Mike Kennedy
Councilman Mike Kennedy, said at yesterday’s hearing about a public vote on McEuen, that he was “not elected to dodge the tough issues”. (He was elected by TWO votes, and both of those came from Canada.)
No one is asking you to “dodge” anything, Mike. We are asking that the final decision on the final plan for McEuen & Tubb’s Hill go to the PEOPLE. The park belongs to the public, not to your full-time employer, Steve Meyer who, along with LCDC’s Charlie Nipp, owns the large swath of property right across the street from McEuen park.
The Mayor owns a building only half a block from the park. And the Pita Pit staff, including owners Jack Riggs and his son Peter, along with about five more staff, all were on hand at yesterday’s hearing to say they do NOT want a public vote. Their restaurant is one block from the park.
This is not about the details of the plan, or about which features people like or dislike, this is about final version of the plan, along with costs and funding, being placed on the ballot for the already scheduled November 8th city election. Even if it’s not required by law because you are using the LCDC for funding, it’s still the right thing to do.
Is there anybody who is surprised at the no vote decision. If so, I have this diamond mine…..this is, after all Corrupt d’Alene, ruled by Mayor Bloeminarrogant and her band of court jesters. Mike Kennedy, is a buffoon with his foot in his mouth more often than not. Dan put it perfectly on the Press site. “Is this guys brain wired to his mouth?” Knowing what the outcome was going to be, I’m surprised his handlers hadn’t given him his script.
Comment by rochereau — February 23, 2011 @ 12:47 pm
An advisory vote would have been the gracious, respectful thing to do. At minimum, officials would have been able to take the City’s Pulse [sic] and determine exactly whether there is a vocal minority or not. (My guess is that there isn’t, but the city can dream, right?)
The problem is that the law is on Kennedy’s side. Upgrading a park does not require a public vote.
Now don’t get all sore at me for pointing out that fact!
Again, if the Mayor were gracious and respectful, she could authorize an advisory vote. She won’t because she isn’t. Therefore they can continue to sneak around and foist an overpriced (or unknown-priced) “dream” on the taxpayers of Coeur d’Alene. But that doesn’t imply that we don’t have a voice.
The efforts to bring this issue to a public vote, even an advisory vote, were premature. Honestly, there’s nothing to vote on. So the early efforts to ask for a public vote actually worked in City Hall’s favor. Still, we can let our voice be heard at the council meeting where the final McEuen presentation is made. I would estimate that a crowd of 400 people making public comments at that meeting would be sufficient to change the council’s mind.
Comment by Dan — February 23, 2011 @ 1:10 pm
I am confused…again. Kennedy declared elected by 2 (Canadian) votes? Back on October 6, 2004 he commented on a local tabloid blog that opinions made on that blog by Steve Badraun (former long time planning and zoning commissioner for Cda), should not be afforded any credibility because Badraun, at that time, lived in Nampa (Idaho). He posted that “Steve seems like a nice guy, and I met him a few years ago, but as far as I know he doesn’t live here anymore, and he isn’t among those working every day to make Coeur d’Alene and North Idaho a better place to live.” What leaves me shaking my head is that Kennedy and his attorneys ( Reed and Erbland, in concert with City and County attorneys) argued that Paquin, Friend, Farkes, and Dobslaff (all persons living in Canada for quite some time…years)are duly qualified residents of Cda and entitled to vote in Cda elections. Kennedy’s comment that the opinions of people (e.g. Badraun) who don’t live here anymore and people who aren’t working every day to make Cda a better place are meaningless…doesn’t quite match up with his advocacy that similar persons, (who had nowhere near the years of public service involvement that Badraun did)are entitled to vote in Cda.
Comment by Happy Trails — February 23, 2011 @ 2:23 pm
A big reason the public should be able to vote on this issue is the “appearance of impropriety” because so many of the council members and the mayor have potential conflicts of interest. The legal department warns against any appearance of conflict. Here are the members at risk:
1. The Mayor owns a building and jewelry business less than a block from McEuen.
2. Councilman Mike Kennedy works full time for InterMax, which is owned by Steve Meyer. Steve is a business partner with LCDC’s Charlie Nipp. They own Parkwood Properties, a large real estate development company here. They bought the whole half block right across the street from McEuen Field between 4th and 5th streets. They bought the property while Charlie was Chairman of LCDC and the McEuen project was on their list of goals.
3. & 4. Council members Al Hassell and Deanna Goodlander both sit as members of LCDC as well.
All of these officials should avoid the appearance of conflict by removing themselves from a vote on this issue. That’s why the public should vote. There will be no dispute about undue influence or conflict of interest if the final decision is made by the public on the ballot at the November 8th city election.
Comment by mary — February 23, 2011 @ 4:54 pm
Hmm. Lets see…Council convenes and the Mayor, Kennedy, Hassell, and Goodlander declare a conflict and are present but don’t vote. That would leave Bruning, Edinger, and McEvers. McEvers is the, to quote the most recent GWB, “decider.” Could that happen?
Comment by Happy Trails — February 23, 2011 @ 6:35 pm
Is that a “quorum”? Which means a majority? It’s an equal split of the council members without a mayor to break a tie. But, with three, two could go one way and one could go another…is that legal? I don’t know.
Comment by mary — February 23, 2011 @ 6:57 pm
Mary,
What would make you think the Mayor and City Council of Coeur d’Alene would have any concern about whether or not something they might do is legal?
Comment by Bill — February 23, 2011 @ 7:17 pm
We do not have money for the schools but we will put millions into McEuen —- for the children of course.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 23, 2011 @ 7:40 pm
Good point, Bill. Yes, CC, if you care about the “children” you will love all the bells and whistles proposed for McEuen and Tubb’s…who cares about the cost? “Dream BIG!”, the Mayor says.
But the school levy?…too bad they are forced by law to hold a public vote. If they could do an End Run around the voters like the city is doing by going to LCDC instead, believe me, they would. But they can’t. They have to deal with the “common folk” like you and me…and it’s not going to be easy.
Comment by mary — February 23, 2011 @ 7:49 pm
Mary,
That is why I was trying to explain to rochereau that the teachers SHOULD be flat out outraged. This IS where their money is going, to the insiders that are manipulating tax money for their OWN profitable interests instead of going to the schools in these tough economic times.
This is in no way saying that I am against the teachers. I do think teachers are the back bone of our country. The GOOD ones. I just wish they would look beyond the bureaucracy and fight the fight that they proclaim “for the children”.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 23, 2011 @ 8:46 pm
O Canada!
Our home and native land!
True patriot love in all thy sons command.
With glowing hearts we see thee rise,
The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
God keep our land glorious and free!
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.
Comment by justinian — February 23, 2011 @ 10:02 pm
Good one let’s drop the puck. Kennedy could throw his weight around and maybe throw a decent hip check. Any check will pale in comparison to the big $69,660 check given to him. In old time hockey, your team needs an enforcer and as a matter of fact, I believe if the sticks were dropped on the ice and Jim Brannon and Mike Kennedy were toe to toe I would put put my money on Jim, he’s got a lot of fight in him. Who will be our enforcer against Team McEuen? Why is Mike Kennedy so cocky, isn’t the Election Challenge case still to be heard by the Idaho Supreme Court? The only reason that I can think of it that the fix has already been taken care of in the matter.
Comment by doubleseetripleeye — February 24, 2011 @ 12:17 am
CC, I honestly don’t think that the teachers or most citizens think through the money trail. It’s only now, with the upheaval across the country, that many folks are realizing the history and purpose of public employee unions, teachers included.
As one TV pundit said last evening, private sector unions are at an all time low in membership, at only 6% of workers. Public (government) unions are up to 32.9%. And their wages and benefits are higher than the private sector.
In a private company, a union negotiates with the company executives for a piece of the company’s profits. If the company gives too much to the union, it weakens the business and it can collapse.
In a public, government group, the union negotiates with a government team, not for part of the profits, because they make no profit, but they negotiate for an increasing amount of TAXPAYER money.
What’s not to love about that situation? The public union wants more money and the government team can give in and “buy” their loyalty, and future votes, with taxpayer money!
The problem, of course, is that if the government gives too much to the public union, it weakens the economy over time because the taxpayers eventually have no more money. Then the economy collapses.
We’re teetering on that brink right now. It’s time to step it back several paces…
Comment by mary — February 24, 2011 @ 8:10 am
Happpy Trails, Kennedy should have checked his facts before stating that Steve doesn’t contribute to the community. His comment was not only uncalled for but also incorrect.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — February 24, 2011 @ 9:05 am
CC: ‘We do not have money for the schools but we will put millions into McEuen’
The two issues are completely unrelated, CC. Schools operations are funded via sales tax collected and distributed by the State, and not from property taxes. Also, no taxes are being directed to the city or LCDC that could otherwise go to schools. In fact, because of urban renewal, there are additional taxed properties to share the burden of special levies we see proposed by local school districts (remember, voter-approved levies are against ALL properties including those within URDs). This means you pay LESS for those levies than you would otherwise.
Too, the impact fees from streets and parks that are directed for McEuen, and parking lot reserves, cannot by law flow to schools, as they are fees collected for a specific city purpose.
If you want schools better funded, we need to get the schools BACK on the property tax rolls where they belong, and not subject to the whims of buyers paying sales tax. Of course, the large land owners in the State would balk at that so it won’t ever happen. But, that’s another issue for another day.
Comment by JohnA — February 24, 2011 @ 10:02 am
Why then are there FOUR different school related line items on the property tax bill I just paid? Under the “Taxing District” column: SD#271 Bond, SD #271 Other, SD#271 Supp, and N ID College. Combined they are over 1/3 of the total.
Comment by Granny — February 24, 2011 @ 12:12 pm
JohnA, I marvel at the professional spin you can put on any subject! Oh, but you forgot to mention that urban renewal (LCDC) used to take the tax increment away from the schools. They did it for years and years. It wasn’t until just a few years ago when Sen. Jim Hammond of Post Falls brought new legislation to stop it.
You also forgot to mention that LCDC gave money to Sorenson school a couple of years ago. LCDC had to extend their urban renewal district boundaries by “shoe stringing” a narrow section down a street and then wrapped their boundary around Sorenson. (It’s illegal for cities to do this with their boundaries.)
At the time, many of us were encouraging the school district to simply add the Sorenson ADA needs to the levy. People would have voted for it and it was the right way to fund the improvements, not through the LCDC.
But the school district went the other route and now LCDC has purchased loyalty from the school district; it “owns” them. Maybe that’s why just last week the McEuen Plan was shown on a school-wide video presentation at Lake City High. 5 minutes of one-sided indoctrination. But hey, how could the district say no to the godfather?
Comment by mary — February 24, 2011 @ 12:39 pm
That boneheaded move by the School District (showing the video) will backfire on them. People who are fence-sitting on the levy will be pushed over to NO when they see the SD unilaterally siding with the City on the controversial McEuen Field plan.
Comment by Dan — February 24, 2011 @ 12:58 pm
JohnA I too am amazed at how dumb you and government employees, elected and appointed really think the taxpayers are. We are only as strong as our weakest link, as smart as our dumbest student and as rich as our poorest taxpaying member of our community. The majority of the people in CdA and KC do NOT make the wages to support every tax that you are so willing to throw at them. Local government has done nothing to bring in jobs other than destruction jobs and service slave jobs to keep the peons in their place. I DO understand that everything has a budget and for some STUPID reason in government they cannot cross lines as they would do in a home or private sector business. Based on that, tax money, to the taxpayer, is STILL tax money and with the LCDC STEALING it for well connected wealthy insiders, we have to decide whether or not we can afford to pass a levy for the schools. So as you can see JohnA it IS all connected to the teachers and schools.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 24, 2011 @ 8:12 pm
Glad you made that connection for us, CC. It’s so true that we only have so many dollars in our wallets. And when so many of them go to LCDC and NIC, who take our money without out vote, there may not be enough left for the school district levy.
I consider urban renewal to be soft socialism and it bothers me that our tax dollars go to this entity without our permission. Here’s what Thomas Jefferson said: “To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical.”
Comment by mary — February 24, 2011 @ 8:56 pm
Mary, I also do not understand how perfectly good farmland, waterfront property and fully functional recreation park complete with existing hiking trails, baseball fields, boat launch, etc. can even be remotely considered blight other than to those that have something to gain from it.
Comment by concerned citizen — February 24, 2011 @ 9:06 pm