Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Stirring The Pot

Some fiery commentary in response to David Cobb's My Word column has been made, now that his piece is up on the TS Blog. Looks like one of our very own Anons took my advice and posted his feelings. Good commentary, Anon!


At 7:27 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone really think the Headwaters Money should be frittered away on studies of the Balloon Tract? Wasn't that supposed to help mitigate the impact of jobs lost? Business development and job creation would seem appropriate.

At 8:29 AM, Blogger Fred said...

Isn't that one of the battle cries of politicians and bureaucrates? "We need more studies!!!".

At 10:28 AM, Blogger mresquan said...

Headwaters money should not be spent on the balloon tract. How many local schools have closed in the past few years? That's where that money should go.As I understand it, the headwaters board never officially granted the money. The Board of Supes were going to write a letter to support it, but the headwaters board had not gauranteed anything.Maybe I am wrong here,but I don't think so. The real question should be, how many applications were denied due to Security Nationals'proposal?Anyways, there are enough private investors willing to do something with this property that anything coming from the headwaters fund is unnecessary at this point.

At 1:51 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the City turned down or gave back the Headwaters money - didn't they just DECLINE TO APPLY for it?

Big difference. Doesn't seem Cobb sees the distinction.

At 3:32 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The money for the master plan -- which was intended as a public effort to determine the future of the property -- was already in place. In November 2003, the county board that oversees the Headwaters Fund awarded the city a $45,000 grant to help fund it. The city was prepared to match that amount with $55,000 from its Redevelopment Agency. The feeling was that it would be money well spent. Even Eureka resident Aldo Bongio, a strident critic of government spending who spoke at the Oct. 5 meeting, said that it "isn't really a big amount."

At 5:29 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wny fritter that Headwaters money away on something you can get for FREE - just look at all the input the city is getting - any idiot could get a couple of good ideas out of all that input - for FREE -

But you'd be left with - who is going to PAY for it?

Here, you have someone with a good idea, a viable plan AND the money to pay for it.

And the community spits in his face. Why? To protect Pierson's? Or is the anti-corporate phobia being played by Gallegos' handlers to divert attention from his failures?

If it's Pierson's they oughtta take a look at Burger King and McDonalds - they choose to go in next to each other. Why? They both do better.

At 6:37 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The City was going to do a study to determine the future of the property.

Security National will do an EIR. They have already determined the future of the property in their minds.

Not a public process.

At 6:49 AM, Blogger Bill G said...

Not public property, either.

At 8:38 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Anon:

The City was awarded the Headwaters grant for (yet another) study. The Council opted not to accept it after learning that there was a legitimate offer on the table. Kerrigan dissenting if memory serves. Studies...the second last resort of the obstructionists.

It is not public property it is zoned for public use...like a railroad or a prison or maybe a sewage treatment plant.

Make no mistake, this is not about land use or public policy. It s a flat out anti-gowth, social issue. More about the contamination element later.


Post a Comment

<< Home