Site of former McEuen tennis courts 1/29/10
Watch Out for McEuen Field!
They’re gone. The tennis courts at McEuen Field are completely gone. Did you know this? Neither did I. But I’ve been busy with family and post-holiday activities so when I heard about the tennis courts from an alert reader, my thought was that there must have been some public announcement and I just missed it.
So I went to the city’s web site and checked everywhere, even under “CITY LAUNCHES BLOG TO ENHANCE COMMUNICATION”. There was no info about the tennis courts. Then I thought maybe they announced it at a recent city council meeting. So I checked the last two months worth of meeting minutes, reading all the way through…no info on the tennis courts or McEuen field. So much for enhanced communication! Heck, they publicize when they’re going to do slash burning and cleanup on Tubb’s Hill, so people won’t get worried, but they take out the tennis courts without the same concern?
Another involved citizen told me he asked City Finance Director, Troy Tymeson, directly, about the tennis court removal. Troy responded that the city is going to build a PARKING GARAGE on that site. Troy said it will be a two-story structure and the plans have already been completed. Now that’s a surprise!
Maybe the Mayor and City Council don’t know about it yet, because the Mayor told Dan Gookin just last November that the city had “no plans” for McEuen Field. And city councilman Mike Kennedy told Susie Snedaker, a few months ago, when she asked about the old tennis courts, that he “knew nothing”.
So who does know about them, or is willing to admit it, other than Mr. Tymeson? LCDC, of course. McEuen Field is directly in the cross hairs of LCDC; it’s their #1 priority for this year.
I drove down to the park today, to get the lay of the land and take some photos. It occurred to me that Charlie Nipp’s half-block is right across from the existing parking lot next to McEuen. (You remember…it’s the property that Charlie and his business partner Steve Meyer bought WHILE Charlie was Chairman of LCDC, even though state law specifically prohibits buying any property within an urban renewal project if you are on the board. The Attorney General’s office even defines “project” as the whole urban renewal district. Charlie’s not chairman any more, that’s another story, but still he sits on the board.) So, Charlie and Steve’s big property is right across the street from the current parking lot. That’s NOT where the parking garage is planned, according to the City Finance Director. No, the parking garage is planned for the tennis court site, which is right across from Dennis Wheeler’s Coeur office building. It will infringe on his view, not Charlie and Steve’s.
And do we even need more parking in downtown CdA? Goodness sakes, the city has paid for several parking studies, which have all shown there is plenty of parking already. Just a couple months ago, the Mayor told a citizen worried about the possible removal of parking at Independence Point, that there’s no shortage of parking in downtown CdA. She said it’s only a perceived problem.
So why spend huge money to build a parking structure? They are very expensive. And who’s going to pay for it? Is this the best time to spend big public money, when unemployment is sky high and tax revenues are so low? And is the city even going to ASK US and include us in the process?
So, dear readers, this newsletter seems to have more questions than answers, which just goes to show the lack of communication from the city on the sensitive topic of McEuen Field. Let’s all keep a close eye on this situation and insist that we be included in the conversations.
Please note that there are some great comments on this topic of McEuen field in the post just below this one; they are well worth reading. I appreciate Steve Badraun’s comment, and am going to reprint it here, because he doesn’t join us too often but has a great deal of background on this subject. Steve served on the city’s Planning and Zoning Commission for a very long time—I’m guessing longer than anyone else—so he knows what went on. Here’s what he had to say:
Comment by mary — January 30, 2010 @ 11:01 am
Mary,
This quote is from the January 3, 2010, Coeur d’Alene Press article titled Officials look to the year ahead:
Tymesen’s words ought to be considered only if he is under sodium thiopental and wired to a polygraph.
And I thought the educational corridor concept was an NIC project, not a city project. Hmm. Guess I was wrong again.
Comment by Bill — January 30, 2010 @ 11:31 am
Mayor Bloem had been the main driver of the Ed. Corridor, though she pretends it’s the college. This is about COMMERCIAL development, not education. And, while I love and support education, the taxpayers should not be funding a business corridor.
That being said, how can we believe any of her promises about McEuen Field?
A Press article last April explains that the pledge has always been that none of the ball fields will be removed until equal or better fields are provided elsewhere. But the article states this: “Nevertheless, the city, and its urban renewal board say it might be now or never in regards to McEuen Field.”
LCDC thinks they’re running out of time (they have money), so they might push for action this year, no matter what. Watch closely!
Comment by mary — January 30, 2010 @ 12:08 pm
Well, I feel safer about McEuen because Mike Kennedy said that he would fight to protect McEuen when he ran for city council. I can’t imagine anything happening to McEuen field with Mike Kennedy in office, as he is a man of his word.
Comment by Dan — January 30, 2010 @ 12:15 pm
The CDA Press article:’McEuen on LCDC radar’, posted on Apr 10, 2009, states: For McEuen Field, it means dusting off a nearly decade-old conceptual design for a new, multi-use park. The new design was adopted by the city at the time, and would open up the field with more green space and an event plaza while losing the softball fields.
The mayor states:”We want to bring people to the water instead of parking cars near the water,” Mayor Sandi Bloem said on Friday.Bloem urged the board Thursday to put the plan back on the drawing board.
Finally, the article concludes with:
(foot traffic) has been a huge concern for the city — prime real estate a stone’s throw from downtown businesses not being fully utilized.
Comment by kageman — January 30, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
If it’s true that the city of CDA is going to build a two story parking structure, in place of the Rotary tennis courts, which were torn out. That says to me, that the city plans on tearing out the Tubbs Hill/Third Street parking lot to create more greenspace, just like the mayor stated, in my above comment#5. Dave Walker; who used to sit on the city council told me:’that the public would be better served, if the Tubbs Hill parking lot became a greenspace.The city would certainly, need more parking available for their proposed events center also; which would replace two soft ball fields,leaving the one hard ball baseball field.
As a native of CDA, I don’t want to see any major alterations happen at McEuen Field, beyond maintenance and upgrades. This is what could happen when the public keeps re-electing the incumbents who currently, sit on the CDA city council. These city council people are not friendly to McEuen Field; save for Ron Edinger IMO. The public needs to be able to voice their opinions and even vote on any proposed changes.
Comment by kageman — January 30, 2010 @ 1:29 pm
Kageman’s last sentence in the post above brings me back to the question I asked in an earlier post. “When and how was the decision made to demolish the tennis courts?” Now I would add a third element to the question. Why?
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 30, 2010 @ 1:58 pm
Dan,
Based on your comment in 4, I’d say that if you ever want to give up writing computer books, you could make a living writing either fiction or comedy.
Comment by Bill — January 30, 2010 @ 2:10 pm
Kage, There are few things in this town that rivets people’s attention like McEuen Field. It’s a “third rail” (an East Coast term based on subway rails–if you touch the third rail, you die). I am honestly amazed the city is taking action without public meetings and a lot of public input & communication. Trying to fly this under the radar will NOT work!
Comment by mary — January 30, 2010 @ 3:08 pm
Dan, your sarcasm is showing!
Comment by mary — January 30, 2010 @ 3:09 pm
Mary,
The City government is acting without public meetings and a lot of public input and communication because they have concluded, probably correctly, that the majority of people in Coeur d’Alene do not care about much of anything connected with local government. The City can operate under the radar long enough to make the decisions. Our City officials know that most of the people in this community lack the courage to stand up and fight against a dishonest City government even if and after they find out how badly mismanaged this City government is. Apathy and complacency spawn corruption.
Part of the problem, too, is that we have no aggressive news media which latch onto a good story and won’t let go. The stories are here — the journalistic integrity and political will to report them diligently and persistently are not. Both newspapers and the broadcast media are equally complicit.
Comment by Bill — January 30, 2010 @ 3:27 pm
OpenCda is agressive – the contributors have all proved the “story.” However, this blog and others are not ‘mainstream’ and Bill is right about the “will” to report the issues this blog is uncovering. It’s sad. These issues get swallowed up by gossip mongers and spin doctors form those ‘mainstream’ news sources.
I might as well say it. I don’t know how anyone will get anywhere as long as Betsy Russell is connected to the WASHINGTON Spokesman-Review. There is not an Idaho Spokesman-Review per se. With that said, I do like some of her coverage, but I do not approve of her political influence within our judicial system while she is connected to a paper that I believe influences her coverage. She is very careful these days.
The CDA Press is weak because they do not want to hurt tourism by publishing stories that are negative. We all know why. OpenCDA has pressed hard to bring some of the issues to the front pages of that paper or they would have been ignored.
I don’t know what to say other than to create the story and get the exposure and don’t quit. When mainstream media come to you – have your own cameras on them. I am sure there are folks that would donate their own skills. I had the privilege to take the Statehouse steps years ago – we got it all – flag, podium, michrophone – I saw on the news how mainstream media twisted the stories – but folks were coming out of the woodwork. They were crying. It was worth it and I told the truth.
Invite the city for responses – hold a press conferences – and send out press releases. Invite some of our local state representatives to appear. Take the Courthouse steps or the City Hall. Do it. You have nothing to lose.
Comment by Stebbijo — January 30, 2010 @ 5:40 pm
Stebbijo,
Thanks for your on-the-money analysis.
You are absolutely correct about having your own recording equipment running when being interviewed. Some of my training with the “G” involved interaction with the news media. One instructor, a news director from a major local television channel in southern California, gave us great advice and guidance, and “always have your own recorder running” was one of his most important rules. As a news director, he was often confronted by people who believed that what they said during the interview was not what had aired. The people who were most often proven correct were those who brought in their own recordings. He appreciated their diligence, because it enabled him to counsel his reporters and writers. Good reporters won’t blink an eye if you have your recorder running. Bad reporters will be uneasy.
Comment by Bill — January 30, 2010 @ 6:57 pm
A young man who grew up in CdA but now travels the world as a top level urban design expert, emailed me this comment:
“The city has completely lost it’s mind. Worst place imaginable to build a garage.”
Comment by mary — January 31, 2010 @ 10:24 am
Perhaps the city needs to open the plans up to public review and comment. We have many informed and talented people living in our community and /or interested in our town. Let’s tap into that pool of knowledge and experience! And don’t tell me the meetings held more than 10 years ago were enough. Times have changed.
Comment by mary — January 31, 2010 @ 10:28 am
City Hall can’t tap into that pool of knowledge, Mary. Those folks would have to be vetted first. They’d have to be told what to say and whom to kiss up to. They’d have to understand that their jobs and social life will be threatened if they dare disagree or express dissent. They’d have their lives eviscerated on the blogs and they’d be personally attacked by elected officials sitting in a public meeting. Only if they pass the test will they be allowed to sit in, listen, not ask questions, and nod their heads like the rest of them.
Damn! We do have a fine community here in Coeur d’Alene! Let’s hope that parking garage isn’t too butt-ugly.
Comment by Dan — January 31, 2010 @ 10:51 am
Someone just emailed me a copy of what the Mayor said this morning over on another blog. She said the city has no plans to replace the tennis courts with a parking structure. She called our information “a lie” and said we are just “making things up”.
Wow. Pretty strong words from the Mayor! I certainly hope she checked with her Finance Director before she said those things, because my source is incredibly reliable and truthful…and they reconfirmed it to me moments ago.
Remember Sandi, my source was told the information directly by Finance Director Troy Tymeson, in person.
Comment by mary — February 1, 2010 @ 4:15 pm
What an interesting comment from a mayor that can flat-line a polygraph.
Comment by Bill — February 1, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
Quick! Someone check the woodshed for signs of Tymeson!
Comment by Dan — February 1, 2010 @ 4:47 pm
So, has anyone besides “the source” asked Mr. Tymeson directly?
Comment by Gary Ingram — February 1, 2010 @ 6:49 pm
The mayor is supposed to address the parking structure issue, as it relates to McEuen Field or not, tomorrow night at the CDA city council meeting. It should be interesting. Maybe, someone should administer a polygraph test. 😉
Comment by kageman — February 1, 2010 @ 8:05 pm
I’m happy the Mayor will address the issue. I hope that the council doesn’t follow her addressing the issue with rude and inappropriate comments toward concerned citizens who ask legitimate questions of their government. Even so, I’ll be watching Channel 19 with the popcorn ready.
Comment by Dan — February 1, 2010 @ 8:41 pm
With all due respect the last time someone said they had a source it turned out to be a bit off. Something about getting fired over a beer. Needless to say I hope that the air will be cleared that there will be no parking device where the tennis courts used to be
Comment by Eric — February 1, 2010 @ 8:49 pm
I don’t appreciate being called a liar by the Mayor, but I am glad the city was jolted into action. This morning’s Press has a front page article titled, “CdA seeks McEuen Opinions”. What a great idea…ASK THE PUBLIC!
The article is here. There are quite a few comments so far.
Comment by mary — February 2, 2010 @ 8:25 am
Is that true that it could be leased to Hagadone and developed into a garden? For some reason that appeals to me. I was not raised here,so not knowing what it is essentially used for now,I know one thing – a parking garage is a NOT!
Comment by Stebbijo — February 2, 2010 @ 9:40 am
There will be no garden! I met with Mr. Hagadone before the election. He’d like to see something done to McEuen to make it more attractive and useful to the public. I’d just like to see them maintain the thing, stop paying for “studies,” and just make up their minds (e.g., show leadership) so that people don’t freak out every time McEuen field is mentioned.
Comment by Dan — February 2, 2010 @ 10:36 am
Well then, I don’t know what all the hoop-la is about. So, I agree to just “maintain” it and maybe buy some new picnic tables and possibly another one of those bunkers, but with toilets this time? Okay, I quit, I am being sarcastic. But, I do like red geraniums – they should plant more of them over there.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 2, 2010 @ 10:48 am
Mary, you report that your source says Mr. Tymeson said that plans are already drawn up for a two story parking garage. Now the Mayor says that is not so but according to this mornings Press, she seems to condition that rebuttal to you by saying that an underground level of parking could be worked into the design. Could be? And what does the comment by Parks Director Eastwood mean, that grass will be planted on the ex tennis courts, “in the meantime”?
Comment by Gary Ingram — February 2, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
Yeah! Gary is right – what is going on? Are they sneaking an underground parking lot in? Are plans really already drawn? Who paid for that – that must have been one of those “studies” Dan mentioned? Gad, I get sick of ‘city’ manipulation when there is a leak that the public wants clarified, because we were not supposed to find out anything at all.
Good work Mary! Spill the beans whenever you have the chance!
Comment by Stebbijo — February 2, 2010 @ 12:41 pm
Gary, you raise some very good questions. My source said that Tymenson described the planned parking garage, even stating the detail that there would be “a top floor viewing deck out over the park”. Did that just come out of Mr. Tymeson’s imagination?
It sounds like the city is dancing as fast as it can to make people believe there really are “no plans”. I’m not buying it.
Thanks, Stebbijo, I’ll continue to bring forward important topics that impact our community, so we can ALL get in on the discussion!
Comment by mary — February 2, 2010 @ 12:58 pm
Here’s another angle on this: The city is talking about removing the parking at Independence Point. They already reduced the parking requirement in downtown, so any new buildings don’t have to have as many parking spots. One example of this is the proposed high rise next to the Flamingo Motel. The Flamingo owner is upset about the glut of on-street parking the new building will cause because of the reduced regulations.
And we know the city wants to take away parking from the 3rd street lot. So, this will all CAUSE a shortage of parking, then they will cry out that they NEED to have a parking garage.
Remember, in my newsletter I reported: “Just a couple months ago, the Mayor told a citizen worried about the possible removal of parking at Independence Point, that there’s no shortage of parking in downtown CdA. She said it’s only a perceived problem.” By removing spaces and reducing requirements they will cause the shortage.
That’s my theory. Any thoughts?
Comment by mary — February 2, 2010 @ 1:05 pm
Well Mary – to dilberately create a shortage of parking spaces in order to create an event that favors certain people is very calculating and what some would say to others as a ‘conspiracy theory’ However, nothing surprizes me anymore. We have psychologists who calculate our every move – organizational psychologists.
I dunno, but I think it has something to do with first and second order cybernetics. The public is part of the second order and the government is first order – really it just gets so complicated because so many first order believers accept no responsibility in the outcome of anything and base their input from “observation” yet they are directly involved because of their participation which is second order cybernetics. They think they are ‘immune; per se and unbiased observers.
We should question the people who take our money and draft these ridiculous studies – I would start with the one that examined the members of OpenCDA as a non-threat to certain development. Get that one if you can afford it – however, I think there is some provision in the open records law that provides for the exemption of payment if you can prove it is in the best interest of the public. I dunno – just thoughts – cybernetics makes my head hurt and that is my theory. 🙂
Comment by Stebbijo — February 2, 2010 @ 2:37 pm
An at-grade parking facility on Front Avenue has been under discussion for many years, back to when I was Finance Director, and I also staffed the Parking Commission. At-grade meant it would not block the views from Front while also allowing some function to be utilized on top. A parking facility has also been discussed at the city lot north of the old federal building. It’s clear that options exist, and have existed, for many years. I think it’s great the city is now looking to exercize those options, and is soliciting public input into that process.
Please note downtown parking has generated about $150,000 a year since 1992, from the city’s contracts with Diamond Parking. I know this because I negotiated those contracts over nine years.
So, funding for parking is not so much the issue as where it should be located. Whether the old tennis courts is the place or not, it makes sense to look into all possibilities and to address them with the public. I applaud the city for taking that next step.
Comment by JohnA — February 2, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
John A – I think you are wrong.
So is it a done deal? Maybe some of do not want a parking lot and maybe funding is an “issue.” Maybe some of us do not want anymore development, or as some might call “us” now – ‘anti progress’ or “CAVER’s” was a real popular one a while ago.
Maybe we do not want any “possibilities” or “studies” that give us “options” we DO NOT WANT. Maybe we are tired of being taxed and taxed for parking lots, bunkers, and roller rinks. Get it? It appears to me that when the city and cohorts are up in arms about how some lands will be managed – they get all in a huff over it – people like you defend the great mayor and city for taking that next step – which is nothing short of robbery then ‘they'(the city) eventually just orchestrate the public input to go thier way to get what they want. It only becomes a public issue because someone like Mary or Susie call it to our attention. Then they (gossip blogs) try to make people like Mary a nutso case to create a smokescreen that deters any real limelight on the secretive antics of the city and their doings in order to discredit her.
Anything else is hand delivered to the gossip blog.
All of sudden – now – the city is protective of McKuen Field and area bloggers have the audacity to call her a “liar” in order to undermine her contribution of information to the general public.
Glad Diamond Parking worked out for you – I think I have a ticket out there somewhere, because I was ticketed during Christmas holidays at night when we couldn’t see/read the damn signs. No lighting.
It makes sense that since their is obvious outcry from the public about McEuen field that the city just leave it alone and should have announced it on their ENHANCED COMMUNICATION BLOG what was going on with the tennis courts, but they don’t – they keep ‘testing’ the public. And the city wonders why the public does not trust them. Didn’t work this time – thanks to Mary and Susie.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 2, 2010 @ 4:14 pm
Stebbijo: The parking revenue the city receives ($125,000 budgeted this year) comes from the Diamond Parking contract for the parking lots, not from ticket proceeds. Sorry you got a ticket but that money doesn’t flow to the city.
Next, residents are not being ‘taxed’ for parking, which is an enterprise fund of the city that must get by on its own revenue sources, as I described above, from people parking in city lots. If you don’t park for one to two hours, you don’t pay.
Finally, if you don’t want anything done at McEuen, make sure your voice is heard when those occasions arise. See, it is like voting. If you don’t vote, you don’t have the right to criticize the actions of those who were elected. Likewise, if you don’t comment on public finances(and most people do not) you don’t have the right to criticize the end product. So, I would encourage you to be vocal, as Mary, Bill and Dan are, when it comes to the city, if you want to then criticize the projects that will come from their discussions. I would only ask that you keep your comments both civil and accurate, so they’ll lend something viable and credible to the points at hand.
Comment by JohnA — February 2, 2010 @ 4:41 pm
First of all John – I guess I am a confused observer. Who is paying for any proposed “parking lot” that you mentioned? Is an “enterprise fund” akin to it is supported by taxpayer funds but not really because it was channeled into a fund operated and owned by a complicated set of books that are really not connected to the city but somehow is still “an enterprise fund of the city.”
I do vote – check the poll books. Another thing – if I didn’t vote – I do have the right to criticize the actions of those who are elected. That assumption is very wrong. I am still taxed whether I vote or not. Besides, my vote here in CDA is compromized anyway – not a wonder people don’t vote – the “elected” are too damn dumb to follow the law or keep poll books.
…and if not being present at a public hearing ‘negates’ my voice as you say that is akin to voting then I think you are sadly mistaken. With that said, if I don’t vote or show up at a pulic hearing or election – will the city not take my tax money?
Thanks for your big pointers on concerning my level of conduct in regards to being “civil and accurate” – god forbid I was “civil and accurate” and the city still did not view me as credible despite my attempts and I would suffer a finger lashing.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 2, 2010 @ 5:00 pm
John Austin said “The parking revenue the city receives ($125,000 budgeted this year) comes from the Diamond Parking contract for the parking lots, not from ticket proceeds. Sorry you got a ticket but that money doesn’t flow to the city.”
John, Your above comment is not correct. Diamond Parking makes their revenue by writing parking tickets and charging fees to park in the parking lot over the 2-hour limit. A portion of Diamond’s revenue does flow to the city. Diamond Parking would not survive without writing parking tickets.
Comment by LTR — February 2, 2010 @ 5:50 pm
Sorry about my runaway sentences – I was trying not to burn dinner.
At least I did not spell public as pubic.
I can see myself now at a public hearing.
“Mayor Bloem and Council members.
I am here to address the pubic controversy surrounding McEuen Field. It is obviously a hair raising concern.”
Yep, that is something that would happen to me – then John A and others would claim that I was not civil or accurate.
Okay, I am done – time to do dishes. 🙂
Comment by Stebbijo — February 2, 2010 @ 6:02 pm
John, I was both civil and accurate with my written comments at the last city budget hearing. Without contacting me, Wendy Gabriel and Susan Weathers submitted a signed letter to the newspapers claiming that false testimony was given by a citizen. I was that citizen. I did not give false testimony. My comments consisted of three sentences, one of which was a question. Neither Ms. Gabriel nor Ms. Weathers has yet to discuss their allegations with me nor have they apologized.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 2, 2010 @ 6:17 pm
I watched channel 19 – I saw and heard the fluttering voice of the Mayor and Adam’s candid public input – who revealed his information via Tymenson who was not there to take the heat – guess he (Adams) will be getting fired soon.
Not too happy about how they managed to push through the art (to be formally introduced to the public at “Art on the Green” because of “dedicated” funds) that can be spent no other way other than through art enhancement – that of course will also enhance the Riverstone – Goodlander and Nipp area – which McEvers failed to mention and Goodlander pushed through.
Then that Walker guy who acts like he is on a theatre stage is some pubic spectacle. He did it all years ago – just take his word for it – from the study he was engaged in and all the public input he/city solicited.
Mayor Bloem danced around her interpretation of public concern because she was caught and she was not woman enough to admit that she had made a mistake. But then – she is counting on her own private spin doctors to cover up her interpretations of pubic concerns/differences. She basically made it very clear that they are pushing everything through because of prior city plans (no change possible in other words) – never mind that everyone else is starving and we are studying food banks now. Someone needs to pierce a real silver spoon in her nose and keep it there for jewlery.
Disgusting. I want to throw tomatoes at my own TV.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 2, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
Stebby – the Mayor got caught in a lie?
I am shocked, shocked I tell you!
Comment by Pariah — February 2, 2010 @ 10:44 pm
Well, I am tired of fighting this big charade – I am into doing something more constructive, so I have decided to express my views in art. Please let me know if you have any suggestions. I have a peice of art over at my site right now.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 3, 2010 @ 8:57 am
I put in the wrong code. Sorry. Just click on Stebbijo.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 3, 2010 @ 8:58 am
Susie, I didn’t know about your comments before the Council. I’m sure you were civil as I’ve never known you to be otherwise. In any event, let’s please now focus on what’s best for McEuen Field and those of us who utilize its treasures, not the least of which is its gateway to the greater treasure of Tubbs Hill. We are extraordinarily fortunate to have these assets preserved for all to use. Very few cities have such a place set aside for the public. I’m glad people are still engaged in the future of that place.
Comment by JohnA — February 3, 2010 @ 11:40 am
JohnA,
Two very clear abuses by City officials are here on the table, the claim that Susie Snedaker is a LIAR and the claim that Mary Souza is a LIAR.
Both claims are verifiable FALSE. Government attacks citizens – plural, and you (who regularly defend and support the City) ignore such behavior and call for us to “focus on what’s best for McEuen Field”!
Pardon me for my outrage!
What is BEST for the PEOPLE is honest, open government. The attacks on Mary and Susie are thuggish, brutal efforts to silence citizens who want open, honest government.
Where is your outrage JohnA? Have you no shame? Can you not even weakly protest that such attacks are unwarranted?
Comment by Pariah — February 3, 2010 @ 7:26 pm
Are we talking about town of Coeur d’alene or Chicago?
Comment by citizen — February 3, 2010 @ 10:22 pm