Here’s a photo from a warm but blustery day out on at Sunset Beach on Oahu in Hawaii. It’s near where my husband spent many of his growing up years. It looks the same as it always has and we loved returning to see it again last month.
We don’t want CdA, specifically McEuen Park, to stay the same without some reasonable upgrades and improvements, but the Mayor and previous City Council’s reluctance to listen to the citizens is upsetting to many folks who have emailed me. How do you feel? Has City Hall been responsive to public appeal?
Do you have any other ideas, problems or questions to bring forward?
This very tiny (not surprisingly) article in today’s Idaho Statesman online got my attention not only because of the retaliatory action against Foster but also because of whom he is representing. The Idaho Press Club needs a lobbyist in the Idaho Legislature? Apparently that’s so our self-anointed professional journalists can appear to distance themselves from partisan political activities and allow them to say with a semi-straight face their news/views/skews reporting is unbiased.
Comment by Bill — February 4, 2012 @ 8:12 am
It does sound odd to have the press represented by a paid lobbyist. But at least it’s a private business paying for their own. It makes me crazy to think about the lobbyists hired by LCDC and NIC, using taxpayer money. These lobbyists go to the legislature and fight against bills that would increase transparency and accountability…how can that be right?
Comment by mary — February 4, 2012 @ 9:45 am
Is it ‘conservative’ to limit Crown’s liability (8 billion annual revenue) to persons suffering from asbestosis?
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — February 4, 2012 @ 10:32 am
…to $50,000.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — February 4, 2012 @ 10:58 am
…to any amount?
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — February 4, 2012 @ 10:59 am
Joe6pak….. Crown itself never ever produced any asbestos products. It purchased a small company back in 1963 that did produce asbestos tainted products and quickly resold it 3 months after buying the firm. While owned by Crown no asbestos products were made by that acquired firm. Crown paid $7 million for the company and has paid out many times that amount in asbestos claims from that business already.
Your question about Crown is fairly nonspecific. Do you suffer from an asbestos related disease? Was it acquired from this one company once owned by Crown? If so did you work for that firm before or after that 90 day period it was owned by Crown? There is no minimizing any industrially induced disease. But it is clear that Crown was not in any manner the source of overt asbestos employee abuse in product manufacturing. Where their liability starts and ends is not clear. The amount you define was apparently settled on by various arbiters.
Comment by Wallypog — February 4, 2012 @ 1:45 pm
Two points:
1. Crown was obviously negligent in their due diligence when they bought the small company.
2. Why should legitimate victims of asbestos damage be limited in their legal options just because Crown made a big mistake by buying the other company? Maybe Crown should pay all the claims then go after the previous owners for compensation.
Comment by mary — February 4, 2012 @ 2:00 pm
Maybe Crown should recover from it’s attorneys or management team. The point is it is it’s legal liability. I don’t care if it owned the co one day. I am tired of people bailing out co from liabilities. It and other co should go out of business if it screws up just like regular joes. So is it conservative? Or is it conservative just because it owned the co for a few years?
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — February 4, 2012 @ 2:56 pm
I don’t know why you want to put a “conservative” label on any of it. If it’s wrong it’s wrong.
Comment by mary — February 4, 2012 @ 3:22 pm
The press said a conservative nonprofit was asking idaho’s leg to limit it’s liability on claims arising in Idaho to 50,000. It is touted as the conservative thing to do. If so color me liberal. If Crown doesn’t pay –then Medicare (taxes) pays. So is that the conservative way? Just a simple question.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — February 4, 2012 @ 3:55 pm
It was not due to failed diligence as much as an inability to predict the future. Crown is being assessed fines in 21st money for damages incurred in 1963 dollars and for crimes it never actually committed. I doubt if any amount of investigative ‘diligence’ would have discovered this potential mess.
In the annals of product liability nothing will ever surpass tobacco. For over 100 years tobacco intentionally lied about its products. It intentionally made them worse knowing it was making the product more hazardous. Even today tobacco does not in any manner adequately educate its customers. The result is that tobacco leads this country and the planet in preventible death. If you calculate the lawsuits against these monsters and the settlements awarded they are flat outright pathetic and the product is still being legally sold. And practically every American who gets sick from tobacco ends up on Medicare/Medicaid.
At least in Crowns case they were ethical enough to not ever manufacture and sell asbestos tainted product and are ethical enough to take a huge hit for the mistake of tangentially owning one such firm for 3 months time, over 60 years ago. This would appear to be a simple case of lawyers trying to extract maximal damages from the source with the deepest pockets and not necessarily the guiltiest one. As for those afflicted do they not access their settlements a general asbestos fund? Isn’t this a class action suit with a general settlement fund?
Comment by Wallypog — February 5, 2012 @ 7:43 am
Inability to predict future–sometimes life sucks. Ask one with asbestosis.
Cigs–redirection is so juvenile
Ethical–put cost for it’s business mistake on taxpayers. Now that is ethical.
Lawyers–when all else fails blame cost on lawyers. Lame.
So– I guess I understand what conservative means.
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — February 5, 2012 @ 10:11 am
Joe…. I am not unsympathetic to anyones problems. But if there is sanctimonious outrage over product liability being served then tobacco is the profound number -one- on the ‘abuse’ menu. That is undeniable, not juvenile. You call it unethical (for Crown) to place the cost of a 60 year old business “mistake” on taxpayers. At the same time you graciously ignore an even worse public health debt at the intentional and well bloodied hands of big tobacco. I almost get the feeling that you have compounded your asbestosis with a lifetime of tobacco use and willingly assault one substance and not the other.
Comment by Wallypog — February 5, 2012 @ 10:53 am
So Mike Kennedy and Steve Adams support using General Fund dollars to buy the eagles property….Where is the fiscal conservatism? I thought Mr.Adams was on the side of the people?
Comment by lexacon — February 13, 2012 @ 1:14 pm
Lexacon, I emailed Mr. Adams yesterday and he called me today and we talked about the Gen. Services meeting. Two things were key: First, Mr. Adams explained that nothing would have stopped Mike Kennedy from advancing the purchase of the Cherry Hill property to the whole city council; any council member can add anything to the council’s agenda, even if it’s not approved by the sub-committee. Secondly, Mr. Adams said he is still strongly against the removal of the Legion ball field from McEuen. Don’t know if that helps answer your concerns. I’m hoping his vote will be different when this decision comes before the council.
Comment by mary — February 14, 2012 @ 4:51 pm
Mr.Adams is correct about one thing, Mr.Kennedy could have moved this item forward with a recommendation to deny! Still, if he is strongly opposed to the removal of the Legion Ball field, why would he support, what everyone in this community understands, as a purchase of property for the purpose of placing a new Baseball field on the property in question? Did you notice, I did not say a new Legion Field. Second, the money used to make the purchase will be from the General Fund…..the city can use their accounting gimmicks all they want to re-pay the tax payers with monies from the Parks Capital improvement fund, but the purchase will be from the General Fund!
Comment by lexacon — February 14, 2012 @ 6:33 pm
I can’t answer all your questions, Lexiacon, Mr. Adams should be able to, however. I told him that there are many people who, in their personal lives, would like to buy up low-priced investment properties right now, but must decide not to because it might over-extend their limits if some other financial emergency arises. The city should follow the same common-sense principals. Just because they can raise our taxes does not mean they should raise out taxes. They should be as fiscally responsible as we are…no they should be MORE fiscally responsible, because it is not money that they earned; they have to get every dollar from us!
Comment by mary — February 14, 2012 @ 7:17 pm