Last night was energizing. There were about 50 people who brought their own signs that asked for a public VOTE. Thank You! There were also lots of Boat people to defend the 3rd Street Boat Launch, and the Baseball folks and Tubb’s Hill supporters were well-represented too. Probably about 250 people in all.
And our officials? Many of us with signs were standing inside the entryway before the meeting. We were talking and greeting people as they walked through. We had extra signs to offer folks if they wanted them, which many did. Councilman Woody McEvers walked in and talked with several people on his way. Councilman Ron Edinger came through, smiled, greeted some folks but didn’t linger. When the Mayor and her entourage arrived, they seemed startled to see people with signs. The Mayor kept her head down and walked through without stopping.
(On a side note, I have wondered why the Mayor has not opened either of the McEuen meetings, so far, with some welcoming remarks, as most leaders of a community would do. She has not said a word.)
Last night’s presentation of the McEuen plan was very different than the first, in my opinion. It was dialed way down. The team was not as enthusiastic in their descriptions; they changed their verbiage and toned down the glitzy representations. I also noticed that Doug Eastwood added a large number of historic photos to his intro, and extended out his monotonous explanation of the plan’s process. It was almost as if he wanted the actual plan to comprise less of the show.
The meeting was orderly. Many of us sat holding our signs during the whole meeting. Near the beginning, when Doug Eastwood carefully announced that next Thursday’s meeting would be to “review the results of the questionnaires”, I became worried. They have always promised that they would allow PUBLIC QUESTIONS at the next meeting, not a “review of the questionnaires”. So, I piped up and asked, “But Doug, will you allow public questions?”, to which he somewhat snidely answered, “Yes, there will be a time for you to ask questions”. But I’ve got to tell you that I’m concerned they’re going to say the questions will have to be after the meeting, one-on-one with the Team McEuen members, just like they did last night. Or maybe they’ll allow questions for about ten minutes?
I hope they are not afraid of public questions. We are their neighbors, friends and co-workers. We have questions and expect to have plenty of time to ask them in a respectful public manner. so everyone can hear.
There were two times last night when members of the public tried to ask questions (other than mine). One man called out from the back to ask about the strong current in the river at the site of the proposed replacement boat ramp. Doug cut him off quickly and said he could ask his question to Team McEuen people after the presentation. Then, at the very end of the program, a woman stood up to ask about the COSTS of the proposal. The architect cut her off right away and said “Thank you all for coming…” It was rude and awkward. It was so obviously rude that Doug Eastwood took the microphone and tried to smooth it over by saying that they’ve heard the question about cost before (do you think?) but, he said, it would be AFTER the plan is approved that they will start looking possible funding mechanisms. (Isn’t that the cart before the horse?)
People were not happy. I heard one man say, “they must be smoking crack!”
Here’s a clue for our public officials: People are frustrated because you are cutting us out of the deal; you are slamming this thing down our throats and not giving us cost information or a chance to ask real questions or to have a VOTE. It’s not good.
Councilman Mike Kennedy was there but was standing on the sidelines, tucked behind large posters on the side. (There was seating available) On my way out of the meeting room, I saw Mike standing with John Bruning. Two city councilmen. Two possible people to support a public VOTE. So I stopped and asked them if they would be in favor of a public VOTE. Mike looked right at me like he couldn’t believe I was speaking to him. He turned, scuttled away and talked to someone else. John Bruning couldn’t. He was stuck. John and I sat on the P&Z Commission together for six years. He told me, “It’s too complicated to go to a vote”, and then he said, several times, “that’s why we were elected”.
It’s not too complicated, John. That’s a tired excuse. Here’s my idea on how the VOTE could work: The committee continues to gather information and they allow real questions from the public. Then they hone down the plan, based on the public input, they come up with a cost-benefit analysis, they line up funding, create a time line and then they present the whole package to the city council. The council deliberates and makes any changes, then they endorse the final plan. They send the endorsed plan to be included on the November ballot of the city’s election, and the voters of CdA make the final decision.
This method allows the committee to do its work and it puts the onus on the council to endorse a realistic, affordable version of the plan that a majority of the voters will approve.
It’s up to us, people. Whether you live in CdA or in the county, your physical presence at these meetings and your feedback to the committee and the council make a big impact.
Please let me share with you, quickly, some of the many times in the history of Tubb’s Hill and McEuen Field that the public has risen up and made a difference for these parks:
–In 1958 they tried to put a shopping center on McEuen. The public got organized and successfully fought against it.
–In 1962, the mayor and a couple of his cronies pushed through approval of a convention center right on the top of Tubb’s Hill. Several months later the mayor and the whole council were voted out of office by the public!
–In 1974, a German developer wanted to put condos on Tubbs. The public rose up, got money together and bought out the project.
–In 2004, the Hagadone Gardens proposal caused our very own Mayor Bloem to insist on a public VOTE, because, even though it would involve no public money, traffic would be rerouted and the project would change the look of downtown. That project was canceled.
Now it’s our turn, people! This plan will reroute traffic, change the look of downtown and cost many Millions of public dollars. You might love the plan or hate the plan, or something in between, but we can all raise our voices, and our signs, to say that we deserve a public VOTE on the final version.
Only YOU can make the difference. You have more power than you realize. Your presence at next Thursday’s meeting, Feb. 10th, 6:00pm at Woodland Middle School is critical. Bring a sign, if you wish, and come to stand up for your right to VOTE. It feels good to be involved.
History is waiting to see what you do.
********************
Mary Souza is a 23 year resident of CdA, local small business owner and former P&Z Commissioner. Her opinions are her own. To sign up for the free weekly newsletter, or access a free archive of past columns, visit www.marysouzacda.com Comments can be sent to marysouzacda@gmail.com. Please visit the local issues web site www.OpenCdA.com for more discussion.
Mary, I understand that the process stinks. It always has. This is another re-run. We should get a vote but we probably won’t and then what? “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” If someone is thinking about a recall – they should be heading it up now, because they will be very upset that they didn’t after all of this goes through. The people need a target so they have an outlet for their wrath. The most civilized way to do that would be using that political process. I will be signing the petition on McKuen and I would also sign a recall petition. It’s hard to believe Bloem won in the first place, I didn’t vote for her.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 7, 2011 @ 12:35 pm
Mary, your point of word smithing is spot on. The three cases in point in John’s comment # 44 are the furthest from the discussion about McEuen. This is public property and the city doesn’t have to protect it from any developer. The city by its self is going to do what it will regardless of the public’s input. Delay, delay, delay, deny, deny, deny. In this case the focus is being drawn the to magician’s right hand when the activity is in it’s left hand.
Comment by Ancientemplar — February 7, 2011 @ 1:25 pm
Dan and CC, just a point of history. My memory is that the city refused to take possession of the pond, even though Stone was pushing hard. He didn’t want the upkeep cost or the liability. Doug Eastwood told me, at that time, that the city’s liability on natural bodies of water is very different than on man-made. But the city did take ownership of the park around the pond, (just not the pond itself or the liner, pumps, etc.) and John Stone got a gigantic tax write off from the IRS.
Comment by mary — February 7, 2011 @ 2:39 pm
If we don’t demand a decent, ethical process we are lost. Our values have eroded and we’re watching our rights dwindle away. Our right to VOTE on this is worth a big, fat fight!
(Note for all the uber-PC folks: I am not espousing violence)
Comment by mary — February 7, 2011 @ 2:43 pm
What Mary, you don’t have a map of the city with cross-hair targets on it?
🙂
Comment by concerned citizen — February 7, 2011 @ 3:33 pm
Mary, you say this process is ‘unethical’. I’m curious what you feel has been unethical. Do you believe that a failure to vote on a public project that does not involve a tax against residents is unethical? Or because the Mayor’s family has owned a building downtown for decades that improvements in the neighborhood are unethical? I think it is important when you make a statement to that effect that you explain the charge.
Comment by JohnA — February 7, 2011 @ 3:41 pm
Oh come on JohnA, and you’re a member of “THE FAMILY” so you will see nothing wrong. Tell me how high profile people in CdA that commit crimes never hits the local paper? There is SO much unethical krap going on in CdA.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 7, 2011 @ 3:50 pm
Yes, John, I do say this process is unethical. I think you’re finally starting to understand. As I’ve written over and over again, Mayor Sandi Bloem insisted on a public VOTE back in 2004 for the Hagadone Gardens project even though it would cost no public money. She was right. As she stated then, it would reroute traffic and change the look of downtown forever. The public needed to vote on this important decision, she said.
The new McEuen plan reroutes traffic and will change the look of downtown forever. It will also cost MILLIONS of dollars of the public’s money. You say it won’t raise taxes? How do you know, John, since the city firmly states they don’t know how much the project will cost?
Comment by mary — February 7, 2011 @ 4:07 pm
I was watching a program I had previously recorded and at the end was a promo for the 11:00
spokane news. The picture showed a shot of the ME meeting in CDA and the voice over said something like plans presented “but nobody knows how to pay for it.”. The tone of voice was perfect. It might as well have said none of these idiots know or care how to pay. Did anybody happen to see the news story that night? The promo certainly gave the impression of “are you serious”.
Comment by rochereau — February 7, 2011 @ 4:35 pm
Mary, the Hagadone Gardens project involved a ‘taking’ of public land. The vacation of Sherman would have had the same effect as the previous vacation of First Street south of Sherman to the lake, in that Hagadone would have had gained ownership. I don’t think a Council should make a decision involving that level of giving away property without a vote of the people who own it.
That’s entirely different from the plans at McEuen, where I’ve seen no plans to vacate the streets and give ownership to anyone. Sure, the plan calls for the streets to will be closed to vehicles but the corridors will be maintained as right-of-way, so the streets could be re-established someday if a future Council wanted. To compare one to the other is apples to oranges in my view.
CC says I’m ‘a member of “THE FAMILY.’ How so, CC? I haven’t worked for either the city or LCDC for 11 years, or lived in the city for 10, and I’m not part of Team McEuen. I am a county resident who has a view on this issue, albeit a contrary one to others on this site, but it is my personal and not professional view. Please note the distinction as it is very important.
Comment by JohnA — February 7, 2011 @ 4:52 pm
JohnA,
All I am saying is people that make their living via the government do not want to lose their livelihood no matter if their job is obsolete or an unnecessary cost to taxpayers. Once a bureaucrat always a bureaucrat.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 7, 2011 @ 5:12 pm
CC, John has recently retired from his job at Panhandle Area Council. But he is certainly in the mindset of the public officials here in CdA. In fact, I’ve noticed John often uses the pronoun “we” when explaining how the city views certain issues.
Comment by mary — February 7, 2011 @ 5:16 pm
John, again you are splitting hairs. The Hagadone project is similar in impact, tone and day-to-day functionality.
Why do you oppose a public VOTE, John? Team McEuen touts a high percentage of approval from their questionnaires. If you believe the questionnaires are accurate, why not go forward with a public VOTE?
Comment by mary — February 7, 2011 @ 5:19 pm
Mary, I’ve stated this before: The time for a vote, if you insist on one, was earlier, when the first plans for McEuen surfaced. Other than the boat launch and location of the parking garage, very little is different in this plan that the earlier ones (see Walker Macy).
Meanwhile, By going to a vote now, the city loses at least a year in financing the improvements, and the likelihood that bond rates will rise. These factors as you know increase finance costs and the city’s chances of fully funding the plan in the next ten years. The City also loses the prospect of a large number of contractors willing to bid on the projects, and the low cost of materials. The fact is there has never been a better time to borrow funds and bid out construction contracts.
In summary, if this plan hadn’t been around for so long I may have a different view. Or, certainly, if taxpayers were impacted by the financing I’d be the first to demand a vote.
Comment by JohnA — February 7, 2011 @ 5:33 pm
John, you make my head spin. When “should” we have had a vote? The mayor goes on and on, claiming there has been NO SET PLAN for McEuen, until now, and yet you, John, claim “The time for a vote, if you insist on one, was earlier, when the first plans for McEuen surfaced.”
Help! Am I in the Twilight Zone?
Comment by mary — February 7, 2011 @ 5:43 pm
Jonh, everything in your arguments shows that you would favor a dictatorship as our form of local government. I’m sure as long as you’re friends with the dictators, and as long as they keep you employed, you’ll favor such a disposition. But I am sorely disappointed.
Comment by Dan — February 7, 2011 @ 5:54 pm
So he HAS made his living via the bureaucratic process which is why most in government support bureaucratic waste without regard to the taxpayer.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 7, 2011 @ 6:19 pm
Plan, no plan UGH! One does NOT buy a shiny new car when their HOUSE is falling in and you do not have a JOB JohnA.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 7, 2011 @ 6:23 pm
I just stated that I’m not employed for the ‘dictators’ as you call them, Dan, and haven’t been for 11 years. How can you state that my employment has anything to do with my opinion on this issue. Indeed, are you disappointed in everyone who agrees with me, and not you?
I am the disappointed one.
Comment by JohnA — February 7, 2011 @ 6:27 pm
John, I’m waiting for you to explain why you oppose a public vote…
Comment by mary — February 7, 2011 @ 6:31 pm
Alice in Wonderland language. Bizarre beyond description.
The people be damned, it is all about the bonds, gotta sell them bonds. Who will the underwriter be John? A firm with Inside Connections?
Time to get the vote scheduled, the recall vote that is. In another, less gentle day, the tar and feathers would be on hand too.
Comment by justinian — February 7, 2011 @ 6:52 pm
JohnA,
Record unemployment, schools need funding, existing infrastructure need attention, Financial director needs more money —- Again, one does not buy a fancy shiny new car when the roof is falling in on the house and you do not have a job. Now is NOT the time for something with “NO PLAN”. It is time to LOWER the expenditures with a promise to at least live another day.
JohnA, government jobs have the promise of a wage and pension, why is it so hard to see that people are REALLY hurting and living pay check to pay check out here in the private sector? Now is NOT the time.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 7, 2011 @ 6:53 pm
Mary, see post #64. The cost of finance and construction are the lowest they will be. The city will get far more for less by moving ahead now.
Also, you state there is a ‘high percentage of approval from their questionnaires’. Why waste the time, money and effort on a vote if you already know the sentiment of the people?
Meanwhile, I remain dismayed by Dan’s remarks. After all it seems to me that he stands to gain if there’s no vote, by using it in his self-announced run for the City Council this fall.
Comment by JohnA — February 7, 2011 @ 7:34 pm
John, let me ask this: How could we have possibly had a public vote on McEuen prior to this time? How would that have worked?
Comment by mary — February 7, 2011 @ 8:30 pm
John, your attempts to put me in a box are, again, disappointing. I didn’t call anyone a dictator. Further, just because I question you personally doesn’t mean that I disagree with everyone who has your opinion. I would expect more that that oversimplification.
The people should be allowed to vote on such a major issue of importance to the city. It’s not up to us to quibble over the wording of the ballot measure. Like it or not, McEuen Field is owned by everyone and everyone must have a say in this city’s future, not just the privileged few on Team McEuen or in City Hall or the nearby property owners. The best and most thorough way to do that is to vote.
To not want a vote just to further my political future would be a selfish move. Believe it or not, John, but not everyone who runs for office is selfish. And all the crap you’ve read about me on HBO is flat out untrue. The status quo in Coeur d’Alene is corrupt and out-of-touch. They have to go. Whether I put them out of office or someone else does, it will be a good thing for the city.
Comment by Dan — February 7, 2011 @ 8:32 pm
If my memory is incorrect, please correct this. I recall the vote for the proposed community center at Cherry Hill was an advisory vote. The city owned the land, and some public sector people were interested in establishing/constructing the facility. The measure was defeated. I think the vote took place while Steve Judy was mayor.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 7, 2011 @ 9:10 pm
I really believe that I have fallen down the rabbit hole. It doesn’t matter what the cost of material is or the cost of “borrowing” money. This economy simply makes this plan redundnt. You don’t take on a financial burden when the money isn’t there. YOU DO NOT SPEND MONEY YOU DO NOT HAVE!! That is a simple rule of everyday living. You do not buy big shiny toys when you cannot pay for them. You do not spend tax dollars when people are losing jobs and their homes. When those who can hang on have to make hard choices…property tax or heat. This train is being driven by the “I’ve got mine, who cares about anybody else” group. The everyday hard working citizens are nice people (who are a bit careless about voting) but the local govt. are selfish thugs!!! There is absolutely no legitimate rational for this plan. Just this morning the Press had a long article about looney Lunas plan to decimate education. Based on being able to reduce teachers every year. And Bloem and Co. wants to spend millions in perpetuity on this insulting plan. Truly disgusting!!!! Oh oh, here comes the Mad Hatter.
Comment by rochereau — February 8, 2011 @ 9:28 am
“I really believe that I have fallen down the rabbit hole.”
This is what I have been saying.
“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 8, 2011 @ 1:36 pm
Or as crooked as a corkscrew!
Comment by rochereau — February 8, 2011 @ 2:33 pm
Speaking of city history: how many remember the plans submitted by Walker Macy that were on view in what was the former Mariposa store on Sherman? As I remember it, the citizens were told they would comment and/or on their choices from the drawings. This was to be a preliminary presentation. As it turned out, comments were not considered. Consequently, the city adopted the plan as presented. I hope that history will not be repeated in the Mc Euen issue. I am not holding my breath, however.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 9, 2011 @ 9:27 am
Today I noticed that someone on the Press site posted a comment that McEuen has already been put out for bids. Does anybody know anything about this? If true, it is not surprising.
Comment by rochereau — February 9, 2011 @ 2:50 pm
Doubt it, rochereau. It would be the LCDC that puts things out to bid through (I hope) an open RFP process.
Now the poster could be alluding to Eastwood or others asking local construction companies for ballpark figures. That’s not an RFP and it would be part of the process, I’d assume. Well, I’d like it to be open and transparent and hopefully to take place before the dreams.
Comment by Dan — February 9, 2011 @ 5:19 pm
‘…ballpark’ figures, Dan? Is that a ‘figure’ of speech about the American Legion baseball field? 🙂
Comment by JohnA — February 9, 2011 @ 10:46 pm
My thanks to Rita Sims-Snyder and Julie Clark for their full page ad with cutout poster in today’s Press, back page local section. Don’t miss it.
Please attend the meeting and bring that page.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 10, 2011 @ 8:15 am