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Sunflower market to open in Lafayette - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_14226681#IDComment53120510</link>
<description>I have no interest in pursuading here, you will choose to believe what you will.  However, I am always interested in new perspectives and better information.  Unfortunately, in this case, your earlier note was that, &amp;quot;unequivocally there was no way they were going build another supercenter 5 miles south of an existing supercenter, so Erie was simply not an option for them.&amp;quot;  Given the geography of above stores, I think we&amp;#039;ve circled back to status quo in this line of reasoning. </description>
<pubDate>Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:34:17 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_14226681#IDComment53120510</guid>
</item><item>
<title>Daily Camera.com: : Sunflower market to open in Lafayette - Boulder Daily Camera</title>
<link>http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_14226681#IDComment53092400</link>
<description>Since you are so insistent on this point about WalMart NEVER relocating to Erie, I am curious what store you believe would be in conflict with potential Erie locations. </description>
<pubDate>Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:38:09 +0000</pubDate>
<guid>http://www.dailycamera.com/news/ci_14226681#IDComment53092400</guid>
</item>	</channel>
</rss>