Mary Souza’s Newsletter
I am so stunned I hardly have words to start this newsletter. The front page of yesterday’s Press featured Ron Ouren’s big smiling face as he was holding up detailed, professionally designed renderings of a baseball facility at Cherry Hill. My jaw dropped.
It takes serious planning to produce professional layouts complete with locker rooms, a baseball museum and a Hall of Fame. I’m guessing these were months in the making, if not longer. And who made the plans?…Team McEuen!
So why was there not one word about these plans at last week’s city council meeting? CdA Parks Director Doug Eastwood requested the council’s approval to buy the Cherry Hill land but he never mentioned these plans by Team McEuen, even when he was grilled by council members Ron Edinger and Dan Gookin about the future use of the property. Doug told the council, and the public, the land might be a park or it might be a baseball field, it was uncertain.
Yet a mere one week later we see professional plans on the front page? I feel deceived once again by our highly paid Parks Director ($100,000 per year+ golden benefits. Photo above).
The Press started their feature article by calling this field the “proposed American Legion baseball stadium”. Yet, later in the article, it said that “American Legion Baseball board vice president Phil Robbins said this week the board is holding off commenting on the proposed complex until they have studied the plan”.
They haven’t seen the plan? If this is the “American Legion Stadium”, were they not involved in the process? Has the semi pro team, the RiverHawks, been part of the planning?…the Press article says the RiverHawks could not be reached for comment. That’s convenient.
And how can this be called “equal or better” compared to the Legion’s historic home field on McEuen, when they have to come up with $3 million dollars to build their own replacement?
My opinion? That the big baseball guys in town, like Ron Ouren, Harry Amend, Doug Eastwood and others, have wanted a semi pro team here for years. They had dreams of such a stadium going into the pit off of Ramsey Road, but then the Kroc Center came along and took that spot. Then they talked about something in Riverstone West, but it didn’t pan out. So now they are drooling over this Cherry Hill location.
(Were the Cherry Hill plans by Team McEuen paid for with LCDC dollars?…I hope not because Cherry Hill is not in the LCDC’s district.)
So now, after concerned comments about protecting American Legion baseball were made by Dan Gookin and Ron Edinger at last week’s city council meeting, the baseball big boys are making this all about the Legion, but the Legion apparently hasn’t even seen the plans!
I’m tired of the shell game. Mayor Sandi Bloem should not have broken the tie vote on the city council last week to approve the purchase of the Cherry Hill property that the city cannot afford right now. And these baseball big boys should not be shoving this semi pro plan on the public like it’s Christmas morning. This is not a gift! Half a million for the land and another $3 million for the baseball field—right now when the city is spending $17 million for the first part of McEuen’s glorious renovation and has a possible $4 million dollar legal settlement pending plus a Storm Water system that has no current funding source.
(Yes there’s a professional fundraiser who hopes to garner private donations for the baseball field, but our local economy is barely hanging on…it’s not the same as when he was soliciting donations for the Kroc Center and, even then, in the flush of good times, they couldn’t raise enough money. The Press article said they’d try to get MOST of the money from donations…those are dangerously untrustworthy words.)
This is all insultingly disrespectful to the public. Mayor Bloem and council members Kennedy, Goodlander and McEvers, voted recently to DENY a Public Advisory Vote on McEuen, even after the overwhelming November elections gave citizens two new voices on the council, but not a voting majority. The Mayor pledged to “compromise” on the plans, but there’s been no news of any compromise; no meetings; no alteration of the timeline. It’s full speed ahead: Cram it, ram it, slam it…but do it with a big smiling face on the front page. Maybe no one will notice that they’re being had.
**************
Mary Souza is a 24 year resident of CdA, local small business owner and former P&Z Commissioner. Her opinions are her own. To sign up for the free weekly newsletter, or access a free archive of past columns, visit www.marysouzacda.com Comments can be sent to marysouzacda@gmail.com. Please visit the local issues web site www.OpenCdA.com for more discussion.
Parks Director Doug Eastwood, apparently with the blessing of Bloem, Kennedy, McEvers, and Goodlander, continues to engage in deception by omission. (See Planned Deterioration?) With their approval,factual information needed for council members Edinger, Adams, and Gookin to perform their official duties diligently is apparently being withheld from them. That is not just deceiving the public by omission. It could be making it impossible for Councilmen Edinger, Adams, and Gookin to fulfill their duty of honest services to the citizens who elected them, thereby depriving those who voted for them of their effective representation.
Comment by Bill — March 1, 2012 @ 5:17 pm
How much did they pay? Where (what “account” or “fund”) will the money come from?
Comment by Pariah — March 1, 2012 @ 5:19 pm
The selling price for the property was $440,000. There is not enough money in the Parks acquisition account to buy it outright. That said, the city still wanted to push ahead. They conjured up two choices, 1.) They could pay for the land by taking some money from the Parks fund and “borrow” the rest from the city’s General Fund, or 2.) They could make a downpayment and then make yearly payments for 5 years. They chose option 2, even though during the city council meeting, it was made clear by Councilman Steve Adams and Dan Gookin, that the Idaho Constitution clearly says a city cannot go into debt past their one year budget. Woody hemmed and hawed and decided it was “ok” because it’s a good price on the land. The vote was 3 to 3 with the Mayor breaking the tie.
And there you have it. Responsible use of taxpayer money? I think not.
Comment by mary — March 1, 2012 @ 5:30 pm
Who paid for the plans? How much would the plans cost if fully implemented?
Comment by Pariah — March 1, 2012 @ 5:52 pm
WOW! If Gookin and Adams are worth their salt they will call the respective parties to account for this action and use their offices to dig into the issues and get to the bottom of these shenanigans. They owe it to their constituents. We the taxpayers DEMAND to know the details of these schemes. IF THEY DON”T THEN THEY ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE QUEEN AND HER COURT. I implore them to use all the tools available to their positions to unravel a scheme that appears on the surface to be something less than “transparent.” THE WHOLE STORY needs to be told. This is unconscionable if the implications on this blog are in fact accurate.
Lets go Dan MAN UP and do the job you were elected to do. The public demands to know the truth. Let the chips lie where they may.
If there were circumspect actions on behalf of the employees of Cd’A, then you as a councilman should insist upon their resignation.
Comment by Ancientemplar — March 1, 2012 @ 7:31 pm
“Lets go Dan MAN UP and do the job you were elected to do.”
How amazing. Someone on this blog actually calling out one of its own. It didn’t take long did it, Dan, to go from blog host to ‘what have you done for me lately’?.
Meanwhile, Pariah’s crack research indicates it will take several thousand signatures to get a recall going. All of that so the issue can be on the ballot in November, the next available date. By then the McEuen Phase I project will be out for bid, the contracts let and the dirt moving on the project. So, if the goal of the recall is to change all things McEuen, as noted in the letter to the editor, what exactly would have been accomplished at that point?
Comment by John Austin — March 1, 2012 @ 8:54 pm
They did call the respective parties into account for the vote on the Cherry Hill property, Ancient. Did you read that the vote was a 3-3 tie and the Mayor broke it by approving the purchase? Those voting No were Dan Gookin, Steve Adams and Ron Edinger. They asked many questions during the pubic meeting and brought out the funding improprieties the city wanted to keep hidden. But, in the end, the Yes votes of Kennedy, Goodlander and McEvers, along with Mayor Bloem’s tie breaker, carried the day.
Comment by mary — March 1, 2012 @ 10:01 pm
John I haven’t turned on Dan in spite of what you read. Dan has done what he campaigned on. He has my support. But it just doesn’t end with a council vote, Mary. There is the appearance of impropriety within the ranks of the city employees/council GOBs and collusion with the LCDC on this Cherry Hill matter. As a councilman Dan is in position the get into the grimy details of the timeline and decisions regarding it.
Comment by Ancientemplar — March 2, 2012 @ 7:08 am
Perhaps Dan and Steve should take their perspectives on this case public. One option to do that would be through Patrick and the CdA Press. I believe they can write and submit a column in their official capacities as city council-folks. Another would be the on-air media. Maybe Edinger would like to join them. They may not have the majority of votes to prevail in the official process but they can shed as much light on the controversy as possible through other avenues. Then we could see how much mass that descending snowball might attain.
Comment by Wallypog — March 2, 2012 @ 7:30 am
John, Are you being SPECIAL today?
Comment by LTR — March 2, 2012 @ 7:39 am
I can say, well at least before I go and grab another beer, that I disagree with John A. on pretty much everything. I do however read his posts because I have been wrong once, maybe twice, before. I question the continued personal attacks he receives here. I suggest letting, and encouraging, him have his say. If someone, well pretty much every regular poster here, disagrees I suggest that they respond with facts and reason. Personal attacks leveled at persons, especially those who choose to post under their actual names, are non-starters in most discussions. Indeed I admit to having slipped in that regard a few times but usually after a beer clearer thinking prevails. So, how about them Yankees!?
Comment by Joe Six-Pack — March 2, 2012 @ 8:04 am
I like a cold beer myself, Joe, just not quite this early in the morning. 🙂
I agree that I would like to see a civil and forthright discussion on this site as it affords an alternate forum for those against the city’s plans on McEuen, as well as most things LCDC. There is nothing wrong with dissent; it is the cornerstone of our democracy. However, we have evolved as a society that not only welcomes dissent but treats it with the same respect upon which it is presented.
I always try to respectfully present my views on issues here and support them with fact. Of course I’m not always right. I was clearly wrong on the city’s liability limits as the Dixon case was heard in federal court and I freely admit to that mistake.
I also know when my facts will stand up and welcome respectful challenges to those facts. I am like anyone else who when treated disrespectfully can be expected to retaliate in kind. I hope we’re past that here.
Comment by John Austin — March 2, 2012 @ 10:02 am
Then, John, where is the “compromise” the Mayor pledged when she voted DOWN a public advisory vote last January? She said, “we all have to compromise”. There’s been no effort by the city to schedule public meetings for compromises; no changes based on public input; no slowing of the pace of this massive change. No, it’s been quite the opposite: They’re pushing their agenda as fast as they can.
If the Mayor’s lips are moving, she’s saying the opposite of what will really happen.
Comment by mary — March 2, 2012 @ 10:52 am