The City seems ultra-sensitive about McEuen Field. They attacked me when I wrote about it two weeks ago, they attacked Steve Adams when he clarified he was my source and that his info came directly from the City’s Troy Tymeson. Then they attacked Steve for asking that his true words be used in the minutes of the meeting. And Mike Kennedy ridiculed Steve and claimed he was lying.
Why would they be so defensive? And WHY IS THERE STILL NO INFO ON THE CITY’S WEB SITE?
Could it be that the 2002 plan, shown on the left, taken from LCDC’s web site and listed as one of their top goals, is radically different than the 1999 Walker Macy plan that the city spent huge money to pay for?
The City estimates the cost at nearly $2 MILLION dollars to “upgrade” McEuen, as is listed on the Parks Dept. 2008 Master Plan.
DO YOU FEEL INCLUDED IN THIS?
It’s a case of financial rape. The public keeps saying,”No” but the council and LCDC continues the financial rape. We should have a penny toss – then donate the proceeds to the LCDC and make them roll them all. Seriously! They want every last cent, don’t they? LOL
Comment by Stebbijo — February 19, 2010 @ 4:57 pm
DO I FEEL INCLUDED IN THIS? Well, no. I can’t find my car and boat trailer. Where did I park it? Did my boat get hauled away for obstructing the dock while I was gone? Why do they have boat launches anyway in the middle of a park? Would they consider a trailer parking garage about where the memorial is honoring hydroplane days gone by? Geeze another city issue to weigh in on? It’s wearing me out! (Don’t they wish!)
Comment by Gary Ingram — February 19, 2010 @ 7:33 pm
Gary, I think your trailer is over by the side of City Hall. After you launch your boat, you just have to tie it up, taking one of the few spots along the dock, leave all your stuff in the boat and hope no one swipes anything, while you drive over to park your trailer next to city hall, then walk all the way across the park and get in your boat. Repeat the opposite direction when you get done boating. Don’t mind all the other boats that are trying to get in and out. They can just wait.
I think many people have opinions about McEuen Field and the Third Street boat launch.
Comment by mary — February 19, 2010 @ 8:03 pm
Gary and Mary, boat trailer parking is still envisioned near the launch, and has always be a part of the city’s master plan for McEuen. It can be incorporated into the larger lot above the launch.
It simply makes no sense to most people who commented on these plans that we take up prime waterfront space so a very few, mostly out-of-town boaters, can park at the current location. Indeed, most locals I know would much rather avoid the hassles and extra costs of parking there and utilize the excellent BLM facilities on Blackwell Island.
Meanwhile, the current boat parking lot next to the seawall can provide a cool place for the public to use, including the amphitheater nearby. It can also be the gateway to the wonderous Tubbs Hill.
I fully expect that as a plan for the Field progresses we’ll all have ample time to comment on it. It is much too valuable a place for anything less.
Comment by JohnA — February 20, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
JohnA, there are so many differing ideas, plans and concepts for McEuen floating out there, it’s hard for regular people to know what’s being seriously considered. When I was on P&Z there was much talk about boat trailer parking near City Hall, and it’s shown in the Walker Macy Plan.
I’m not advocating for trailer parking one place or another, I want the city to get the public involved NOW. You and I know that LCDC has McEuen Field listed as one of their TOP PRIORITIES for 2010, and Tony Berns told the city council, last week, that LCDC feels it needs to hurry to get this done because they only have 10 years left on the Lake District.
I am certain this is all being discussed and decided, RIGHT NOW, behind closed doors. Then it will be brought to the public in a nice package, all wrapped up with a pretty bow. There will be a few public meetings, with nice words and pictures, then the city council will approve the pre-ordained plan and all will be right with the world. Let’s get real. The public wants real input BEFORE the decisions are made!
Comment by mary — February 20, 2010 @ 1:11 pm
John, I see that they persist in keeping the amphitheater which is something I question as the city already has two performance venues – city bandshell and Riverstone plus the outdoor stage at North Idaho College. I question if the city is willing to dedicate ample funds necessary to provide entertainment on a continuous basis throughout the summer. I think a better solution for the Mc Euen site is to provide as much space without any structures. Temporary seating and electrical equipment could always be placed on site if necessary. Something the public does not always know: the Sherman Square summer concert series takes place on private property and is privately sponsored. Chris Guggemos spends hours and hours putting these wonderful concerts together.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 20, 2010 @ 4:08 pm
Mary, I’m sure the city will want this to be a very public process. McEuen Field remains a magical place for most residents and visitors alike. The city won’t keep the plans under wrap because it’s just too important to our legacy as a city.
Susie, I appreciate that there are other public venues for concerts, etc, but an amphitheater can be much more than just a staging area for music. Like the grassy knoll at Independence Point, an elevated area near the lake naturally draws people to it. Whether it’s maintained in grass or fashioned as a structure, I think a gathering place like that would help the city realize its main vision for McEuen, which is to provide the most amenities for the most people.
I look forward to the city’s process for developing and implementing that vision.
Comment by JohnA — February 23, 2010 @ 2:43 pm
Well, John – I think you sound like a fluffy mouthpeice for the city and the LCDC. I don’t want anymore amenities – in fact – I want my money back. That is my vision.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 23, 2010 @ 3:03 pm
What makes you so sure the city will be very public in this process, John? I’ve always believed that past behavior is the best predictor of future performance, as the old saying goes, so let’s look at the city’s past behavior:
1. Their decision to give $3 million extra to the Kroc Center (private church) was made without even a public meeting.
2. They promised that the new library would not cost the taxpayers one penny more than the original bond issue. Then they added more than $700,000 to the cost. And they promised to sell the old library to help pay for the new one, but then didn’t do it.
3. Their decision to lease the city-owned Harbor Center to the U of I for 99 years at TEN dollars per year, with an optional extension of 99 more years, was attempted without a vote of the people. The wastewater rate payers paid for that building with their extra fees after voting to approve a bond, but then the city wanted to basically give the building away.
4. The DeArmond Mill site was purchased by NIC, with the city pushing every step, for far too high a price, and without a public vote. There were NO clear plans and still are not. But the taxpayers are stuck paying Foregone taxes, year after year.
I could go on and on. The city has not behaved in a responsible manner. They are terrible communicators with the public.
And even now, John, with all the attention that has been on McEuen Field, there’s nothing on their web site.
So, again, why are you so sure?
Comment by mary — February 23, 2010 @ 3:16 pm
Steb: thanks for keeping the discussion civil, as usual.
Mary: I think you’ll see better communication in the future, not because of the naysayers out there but because McEuen is truly sacred ground to most residents. That’s also why the city has been in no rush to make changes there. The Mayor and Council know the importance of that place and will make every effort to get it right. Obviously, they can’t please everyone so there will be criticism no matter what happens there.
I’m just glad they are willing to take a look and see about making changes. Remember, it’s always easier to do nothing than to take the initiative to make improvements in one’s community. Let’s see what comes from the public process before we indict the result.
Comment by JohnA — February 24, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
John, your words are eloquent, but I fear you trust too much. Here’s the reality check: The LCDC lists the renovation of McEuen Field and First Street as on of their top priorities for THIS YEAR. They are anxious to get going because, as Tony Berns said, they only have 10 years left!
My guess is that LCDC and the city are planning all the details right now, behind closed doors, and then they’ll march out the plans for public comment and do what they want no matter what.
Comment by mary — February 24, 2010 @ 6:23 pm
“Naysayers” is a rude word. People are asking for transparency and accountability. They’re only saying “No” because the City and LCDC have demonstrated a track record of being untrustworthy.
The LCDC’s Berns mentions McEuen field but nowhere in the LCDC meeting minutes is it mentioned or even discussed. Not in public. Yet they do have plans. That’s being secretive and dishonest with the public. Maybe they need to hire another PR flack?
Comment by Dan — February 24, 2010 @ 9:59 pm
You are welcome, John. 😉
Comment by Stebbijo — February 25, 2010 @ 6:22 am
Dan, I meant ‘naysayers’ as I define it, someone who ‘says nay, or no’ before even considering the merits of a plan. There are some in the community who simply say ‘no’ when it comes to McEuen Field, unwilling to even consider that changes there might be beneficial to the community as a whole.
I am not referring to activists who enter a discussion with an open mind and engage in the process. Even if they then disagree with the plan, I respect their input because it began and ended with consideration of the project, and for those who proposed it.
Mary, I’m just urging you to wait to see what is proposed, not unlike when the Walker Macy Plan was developed, with input from many in the community. Personally, I’d hate to see the city engage yet another study on the issue. I would much rather see them put forth possible proposals for the space so the public can comment on them. That is a good and efficient government at work.
Comment by JohnA — February 25, 2010 @ 3:12 pm
John, well I guess I am a naysayer. Beneficially, I would say okay to a few picnic tables, but I think 2 million dollars right now, is a bit much to ask for anything right now, and we all know that this sum is just the initial start up cost and will cost us more down the road if the project goes. The public is pretty straight up in protecting McKeun field. However, what I am hearing is we really have no choice regarding it’s UNdevelopment, let’s just enter into a discussion as to how we are going to proceed with the process. Some of us are simply saying “NO” because we have already had enough crammed down our throats. Really, is that such a hard word to understand? I have lived in North Idaho for many years and CDA has really peaked, it’s losing it’s once rural atmosphere and turning into a money grubbing hell-hole. The old CDA is gone – it’s like IF YOU DON’T BUILD – they will stop coming. You know the old saying, “Enough is Enough?” It’s costing us way too much money to make a few’s “vision” come true. McEuen field reminds me of bare kitchen counter space that looks nice without a bunch of clutter – clean and crisp, but some people can’t stand that, so they muck it up with so much crap you can’t find the space to peel the potatoes. I believe the term is astheically pleasing. We don’t need a gateway to Tubbs Hill, we already have the moose. It’s nice the way it is – it doesn’t need anymore lipstick caked on it.
Mary is exactly right, “My guess is that LCDC and the city are planning all the details right now, behind closed doors, and then they’ll march out the plans for public comment and do what they want no matter what.”
Calling people liars and fabricating the city minutes is a bit much as well.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 25, 2010 @ 4:34 pm
I would hope that the city and LCDC would remember that we are currently living in economic uncertainty. Finances are a challenge for many in our community. With that in mind, the city and LCDC should refrain from suddenly realizing another development opportunity to pretty up Mc Euen field.
John, I think that a gentle sloping grassed site is preferable to a structured amphitheater.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 25, 2010 @ 6:04 pm
It seems that the architect of the library gave little or no thought to accoustics. Inasmuch as the accoustics in the building are ghastly, it would appear that the city was either unaware of possible accoustic issues or simply was disinterested. In view of this, what thought, if any, has been given to the issue of sound emanating from the amphitheater. Will the city hire an accoustical engineer to address the issue and suggest solutions?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 26, 2010 @ 12:32 pm
Of course they will hire an acoustical engineer, Susie. After they do the studies, pay the consultants, and build the thing
Comment by Dan — February 26, 2010 @ 2:17 pm
I wish I could see the plan in detail….can’t read it in detail to make a comment.
Comment by steve badraun — March 2, 2010 @ 6:09 am