Doug Eastwood
Do you plan on standing up and publicly voicing your opinion tomorrow at the McEuen Field meeting? Think again.
I emailed CdA Parks Director Doug Eastwood, asking him if there will be a time for public comments tomorrow. Here is his (very carefully worded) response:
“We will want to get comments from everyone in attendance. After the presentation everyone will have a questionnaire on the various elements of the park project and they will have the opportunity to meet with and/or discuss the elements with the design team during the open house. Anyone that has a question or a comment will be able to provide that to the design team so they can get an answer to them. All of the comments and questions will be posted on the web site soon after the meeting.”
This concerns me a bit too. I absolutely understand the desire to avoid a rant-in-the-microphone marathon of an evening, but there needs to be another, more formal, avenue for comments. There are a number of obvious issues with the Plan — pros and cons on each issue abound — but it will be difficult to address all of the issues in the format for tomorrow’s meeting. KEA, for example, will have fairly extensive comments, but there’s no clear method by which to deliver them, no person to deliver them to, and no clear deadline.
I tend to think that tomorrow’s meeting might have been better promoted as a presentation of the design and an open house with the designers. By offering up the possibility for public input, then not having a practicable way of doing it in any substantial way, the City will frustrate a lot of people unnecessarily.
On the substance of the proposal, for what it’s worth, I think there’s a lot to like, a lot that can be improved, and a lot to be concerned with. And I have a lot of questions.
I hope I’ll get questions answered tomorrow night. And I hope there’s an opportunity for meaningful and structured public involvement at some point. It’s on that last point that Team McEuen needs much more clarity.
Comment by Terry Harris — January 5, 2011 @ 5:29 pm
Thanks Mary ,but it sure sounds like a done deal to me. Guess I’m just skeptical.I think its just lip service.
Comment by Ancientemplar — January 5, 2011 @ 5:51 pm
Time is not of the essence with this proposed project. The mayor and council should set a number of dates for public hearings and should hold them in the library and be televised. The council could set rules for the length of comments ahead of time as they do upon occasion. Putting written comments on a website hardly suffices for the intent of comments delivered. Further, I am concerned that those comments will be editorialized by staff.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — January 5, 2011 @ 6:12 pm
This is a high tech Delphi move. Object. Clearly, calmly and before, during and after the staged event.
Comment by justinian — January 5, 2011 @ 7:55 pm
I find it odd that Mr. Harris was not on the Team McEuen. That would have been a no-brainer, as far as I’m concerned.
Comment by Dan — January 5, 2011 @ 7:56 pm
“All of the (edited) comments and (reworded) questions will be posted on the web site soon (as soon as we can get to it) after the meeting.”
Comment by Wallypog — January 6, 2011 @ 7:22 am
It doesn’t matter if they edit or reword the comments. The barometer is whether they listen to the comments. Based on past experience, I can tell you where to place your wagers.
Comment by Dan — January 6, 2011 @ 8:18 am
And anyone expected something different? This is a very carefully scripted step in the process of cramming this down the collective throats.
I have one very big question as does everyone else. Having paid a six figure sum for these “conceptual plans”, how much? As I stated yesterday, it is insulting to the collective mentality that “they” claim that costs were not included by the architects/engineers.
May I suggest that all who plan on attending ask one question, “how much”? And with that question, add any form of my comment above. To allow “them” to get away with a “cost unknown” is unacceptable.
At this point, there is only one question!!
Comment by rochereau — January 6, 2011 @ 8:52 am
Dan, thanks for the vote of confidence. But you’d be surprised at how many no-brainer things we’re not invited to. (And no-brainer things that we ARE invited to, now that I think about it…. )
FWIW, as I understand it, a second event on the 27th will have more of a traditional rant-into-a-microphone format. I will begin preparing my brilliant three minutes of tirade after I see what goes on tonight.
Comment by Terry Harris — January 6, 2011 @ 9:40 am
Estimated costs of operating the garage must be divulged to the public. The duration and costs associated with the lcdc issuance of bonds for the facility must also be divulged. By the way, Doug Eastwood reportedly said that no tax monies would be used for the project as it would be funded by grants, bonds and lcdc. I gather that Doug does not know that lcdc is funded by property taxes.
Maintenance costs for the proposed project should also be divulged.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — January 6, 2011 @ 10:01 am
Yes, there needs to be a whole lot of “divulging” going on tonight. Especially about the bonds. Those are debts.
Can the LCDC bond for the parking garage and thereby extend the legal life of the downtown urban renewal district?
And WHY all this massive spending now? Why McEuen & Tubbs, along with the Ed. Corridor, the new Fernan Park purchase that the city just passed last Tuesday, and don’t forget that the Kroc Center says they need a parking structure too but they are “researching” funding sources…Wanna bet the city / LCDC will come to the rescue? Maybe the LCDC will bond for that parking garage too.
WHY NOW? When unemployment is very high, the commercial property tax rates are skyrocketing and pushing many businesses into closure. WHY NOW? When the economy is tight and average people are watching every dime.
Comment by mary — January 6, 2011 @ 10:20 am
Rochereau says the big question tonight is HOW MUCH? I say there are two big questions:
1. HOW MUCH? What is the total cost and who will pay what amount? (please remember LCDC money IS taxpayer money)
2. WHY NOW? Why not wait until people have jobs again and the economy improves?
Any other key questions you can think of?
Comment by mary — January 6, 2011 @ 10:25 am
You are absolutely correct Mary. With the amount comes “who pays”. I can answer your second question. “Now” because “now” is when the stakeholders want it. Like little children stomping their collective feet, they want what they want immediately. And because the pathetic excuse for voters in this place continually re-elect the CC, they are assured of getting it. The economy could turn around 1000% and it wouldn’t cover the cost of just the garage, let alone the rest. That is without doubt the most moronic idea (cost wise) of all.
Gary wants a zoo. Gary if you are so fond of zoos, in lieu of the animal type, might I suggest you simply attend the CC meetings. I will be happy to provide the bananas and peanuts. 🙂
Comment by rochereau — January 6, 2011 @ 1:17 pm
I think we should be VERY VERY cautious with the city’s “What would you like to see?” and “What would you prefer?” It is their way of open ending and saying it is what we want.
Sorry, not trying to repeat but I do not know quite where this statement fits best.
Comment by concerned citizen — January 10, 2011 @ 7:21 pm