Open Session, Wednesday

February 2, 2011

Open Session, Wednesday

Filed under: Open Session — mary @ 8:55 am

There’s a lot going on right now…what are your thoughts? Do you think most people want to change Tubbs Hill?

Comments (12)

12 Comments

All I hear and read points to concern about Tubbs Hill, boat launch, ball fields, and the parking garage. I see a considerable mix of people during each week and nobody’s is talking about wanting the fountains, wading pool, picnic tables, amphitheater and stages, bridge to the boardwalk, little fun parks or the grand plaza.

In just 15 minutes, while bowling Sunday night, I gathered 32 signatures on a petition to keep the launch and ball fields. People came to me to sign the petition when they heard I had one. Read the blogs, read the advertisers, read the letters, read the news reports of meetings. I don’t see much support for this makeover as proposed except at city hall.

Comment by Gary Ingram — February 2, 2011 @ 11:21 am
Pretty much everyone who I’ve seen supporting the overhaul of McEuen Field, such as letters to the editor or today’s My Turn column, are from people I identify as strong city insiders and those well-connected to the LCDC and City Hall. I don’t see any rallying cry from the people.

Last night a few of us went to the American Legion meeting to talk about the petition and what’s going on with McEuen. Once again I heard someone in the crowd talk about a recall election. People are unhappy.

Comment by Dan — February 2, 2011 @ 11:49 am
That’s a nice picture. And to think someone actually had a house built on the South side of Tubbs Hill 100 years ago, overlooking this spot.How lucky is that? Wasn’t it DC Corbins son who owned it? Had to boat around Tubbs, to get to town.

Anyway,Mayor Bloem,there have been two press polls asking the public if they want an advisory vote on the McEuen Park proposal.The CDA Press poll said, that 88% of the public wanted to vote on the proposal. At the S-R,HBO poll over 60% wanted a public vote on the direction of McEuen and the proposed changes to the field. Give us a vote and let the residents decide, because were the ones who will have to pay for it in the long run.

Comment by kageman — February 2, 2011 @ 5:17 pm
You are so right, Kage. I know the city is saying that people are in favor of their McEuen Plan. If that’s correct, why not put it to a public VOTE?

Comment by mary — February 2, 2011 @ 8:15 pm
Mary, refresh my memory please. What does the ballot say and who gets to vote? Thanks.

Comment by JohnA — February 2, 2011 @ 8:59 pm
Charles Lutwidge Dodgson did not live in vain. His legacy is clearly at work in the Lake City as those with “vision” channel his word usage. When will we hear from the Red Queen or the Mad hatter?

There is a place. Like no place on Earth. A land full of wonder, mystery, and danger! Some say to survive it: You need to be as mad as a hatter.

Comment by justinian — February 3, 2011 @ 6:33 am
John, one of the things I’m having trouble with is the time factor. One year ago, and I remember the incident, Bloem stated unequivocably that there were no plans for McEuen. Yet you say (and I believe you over anything the mayor says) that this has been in the works for 15 years. So, why did the mayor deny, deny, deny? As for a vote, unfortunately the CDA residents would be the only voters. This is somewhat unfair as the lake belongs to everyone and the park is utilized by the entire area. But there has to be a line somewherre I guess. The vote should be yea or nay on the current plan. And while I see a certain logic in your cost explanation, it is simply unfair to expect anyone to approve this expenditure without some cost information. Finally, I do not believe that urban renewal was ever meant to be used in this way. Of course to me, urban renewal is a scourge to the tax payer. Takes from the poor and gives to the rich….who get richer.

Comment by rochereau — February 3, 2011 @ 9:18 am
The Stephen Hawking Wheelchair trail of course

Comment by WannaBe JD — February 3, 2011 @ 12:14 pm
Rochereau: A year ago the city had no firm plans for McEuen, any more than we did 13 years ago when I helped to write the original urban renewal plan. The Mayor was correct a year ago when she stated that because Team McEuen had not completed their work yet.

Dan stated on the other blog that the 1997 plan was vague, and of course it was. There’s no way an urban renewal agency would have the financial means to develop a detailed cost plan, BEFORE a district was created and a source of revenue identified to repay that detailed cost plan. So, URD plans tend to be vague until revenues are determined. Then, and only then, can a real ‘plan’ be presented. That’s where the Mayor and Council are, at a place and time to present the first real plan for McEuen – one that dreams big maybe but has the resources to fund those dreams.

Comment by JohnA — February 3, 2011 @ 3:52 pm
Just checked my calendar and we’re only nine months out from the local council elections. Can you believe a quarter of a year has gone by since the GOP won big nationally? Has anyone heard anything re: folks stepping up to challenge the incumbents at City Hall? (Dan? I know in the past you’ve denied you’ll run again, but your comments the other day at HBO seemed awfully curious if you aren’t.)

On an unrelated note, I wonder if Mary still thinks I’m secretly Dave Oliveria.

Comment by KootenaiConservative — February 3, 2011 @ 10:08 pm
Again, thank you John. I appreciate your answers. I do think it is a bit Bill Clintion parsing words when “firm” is the deciding word. I understand that this is the umbrella under which the mayor is sheltering. Actually, exactly why trust is lacking is this playing on words. Had I been the mayor, I would have said exactly what you just said. “Current plans in the works are conceptual not firm”. Her answer was clearly to obscure the subject. And there is no excuse for calling Mary a liar. One can’t help being wary of the mayor and her shadows when she so clearly skirts the issue.

I hope you continue to post here John. It is imperative that all sides of the subect(s) are heard. Under another heading SteveW posted the need for civility in discussions. I heartily agree and someone should pass that suggestion on to the CC. They are often less than civil, actually downright rude, to the commenting public.

Comment by rochereau — February 4, 2011 @ 9:07 am
John, Your comment about the mayor having the resources to finance her grand plan does not include the cost to the overburdened taxpayer to maintain this cluttered plan.

Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 7, 2011 @ 8:37 am

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.