In a surprise move, the City has announced, in an article in today’s Press, that tonight’s FIRST meeting allowing open questions about the McEuen Plan, will be the ONLY meeting to allow questions and will, in fact, be the LAST public meeting on this important issue.
Here’s the fabulous ad that also appeared in this morning’s Press.
It was paid for by the Friends of McEuen. Listen, people, the City is asking for input from everyone, all over the County. Even if you don’t live in CdA, please attend the meeting tonight. Print out the sign in this ad, or make your own, and come to Woodland Middle School at 6pm!
I truly believe this has always been a done deal. Apparently tonight the Empress Bloem will deign to address the commoners.
An aside if I may. You have to love the Websters meaning of “deign” in regard to Bloem. “to condescend reluctantly and with a strong sense of the affront to one’s superiority that is involved”.
Comment by rochereau — February 10, 2011 @ 9:28 am
I just opened the file from the Team McEuen survey. We all know how loaded that was. They claim a 63% agree return. This, in spite of the Press and SR polls that show an overwhelming disagree response. As I stated on an earlier post, as crooked as a corkscrew. And the steamroller marches on.
Comment by rochereau — February 10, 2011 @ 9:35 am
Bottom line: A vote for Bloem was a vote for the Posh Development Team. No, they did not have that campaign slogan but it was obvious from their prior job performances. On the other side of that equation are those candidates who ran contrary to these folks. They were not aggressive enough in their clear definition of the opposing development philosophy. So the big city money mogul development types came in and captured a willing Mayor and all you small towers have been literally shucked (as in corn). Even now you refuse to get angry enough about what is about to happen to the cities beloved waterfront and your wallets.
No doubt JohnA will come on and worry/fret over my commentary. He is their paid pacifier and your collective soft pedaling on this issue is exactly what he was supposed to achieve. More shucking and on your website, no less!
Comment by Wallypog — February 10, 2011 @ 10:28 am
My recollection is that citizens were going to be able to make 2 or 3 minute presentations requiring a sign up to do so. Am I misinformed?
The news account says it will be a free wheeling Q & A session with color coded cards for everyone to use to voice yea or nay on divisive questions. Sounds like a workable plan, but I wonder why the written presentation format has been abandoned. Under a presentation format citizens could more easily present alternate ideas whereas the Q & A format would tend to keep public comment on the somewhat confusing mix of uses in the plan. Perhaps this is intended; to keep it on the plan, not any new or modified uses. The TeamMcEuen approach so far certainly fosters this kind of questioning of motives.
Comment by Gary Ingram — February 10, 2011 @ 10:48 am
Wally, unless you live under a rock you’d know that I am not being paid by the city or LCDC, and I have not been since early in 2000. I’ll do the math for you: that is eleven (11) years. I will thank you in advance for understanding that my comments on this issue have been as a private citizen, entitled to them as you are, and equally enabled here by the site’s hosts.
Comment by JohnA — February 10, 2011 @ 11:19 am
Lori Eisenberg was hired to run this meeting. She was hired for a reason.
Comment by Dan — February 10, 2011 @ 11:23 am
Austin… there are covert and overt payments. There can be no doubt that you will gain by meeting the duties at hand. But I do appreciate your snarky redress however insincere it may be. You are an intrinsic part of the machinery, hook line and cog.
Comment by Wallypog — February 10, 2011 @ 12:49 pm
Wally, how will JohnA personally gain from the McEuen Park ? And is JohnA receiving covert or overt payments? And to be honest I dont think John worries or frets over anyones commentary. He will defend himself against false information.
I think John has been respectful of peoples opinions that differ from his. Why do you have a problem doing the same ?
Comment by SteveW — February 10, 2011 @ 1:40 pm
Mary,
In a public vote, how would you word the ballot ?
Comment by SteveW — February 10, 2011 @ 1:55 pm
I don’t know what’s wrong with you, Wally, and frankly I don’t care. You can dream your conspiracy theories, overt, covert (or invert for that matter), all you want but it won’t change a thing. You are wrong, and that’s all there is to that.
Comment by JohnA — February 10, 2011 @ 2:46 pm
You know, I get into the most trouble over on HBO when I take the bait of the baiters. Often times it’s just best to move on; no major issue will ever be solved on a blog.
Comment by Dan — February 10, 2011 @ 4:30 pm
SteveW…I don’t know how Mary would word the ballot, but I know what I would do. Yes or No on the plan as presented. Simple and to the point. Little ink and a small piece of paper. Does McEuen need a bit of polishing, yes. That is because of Parks and Rec. indulgence in planned neglect. Spruce and tidy the park and keep it as it is meant to be. A quintessential small town park that has served well for many years and with care, will serve for many more. This no class tacky throw everything at it plan is cringe making. Ma Kettle as herself was lovable…in tacky sequins and plastic glitter, she was laughable.
Comment by rochereau — February 10, 2011 @ 4:49 pm
Rochereau,
So you would have an up or down on a final plan ? I dont think the plan presented is close to a final plan. I would imagine the final version will be scaled back. Are you in favor of creating more green space by doing a tiered parking structure ?
Comment by SteveW — February 10, 2011 @ 5:21 pm
The parking structure would give us more green space. No parking structure would give us even more. The LCDC has already bought up nearly a full block downtown. A parking structure on that lot, above ground, would be cheaper to build and maintain than one on McEuen field. After all, it’s what they had planned years ago. They could do it without any vote of anyone because they already own it.
So the question we have to ask ourselves is why is the parking structure on McEuen so darn important? The answer lies in the properties right next to McEuen, and who owns them. Simple. Like Bill said in another post: Follow the money.
Comment by Dan — February 10, 2011 @ 5:39 pm
Lori E is a past master (mistress?) at the misuse of the Delphi Technique. She is a darling of the “pretty people”. Be wary.
Comment by justinian — February 10, 2011 @ 6:30 pm
Dan you are right. Follow the money between the commercial corridor and Front street. It is the same people or group of people. These are the same that serve on some sort of board that stand to gain privilege.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 10, 2011 @ 7:15 pm
You already have people that will not walk two bock back up to Sherman. Yeah, that’s right, now lets give them a urine filled, dark, rape trap.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 10, 2011 @ 7:20 pm
“They were not aggressive enough in their clear definition of the opposing development philosophy.” -Wallypog
With all due respect Mr. Wallypog you quite possibly might be right in your assessment. However, Jim, Dan and myself campaigned very aggressively. I know that you read Bill’s report on the Election Contest and so you know full well that the deck was stacked against us, or any else who might have run. It was obviously very important for the status quo to remain intact so this $100,000,000.00 development could go forth.
Comment by Steve Adams — February 10, 2011 @ 7:26 pm
Don’t forget to wave at them in church on Sunday while they screw us on Monday.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 10, 2011 @ 7:29 pm
Dan, there have been several parking structure plans for downtown, including 1- where the old tennis courts were, 2- where the current 700-space parking lot is at Third Street and 3- on city property north of Coeur d’Alene Avenue (just north of the old Federal Building). The issue concerning the last is that most merchants, and presumably also their customers, disliked the distance from that location to their places of business. Indeed, parking trends downtown have shown that the further north parking is from Sherman Avenue, the less it is used. If you spend much time downtown you’ll see it is true: you can always find on-street parking north of Lakeside but rarely south to Front. There were several theories about why there was that perception, including that people are naturally drawn toward the lake, but it was unrefutable evidence that a parking structure two blocks north of Sherman would see less use than one located one block south. It was further shown when the city couldn’t give away merchant parking at the Coeur d’Alene Avenue lot but filled up all its spaces for that purpose at Third Street.
The tennis court location was considered at one time but that location would have infringed on the open space concept that is one of the seven goals of the McEuen Field Plan. That leaves the Third Street lot, already below grade all along Front Avenue. By tucking a portion of the structure under Front the city opens up valuable space previously paved over, which I think is very smart (in fact it’s my favorite part of the plan). The city also saves money on the structure because they already possess all of the land. In addition, improvements to Front Avenue have been in the works for awhile, which lends a funding source to the project.
All in all, the proposed parking plan is by far the best, as it will be the cheapest to build and will serve the needs of the most people. Simply put, the city knows that few people will want to park three or four blocks from McEuen and Tubbs Hill, when that’s their destination.
Comment by JohnA — February 10, 2011 @ 7:59 pm
JohnA wrote, “The tennis court location was considered at one time but that location would have infringed on the open space concept that is one of the seven goals of the McEuen Field Plan.”
So, I guess Mary WASN’T lying. There WAS a plan for parking on McEuen. That would make the mayor the LIAR!
Comment by concerned citizen — February 10, 2011 @ 8:06 pm
CC, the tennis court concept was before the current Mayor took office. Give it a rest, please.
Comment by JohnA — February 10, 2011 @ 8:29 pm
No sir, I will not give it a rest until this mayor and council are looking out for ALL of the citizens of CdA or are ALL voted out of office. Whichever comes first.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 10, 2011 @ 8:35 pm
Watched the coverage on FOX tonight concerning the meeting. It was slanted at first stating that many people are in favor of the plan. Later a spokesman against the plan let the public know that a 100 million dollar plan was not feasible in Idaho when everyone was losing their homes. Followed after that was a story by Stephanie Vigil on how Idaho is running ahead of the game in foreclosures.
I filled out my survey, I will also sign the petition. This is way too big for so many of us. ‘They’ are exterminators and many of us are just viewed as cockroaches. Doesn’t look good. The only thing that could have made the news coverage better is if everyone started throwing soft gummy balls of some sort. 🙂 Too nice. The folks in power are not even nerved or remotely shaken.
…except Susie looked good in her hat!
Comment by Stebbijo — February 10, 2011 @ 10:21 pm
Correct me if I am wrong Wallypog, But I think what is meant is JohnA is of the FEW that has been or will be adversely affected by what has happened in North Idaho over the past 10+/- years. The few half decent paying jobs we had here have gone to be replaced with opportunists from every state, unsustainable, uncontrolled growth because local governments mentality of a more broad tax base to create revenue. These people had there way while the majority WERE tired of the fight and as JohnA phrased it “Gave it a rest” because there WAS at least peace in this sleepy little town at one time. We are FINALLY standing up to be heard JohnA, mayor, city council, LCDC and local slumlords. We do not care if you profit but we DO care if you profiting at the expense of the majority. You people have NO right “INVESTING” when you cannot take care of the garbage that you already own.
Stebbijo,
I agree with your #24 post.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 11, 2011 @ 6:57 am
SteveW..you might be surprised to know that I agree with you. I don’t think this is the final plan. I think this is a ploy. Put out something that is so ludicrous that it will misdirect the subject. Removing the boat launch and ball field was a no brainer to stir the pot. As was alterations to Tubbs Hill. I do believe “they” want those (2 items) gone however. Then, say we listened to you and re-did our concept. Perhaps I’m giving Bloem and Co. too much credit, but this is a typical spin tactic that patronizes the collective intelligence. Clearly people want a vote and that vote to encompass all of KC. I would like to think they have bitten off too much this time. They have successfully re-directed the question of where will parking go during construction. Sherman businesses must be thrilled with that one. Also the viability of underground parking. You would never find my car there…maybe my boat, as it floats.
I will say again, it is really sad when local govt. has so discredited their credibility that it becomes safer to never believe what they say. Sometimes it may be true, still…..
Comment by rochereau — February 11, 2011 @ 8:22 am
forgive me. I am certainly no wordsmith. I just noticed my typo in statement #25 I meant to say that JohnA is one of the few that will NOT be adversely affected or has NOT been ——
I still cannot get over how many are about to lose their jobs, have lost their jobs, are about to lose their homes, have lost their homes, have been forced to live with family members to keep costs down, etc. just so a select few can run more out with the even higher taxes that this WILL create and you are ok with that JohnA.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 11, 2011 @ 8:13 pm
Please read Mary’s My Turn column and Terry Kincaid’s letter to the editor in yesterday’s Press. Both are excellent.
[Bill’s comment: Susie, I hyperlinked both Mary’s column and Kincaid’s letter to make it easier for readers to find them.]
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 12, 2011 @ 8:19 am
Thanks Susie and Bill, for bringing my column and Terry Kincaid’s letter to our attention. Terry’s letter is very well done and clearly states a few things that had been previously muddled into the mix—here’s an excerpt:
Comment by mary — February 12, 2011 @ 9:10 am
I am really glad that folks are fighting the removal of the boat launch (even though I don’t use it). There is something criminal about taking away public access to water from the people. There is something criminal about letting Canadians decide local elections, too – but, this is Coeur d’Alene, Idaho – go figure. Then we have someone charged with embezzlement, but no arrest, and certainly no more information. Same ‘ole story.
It will be interesting to see how they rewrite their presentation so they can get the public to swallow their horse pill.
Comment by Stebbijo — February 12, 2011 @ 9:34 am