OpenCDA

October 10, 2012

Is Anyone Telling Us the Truth?

Filed under: The City's Pulse — mary @ 3:44 pm

Mary Souza’s Newsletter

Mayor Sandi Bloem made a big, bold announcement at last Monday night’s workshop. She declared that “There is absolutely no intention on the part of this council to build a boat launch at Silver Beach.”  And she also stated, “We are keeping the Third Street launch.”

An audible wave of incredulous, skeptical murmurs and chuckles came from the large crowd present to hear about the possible take over of CdA Lake Drive from the Idaho Transportation Dept (ITD)  Looking none too pleased about the negative feedback, the Mayor reiterated her statements.  

Councilman Ron Edinger seemed surprised at the Mayor’s pledge, and asked about the council workshop three months ago, when CdA Parks Director Doug Eastwood showed them all detailed plans for a boat launch at the Beach House marina site. The Mayor answered Ron by saying those plans are no longer going forward.

Citizen Rita Sims-Snyder asked if anyone else plans to build a boat launch out there, or if there are any negotiations for a land swap of public for private land of any kind in the Silver Beach area.  The Mayor said there had been some negotiations for a land swap but those did not work out and are not going forward either. Sandi then asked the city council if they knew of any other boat launch project at Silver Beach…they all said no.

So, is she telling the truth?

It was such a major pronouncement in a very public forum, it’s hard to believe the Mayor would less than truthful.  But let me give you a few more facts and then you be the judge:

Doug Eastwood opened the workshop Monday evening with a description of the road acquisition, in which he referred to a new boat launch at Silver Beach as one reason for the deal. That was at the beginning of the same meeting!

The newest version of the agreement between the City and ITD, which was updated on Monday, the day of the workshop, the very day of Mayor Bloem’s pronouncement, has a stunning statement too. Guess what is right there on the contract, in black and white?  Here’s the exact language:

“The City intends to manage and maintain the multimodal transportation facility including the existing trail, boat launch, parkway and road except as otherwise stated herein, as well as construct a new boat launch.”

“…as well as construct a new boat launch.” What in the heck is going on?  Is anyone telling us the truth?

And if the city isn’t going to build a boat launch, why would they take over the road?  It will cost much more than the lowball price quoted by the city street dept, according to all the experts and ITD folks who spoke Monday evening.  And the risk of slides and roadway washouts are serious and potentially very expensive.

But the crux of the whole matter, in my mind, is that the entire roadway and trail/park area along the entire 5.2 miles of CdA Lake Drive is currently public and will always be public. The access will not change. So why would the city want us to shoulder more financial obligation? Especially right now, with a struggling local economy and the already massive city spending on McEuen?

Everyone from the Silver Beach area who spoke at the meeting seemed quite happy with the current care of the road.  Councilman Dan Gookin asked them to raise their hands if they were in favor of the city taking over the road.  No hands went up.

The Mayor said they will study the situation more before making a decision.  Maybe they should start by talking with each other and getting their stories straight!

Let’s enjoy these precious sunny Fall days,

Mary

PS–If you want to see a full copy of the current  City – ITD agreement, you can go to OpenCdA.com and click on “Documents & Reports” in the upper right corner.  You do not need to register on the web site in order to read any items, just to comment.

21 Comments

  1. I’m thinking that right about now, Shakedown Sandi feels more like Charlie Brown than Lucy van Pelt in this well-known Peanuts clip. Except it wasn’t ITD that pulled the Sandi’s football away; it was the other party in the apparently now-defunct land swap.

    Comment by Bill — October 10, 2012 @ 7:42 pm

  2. Think of a name for the poorly-sited parking garage to be on Front Avenue. “Son of River Park Square” comes to mind. Look for there to be provisions in the design for connecting tunnels or covered walkways into several businesses on the south side of Sherman between 4th and 5th. Given that many costly studies recommended the parking garage be built north of Sherman, one plausible reason for building it in possibly the worst location possible on Front Avenue was so public money would be spent to provide very valuable connected parking for those businesses. Maybe some of the business owners who will benefit from the “underground connection” (not to be confused with the “inside connection”) will pool some of their increased revenues to buy some of Teresa McHugh’s art to put on the Son of River Park Square.

    Comment by Bill — October 11, 2012 @ 6:56 am

  3. Sounds like the Mayor is practicing up to ensure she is at full speed for a run at a national office. This apparent “head fake”, to be polite, seems to be the trend now.

    Comment by Ancientemplar — October 11, 2012 @ 7:28 am

  4. I see…I see!…why the City needs a PR person. The city needs someone to communicate amongst the mayor, the city staff, and the council members. I think that the designated, yet not formally hired, PR person, should demand $85,0000. I understand that is the average salary for a ‘cat herder’. Ancientempler’s astute observation might, however, push the PR person’s salary to $100,000.00.

    Comment by up river — October 11, 2012 @ 8:19 am

  5. I objected to the city’s desire to decrease the required parking for projects in the downtown core on the grounds that the public should not be required to subsidize parking for developments. Frankly, I envisioned a parking garage on Mc Euen for future Front Street developments. Sadly, with the addition of the tunnels to the garage, it will become reality. My concern now will involve the sale of annual passes and reserved parking, possibly fencing off the public. How many spaces will the public actually be permitted to use?

    Comment by Susie Snedaker — October 11, 2012 @ 9:58 am

  6. It is not what this woman says, it is what she doesn’t say. To finish her sentences:
    …….Silver Beach ‘at present’.
    ……third street launch ‘for now’.

    She is duplitious and an expert at obfuscation. Besides, she doesn’t give a hoot what people think. She has always been able to slime her way out of a corner. Nothing new here!

    Comment by rochereau — October 11, 2012 @ 1:07 pm

  7. rochereau,

    That is exactly why it would be a waste of money for the City to hire a “communications” expert. The source of the information will continue to be untrustworthy and deceptive people like Bloem, Kennedy, Gabriel, Eastwood, and Goodlander. If the information they provide is inaccurate, incomplete, or untimely then the quality of the public address announcer really doesn’t add to its veracity, only its volume.

    Comment by Bill — October 11, 2012 @ 4:35 pm

  8. Post 7 hit the nail on the head.

    I would only add that if the ‘message’ conveyed by the PR person turns out to not be popular, the ‘gang of 4’ can say that the PR person misunderstood and then retreat and regroup. Things must be really hard for the designated, but not yet hired, PR person to want to take on such a job…especially when it will come to an end when new, and responsive, council members/mayor, are elected and take office. Is the proposed contract for more than 1 year? Does the proposed contract have a provision providing for some sort of cash pay-off if the contract is terminated?

    Comment by up river — October 11, 2012 @ 5:09 pm

  9. LCDC April 24, 2012 minutes….

     Commissioner Patzer asked if the city has any strategic visioning for a possible East Sherman Avenue urban renewal district that also might incorporate infrastructure improvements (e.g. sewer service) for the potential new city ownership of the Idaho Transportation Department’s (ITD) Coeur d’Alene Lake Drive property stretching out to the Higgins Point area?
     Mayor Bloem shared that the city has plans to engage a consultant to help the city and East Sherman Avenue stakeholders develop a vision for the East Sherman area. No future infrastructure plans are in place at this time involving the city’s possible acquisition of the ITD property. Urban renewal efforts in both of these areas would be a significant advantage once plans/strategies are developed.

    Comment by LTR — October 11, 2012 @ 5:28 pm

  10. The City has continued to encourage the flophouses in Dogpatch to drive the land values down. Once the honest, hardworking people have been driven out and the properties acquired by the “right” people, then the LCDC will be more than happy to enrich the “right” people by pouring public money into Dogpatch.

    The question is, which area of Coeur d’Alene will be the next section the Mayor and her cronies select for devaluation?

    Comment by Bill — October 11, 2012 @ 7:43 pm

  11. Future buildings on the very east end of Sherman will have views of both the lake and the golf course.

    By the way, isn’t approval by a public vote mandatory to establish new urban renewal districts? Also, isn’t shoestringing urban renewal districts no longer permitted?

    Comment by Susie Snedaker — October 11, 2012 @ 8:37 pm

  12. Susie, I believe the law requires voter approval to create a new Urban Renewal Agency, not a new district.

    A question that must be asked of all 2013 City Council and Mayoral candidates is how they feel about a new URD on East Sherman. Based on past experiences, I believe their answers would add to transparency to get the candidates on the record before they’re elected. Or re-elected.

    Comment by Dan — October 12, 2012 @ 9:30 am

  13. Thanks, Dan, for the correction.

    Comment by Susie Snedaker — October 12, 2012 @ 9:53 am

  14. I liked Susie’s interpretation better.

    Comment by up river — October 12, 2012 @ 10:32 am

  15. Thing is, nobody pushes her. Someone should stand and, politely, ask the obvious. “Do you mean no plans at present”? Are you saying, “third street launch will remain for now or are you saying that the launch will remain for many years to come”? I think one must finish her comments in their mind and then push her for clarification. If she reiterates her original comment, state that it isn’t clear. She and the puppets get away with these things because nobody pushes for clarification. As long as one is polite and respectful, one can stand firm. This goes for any of her Clintonian pronouncements. “Depends on what you mean by the word the”, remember that one. HM Bloem does the same thing and everyone lets her get away with it. Doesn’t matter what one posts here or at the Press blog, if it isn’t done directly to her, it isn’t successful.

    Comment by rochereau — October 13, 2012 @ 10:01 am

  16. I believe everybody knows Sandy very well by now. There are no plans to move the boat launch to Silver Beach until the City finishes talking with the State and Mr. Hagadone. Mr. Hagadone is holding the ace of cards. I wonder what he will get in exchange if an agreement is reached?

    Comment by LTR — October 13, 2012 @ 11:50 am

  17. LTR – perhaps the base of Potlatch Hill

    Comment by Susie Snedaker — October 13, 2012 @ 7:26 pm

  18. Interesting to note that the City is already working on amending the Shoreline Regulations that if approved, would exempt the City from compliance to development regulations for city owned properties. At their September 11 Planning Commission hearing, staff presented an amendment to code that in essence would exempt the city from development restrictions for projects that provided increased access and/or views of the shoreline on city owned property.

    The way I read what was presented is that, if approved, the door is now open to waive all shoreline regulations for the city to develop, without exception on any city project that proposes to enhance “access” and “views” of the shoreline. In my opinion,that’s about any waterfront development, i.e. a boat launch, or even clearing trees along Lakeshore Drive for a better view of racing boats, installation of shoreline seating, etc.

    The game is afoot.

    Comment by old dog — October 15, 2012 @ 9:10 am

  19. Very interesting, Old Dog. It does look like the city is/was setting the stage for a boat launch out on Silver Beach. But your key words are “city owned property”. For now, they don’t own that road so their ordinances will not matter there. The push to get take over the road came to a screeching slowdown last Monday. The audience was against it, the council seemed unsupportive (but I’m sure the Fab 4 could be convinced) and the project appears stalled. Word from the grapevine now is that the private property owner who was negotiating a possible land swap so the city could build the launch near the Beach House site, decided to back away from the deal. Maybe Doug Eastwood and Wendy didn’t even know that at the time of the meeting. Is the rumor true? Is it simply a negotiating maneuver? Will the deal be resurrected? Don’t know yet. But I don’t believe Sandi’s denials are final.

    Comment by mary — October 15, 2012 @ 12:00 pm

  20. The shoreline has no protection inasmuch as the shoreline protection ordinance was trashed by the city years ago.

    Comment by Susie Snedaker — October 15, 2012 @ 12:44 pm

  21. Mary,

    True they don’t own Lakeshore Drive, but the rub here is that the proposed amendment went to hearing on September 11, and as you are well aware, this means that the amendment had to have been in the works for months prior to that hearing, whereas, it wasn’t until October 8 that the City Council held a (public) meeting on the topic.

    Then you add in the question: What other waterfront/near shoreline property does the City own that is in need of development (i.e. increased access/improved views)? The city really doesn’t own that much property that hasn’t been built to the shore through various forms of relief from the Shoreline Ordinance. They own so little waterfront land I find it misleading that the City doen’t have some specific project in mind–but testimoney at the P&Z hearing said nothing specific is in the mill. If the City doesn’t have any plans to encroach into the riparian zone–why then amend the ordinance?

    From a broader perspective, the Shoreline Ordinance is an environmental safeguard ordinance, so why then should the City be exempt from providing environmental protections that are required on private property? It reminds me of when the City wanted to amend the City’s noise ordinance due primarilly to some loud bars downtown about 8 years ago. The City deemed excessive noise to be “harmful” and “unhealthy”–but in the same proposed ordinance the City wanted to exempt itself (concerts in public parks)and of course Duane (noise generated from “commercially liscensed watercraft)from the standards it wanted to impose on everyone else. No doubt, double standards exist, but as I wrote previously, something is afoot or the proposed amendment would be withdrawn.

    With regard to your point that the “audience was against it” (Lakeshore Dr. aquisition)– when did that ever matter to this Council? The Council “seemed unsupportive”? All I can say to that is appearances can be decieving.

    Comment by old dog — October 16, 2012 @ 8:40 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2024 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved