May 25, 2013 |
See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Finally an editorial more to the point. And as I have said repeatedly, KU can do whatever they wish. The city does not need to be partners .
Now who ever at the Journal World wrote this needs to take the school district to task and make certain the bond issue fails.
It will be an ongoing debt and for the district to claim taxes won't go up. Is a down and out lie!
But yes, the commissioners would run their businesses questionable. After all though if you got a free sprinkler system in your restaurant business, you would not feel the pain as if you had to pay for it.
The five amigos are as bad as Culture Farms and The Mustard heir. Write about those scams, Journal World!
Indeed, what's the rush? Put it to a city-wide vote.
I respectfully disagree with the Editor. This project has had far more intense inspection than any in recent memory with hundreds of critical column inches from this paper alone.
I believe our commissioners are representing us well, have been transparent and are acting in good faith. They are people of integrity and are owed our mutual respect and thanks for their service.
The editor points out some potential problems yet to be worked out.
"What happens, for instance, when city events or just routine use of the recreation center conflicts with a major event at the KU facilities? How will parking be apportioned? Will people attending a KU event take up all the free spaces that should be available for patrons of the city’s center? How will parking be allocated if the city center is hosting a major event?"
Aren't those exactly the kind of problems that accompany success? I am excited for that day to come...
This project has been delayed long enough. Commissioners, please approve this project.
"This project has had far more intense inspection than any in recent memory with hundreds of critical column inches from this paper alone."
That's because the process has been so secretive and non-transparent. No matter what the true value of this project might be (and that's nowhere near the slam dunk you assert,) the process behind it is a poster child for how government should not be conducted. It's been a pretty disgusting display of cronyism and groupthink, as a matter of fact.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
There surely has been a lot of reporting, mostly by the intrepid Mr. Lawhorn. But this project has changed week to week, even day to day. There are still many loose ends and lots of unanswered questions, re liability, ownership, capacity to profit, usage restrictions, etc. This has been convoluted from the start, probably not on purpose, but because it's been rushed at every stage, not carefully examined. And two proponents are leaving the commission, with the one staying -- Mike Amyx, against it. No, this needs more scrutiny, more transparency. And even though I usually do not favor public votes, I think this project should have one -- simply to resolve that the community is supportive.
Building a community gym is very complicated finance beyond the understanding of taxpayers.
I agree with Ms Pogany's recent letter. This thing went from a gleam in somebody's eye to a major initiative in less time than it took us to repair the overpass by Haskell.
I believe we still do not know all the aspects of the project. Annual costs seem to vary. Responsibilities seem to be unclear or unresolved (driving the cost uncertainty). Why this undertaking is more important than the many other known needs of the city has never been adequately explained. Th funding stream (our tax money) can be redirected easily. Misinformation arguing how we are in desperate need for more gym space has been clearly refuted. Why we want to put all our new gym space in one corner of the city has never been explained.
If we are going to form a business/charity/governments partnership transparency is very important and that includes an understanding of just how much the business element stands to gain at the expense of the taxpayer. What kind of commissioners do we have who allow themselves to be stampeded by commercial interests. They are there to protect our interests..
If we waited a year what would the cost to the city be? Are our partners threatening us with costs increases that are totally unreasonable and inconsistent with the notion of shared activity. Why can the KU construction not take place independent of what we might choose to do. Is the charitable money offered conditioned upon a timetable?
The real question is why are we in such a hurry?? If we waited a year what would happen??
I agree almost completely (that's nice:-)
But we don't even have to wait a year - we can just wait a couple of months until the new city commissioners have been elected. This is clearly a campaign issue now, and the new commission will reflect how voters feel about this issue more than the current one.
I read that the current commission won't even be in place when the bids come in for approval - there's no good reason to make any financial commitments now.
In the words of Nancy Pelosi . . . we have to pass it so you can find out what's in it.
Not a complete and accurate quote.
And, if you notice, folks who tend towards being liberal on these comments are generally against this project, while conservatives like it - hmmm.
cheeseburger's comments slam Pelosi, a noted liberal, suggesting that liberals are to blame for this sort of project and process.
Since all of the liberals on this board oppose this project, and those in favor tend to be conservative, his comment is incorrect.
Only noting that I oppose and I am not liberal - not a brother Sam conservative either.
Mr rexroad , you pay for it. I have no more money. Why don't you support the idea that if I can't get my house torn down to build something, the city compensate me.
It is not difficult to build a community gym?
From the editorial: "Would the five commissioners stake the financial futures of their own businesses on the same careless and sloppy oversight they have given the proposed Rock Chalk Park project?"
Answer: No; they would not.
If the commissioners were voting to spend their own combined personal savings on this project: No, they would not gamble $2+ million of their own money okaying a blind faith Phase 1 payment on this project.
And if the five commissioners were requesting an LLC-type business loan from a bank: No, any bank's officers would deny the loan based on the number of unanswered ownership/operational questions and incomplete legal paperwork.
Not if you are KU EA and connected with the banker(s) and a donor sits on the bank(s) board.
I would argue that this issue is a learning point.
All liberals do not demand everything
conservatives demand government money as much as liberals
not all conservatives believe in business at all costs.
To remind those you off the election way back when our SECSTATE ran for president - nuance, nuance.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·