A Message Board, Guestbook, or Poll hosted for your website.
Register Login
Message Board > the town
 
Username:
Password:
 

Thread Tools  | Search This Thread 
Reply
 
Author Comment
 
sensetalk2000
Registered: 11/10/08
Posts: 109

    08/17/09 at 04:16 AM
#16

     Unfortunately, Pagosa was bleeding long before the economic downturn.  The economy has nothing to do with that term.
     The term is about loss, on the human side.  Pagosa continues to reject the solid middle and swoon over the upper.  Tourists are what they are.  They stop in and leave the cash and are gone.  Yes, we will always have them because of the mountain enchantment.  One doesnt have much to do with the other.
     
davo
Registered: 07/21/09
Posts: 10

    08/20/09 at 12:31 PM
#17


Posts: 7

    Today at 01:18 PM
#4

here mister rogers ...........perfect example

taken from another thread


    08/14/09 at 12:30 PM
#2

I completely agree, skatermom, the town needs to give the project prominent placement, not only for the safety of the skaters and families wishing to use the amenity but also to showcase the park to our visitors.

Unfortunately, the town has dropped the ball on this one yet again and it needs to be held accountable. We can't let this one get away. Supporters of the skatepark need to be at the noon August 20 mid-month council meeting (Town Hall, in chambers) to state that they are losing patience with town administration's inability to finish the job, even though all the money is in place to make this dream a reality.

We can't let the town "skate" on this one!

davo
Registered: 07/21/09
Posts: 10

    08/23/09 at 01:08 PM
#18

and yet another .........ummmmm.......contractor?........taken from the pagosa sun........gee i wonder who was the inspector on theese projects...

soil tests .........gee do we need theese?.........this is pagosa


Claims by the plaintiff that Patrick Alley, the principal in Whispering Pines Company, Inc. and the developer of the Whispering Pines projects was negligent, was negligent per se and failed to provide a soils report were denied, as were claims the defendants were liable for comparative negligence and failed to mitigate damages.

The court found the plaintiff is entitled to recover damages in a variety of categories:

• Roofs — $300,000.

• Wall systems — $600,000.

• Safety — $1,185,000.

• Structure — $48,000.

• Decks — $225,000.

• Concrete and foundation work — $589,000.

• Framing — $30,000.

• Site drainage/grading away from buildings/downspouts — $195,000.

• Cosmetics — $10,000.

• Architectural and engineering fees — $254,560.

• Contingencies — $318,200.

• General conditions — $477,300.

• Construction management — $50,000.

The “Safety” category, said Storz, concerned claims regarding improper connection of heavy timber frame elements, work on decks, and framing components missing in some townhome attics, among others.

georgeho
Registered: 03/23/09
Posts: 14

    08/25/09 at 03:46 PM
#19

O.k. I'll bite. Let's take "Skatermom", who by the way is doing a great job getting the word out, wants the town to get the skatepark finished. That certainly seems reasonable, but they have no land. So what's your point.

Previous Thread | Next Thread
Page 2 of 2    < 1  |  2
Reply

 
Bookmarks
 
Digg Diggdel.icio.us del.icio.usStumbleUpon StumbleUponGoogle Google