I had a three hour lunch with Christie Wood yesterday. She had expressed some dismay at some of my writings and asked me to meet with her, so I did. First we talked about our kids and our neighborhood, etc. because we live in the same area. We discussed the local school district levy defeat and positive changes that might be considered. We talked about City Hall, urban renewal, and local politics. Then we moved to the current hot topic of the Education Corridor.
We hashed over all aspects of the Ed. Corridor topic. After twelve different ways of discussing some details, like whether NIC’s forum was “open” (she said it was informative, I said it was controlled, vague and basically an awful example of open dialog) we let the subject rest. No progress could be made. But it was a respectful discussion and I have always thought that Christie is a nice person. My opinion remains the same, even after three hours of intense conversation. We just don’t see things the same way, but I hope some part of my concerns will remain in her mind as she considers the important upcoming decisions of the NIC Board.
The three major points of interest I took away from our meeting were these:
1. I asked a dozen different ways whether she would support an Advisory vote of the
people on the Education Corridor concept in the Fort Grounds location.
Her answer was always No. Her reasons were the usual, “we’re elected to make the tough decisions”, “we can’t risk it, this is too important”, etc.
2. I asked many times whether she would request a full, open-dialog public forum on the topic before any final vote is taken on the Mill property purchase.
Her answer was that they had their forum already. When I protested that it was not open, that people couldn’t ask their own questions and that questions were re-written and changed, she claimed to know nothing about it. She said they didn’t want a circus; they didn’t want anything to get out of control.
3. The biggest news item was this: Christie said the purchase of the mill site is a done deal. It is over. Complete.
I asked when this decision was made, and she said it was done when the Foregone taxes were taken into their budget at the last meeting. She said that was it.
So, I asked if they still have to take an actual vote on the purchase of the land? Oh yes, she admitted, but the deal is done.
So then I asked how the deal could be done when they don’t have the appraisal yet? Oh, she said, we have a very good idea of what the appraisal will say.
So then I asked how they can buy the land without the safety studies, traffic studies, financial impact and the overall plan? Oh, she said, we pretty much know what those will look like.
But you haven’t shared any of this information with the public, I said. Will you do that in an open forum before the final vote to purchase the land? No, she said, it’s a done deal. We’ll make the plan public later.
That was my lunch with Christie.
100 CIVIL posts. Congrats!
Comment by Pariah — June 7, 2008 @ 7:16 pm
(Wow, Dan and Bill, we hit 100!) The City is going to lease the Harbor Center Bldg (the old Osprey Restaurant) and the 7 acres it sits on, for 99 years, to the U of I. They are going to make that decision this month. That figures out to $1000. per month, less than most people pay for their home mortgage! And it’s a huge building on 7+ acres!
Home dumb are we taxpayers, anyway? On one hand the city gives away the Harbor Center and 7 acres for a thousand dollars a month, and on the other hand we’re asked to pay $588,200 per acre for 17 acres right next to the land we’ve all but given away!
My real question is how do you think the city will finagle the $1.3 of CITY money into the NIC purchase of the DeArmond Mill?
Comment by mary — June 7, 2008 @ 7:26 pm
Mary, that $1.3 million is slated to be used to purchase the Mill site, according to the Press. Mark Altman wrote in this very thread that NIC “had” the $10 million it needs to buy the Mill site. They intend to lease this land without any property valuation and the lease is for 99 year plus an option for another 99 years at the same rate. Potentially the lease could run 198 years at $1000.00 month for property worth far more than that right now. It is extremely poor management of city assets. Mark if this is how desperate NIC and the city is to raise money they DON’T have for this project then the project should be immediately shelved.
Comment by Wallypog — June 8, 2008 @ 8:28 am
But Wallypog, how will the CITY get the money into NIC ? They are different taxing entities. Will they just “donate” $1.3 million? I know they do it somehow, but the rationale will be slippery and interesting to watch.
And one more enormous issue: The Harbor Center was purchased by the ratepayers of CdA Wastewater through a Public Bond Issue that we all VOTED to approve back in the late 90’s.
Comment by mary — June 8, 2008 @ 10:08 am
Mary, After watching the Kroc money shell game I doubt if there isn’t anything that can’t get money from some source or another IF the Mayor deems it so.
Comment by Wallypog — June 8, 2008 @ 10:27 am
On a larger front, how will Mayor Bloem get all that extra money out of the Water Dept? Remember, we’re all paying higher rates for water, regardless of the cost. That amounts to millions of cash in the Water Dept. budget. Is there any way for all that cash to find its way into other “Risk It And Dream Big” projects?
By the way, we’re not “all” paying for higher water rates. Big developers got a 50% discount on their hook-up fees in the new rate schedule. That’s a boon for Marshall Chesrown when he develops the old Atlas Mill site — as well as money in the bank for whomever develops Northwest Blvd. along the Education Corridor.
Comment by Dan — June 8, 2008 @ 10:38 am
Hey Everybody,
I must have posted this under the wrong thread, so let me apologize and try again. When I commented on the 10mil I was merely passing along what I had read (I think in the Press, but maybe not). When I passed that along, I had just read that information two minutes earlier. I guess I should go back and try to find that again but I thought I was telling all of you something you would already know. Sorry for any confusion I caused.
Comment by Mark W Altman — June 8, 2008 @ 1:55 pm
TO:Bill & CC;
IMO- a transplant is a new arrival; one who has only been here a few years and a local is one who has been here awhile.
While,I don’t know how long either of you have been here,I don’t doubt
that you are independent thinkers who would want to hold our elected officials accountable for their actions and would want to fully study the issues, before you came to any conclusions on which way you would vote especially,on the mill site aquisition and Ed.Corridor.
I tend to believe that,a transplant
who recently moved here would be more likely to be FOR an Ed.Corridor
or any growth that would supposedly benefit the community.They see most of this growth around the CDA area as PROGRESS as most of them have come from the big cities,from other states and it seems they want what they had back home,integrated into our little community.I know people from San Diego,Seattle and have read posters comments from my CDA Press blogs.
When a new transplant moves to a new area,they want to believe the best in the local community and in the politicians,gov’t etc.They don’t want to believe they might have made a mistake in moving here.So,it wouldn’t surprise me that more transplants would be FOR something VS.being against something.
Comment by kageman — June 8, 2008 @ 2:01 pm
Again, Mark, I believe you’ve posted yet another solid affirmation of why this deal should be called into question. The facts are in doubt because public officials who know them are not acting responsibly in sharing that information. That’s an egregious breach of the public trust and undermines whatever ends justify their means.
Comment by Dan — June 8, 2008 @ 2:12 pm