There is an article in the CDA Press regarding the LCDC’s decision not to help a developer remediate his blighted property, which was once a city dump. But in that on-line post you will not read the following paragraph, found in the Press’s print version:
“One thing that disturbs me here is I don’t think the local Press is fair to anyone. It’s not fair to this project,” Dicker said. “We are good neighbors. I was surprised at what I perceived to be a hostile Press for really no reason.”
I note that “Press” was capitalized by the CDA Press as no one speaks in capital letters. Still, it’s not difficult to guess that it was the CDA Press GVD owner Jerry Dicker was referring to.
The Press published the first article here, but I think Mr. Dicker is referring to the editorial here. Honestly, the editorial is being no more nasty than what the city told the developer last night: it’s not the city’s problem. Caveat emptor. The Press was right, the LCDC was right.
On a larger picture, however, this episode again underscores one of my issues with the LCDC: it exists as a pot of money without purpose. It’s the best kind of government money in that it’s the elusive free money.
Because the LCDC lacks a detailed plan, people will continue to beseech the board for some of its stash-o-cash. This episode, as well as others doubtless to come, underscores the big reason why having a detailed plan, and being open with the public, is so vital for any government entity. But apparently the LCDC continues to miss that picture. May the parade of supplicants continue.
The questions has been posed and one does have to wonder. If this property were to be subsequently purchased (no doubt at a hefty discount) by one of the “stake holders” in with the in-crowd would the LCDC change its collective mind and pay for the clean up?
Comment by Wallypog — October 16, 2008 @ 1:59 pm
There may be a legal issue involved. If the LCDC agrees to cleanup, then could it be an admission by the City that things were done improperly? If so, the developer might have grounds to sue the city for some reason. My guess is that the LCDC steers clear of this issue.
Comment by Dan — October 16, 2008 @ 2:04 pm
You’re missing my point Dan. If there were cooperative parties involved would the LCDC loosen up the purse strings? Or, looking from the other way, what did this developer not offer the decision makers behind close doors to get this accommodation? These LCDC, et al have the education corridor moving at light speed with all sorts of clandestine understandings. Seems like these people just did not know how to grease the right pigs.
Comment by Wallypog — October 16, 2008 @ 2:57 pm
I see your point, Wallypog. You’re saying that the LCDC simply said, “You’re not one of us” and therefore, despite the ring-kissing, the money was denied. But had one of the inner circle applied, money would would have flowed like wine. That may be the case.
A recent report on the LCDC’s website states that they’ll have just under $66 million to spend over the next dozen or so years (from the Lake District only). My guess is that all that money is going to specific projects. At least, that’s the way it should work. Then again, having that cash and distributing it at will means that the LCDC will see more and more supplicants prostrating themselves before the board. It puts the LCDC into an uncomfortably powerful position.
Comment by Dan — October 16, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
If the LCDC approved this bailout for a guy who admits he did not do his research before he bought the property, the public would have a riot. It would be like that scene from the movie “Network” where the man sticks his head out the window and screams, “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!”
Comment by mary — October 16, 2008 @ 3:44 pm
Yeah, but NIC and the LCDC are hiding what is being done about the Stimson Mill clean up. They’re just saying trust us and providing no documentation. What assurance do we have that when they try to start major construction on that site that the same scenario won’t happen?
In this case it just happens to be a developer outside of the loop. If it was someone on the inside you can bet we’d be picking up part of the tab somehow.
Comment by Wallypog — October 16, 2008 @ 4:44 pm
I asked Mic Armon that exact question. He said that according to their agreement, if the site isn’t remediated NIC will not purchase it.
And if you believe that . . .
Comment by Dan — October 16, 2008 @ 4:49 pm
OK, not part of this thread, but MUST SEE TV:
First part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRSmQqw65Pg
Second part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j82lhqiAF-M
Comment by Pariah — October 16, 2008 @ 9:33 pm
Mike Tilford, representative for John Stone, told the city that the pond they constructed at Riverstone covered a brown field. Did the city verify Mr. Tilford’s claim prior to voting to purchase the pond?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — October 17, 2008 @ 7:18 am
During one presentation at City Hall, the Riverstone people mentioned brown field remediation several times. The City Council even mentioned it. But when the DEQ was asked, there was no report on file regarding a brown field at the site.
Comment by Dan — October 17, 2008 @ 7:43 am
For those who are interested (and who trust the EPA to be truthful and accurate with its information), here’s a definition of “brownfield site”.
Comment by Bill — October 17, 2008 @ 8:28 am