No vote - Coeur d'Alene Press: Local News

No vote

Mayor Bloem breaks tie, says compromise needed as McEuen plan goes forward

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 12:15 am | Updated: 11:58 am, Fri Nov 16, 2012.

COEUR d'ALENE - After two hours of testimony, and a year in the making, the Coeur d'Alene City Council decided by a hair not to put the multi-million dollar McEuen Field conceptual project to a public advisory vote Tuesday night.

That's not to say the project is going to be built as presented. Instead, the community will likely have to come together to fine tune a plan on which it can better agree, the council said.

"Every one of us is going to have to bend and compromise a little bit to get to where we want," said Mayor Sandi Bloem, who cast the deciding vote against issuing an advisory vote. "We're all passionate about where we are now. It brings out a lot of feelings. But it's OK, the passion has probably created more creative thinking than we've had in a long time."

The motion, made by Councilman Ron Edinger for a public advisory and seconded by new council member Dan Gookin, failed 4 votes to 3.

Around 100 people jammed inside the Community Room of the public library to testify in support of and against the idea of whether the city should put the park's fate out to a vote.

Supporters of a public vote stated the park plan was too expensive for the City Council to decide alone, and one that wasn't favored by the general public. Those against said it was a difficult decision that required the leadership of elected officials to decide after weighing all the arguments.

City Council members had more or less expressed their stances on which way they would vote for the better part of a year, and each of the members cast their votes Tuesday as they had said they would.

Edinger, Gookin and Steve Adams voted for an advisory vote, while Deanna Goodlander, Woody McEvers and Mike Kennedy voted against it. That left Bloem to break the tie.

"There is a third alternative," she said, pointing to the fact that the planning process on the park could pick back up and a more compromised plan could be crafted.

But she stuck to the stance she has maintained since the project got off the ground that good park planning doesn't require an advisory vote from the public, rather public input.

After the decision, people left the room as the council meeting resumed to take up the rest of its agenda.

Public comments, both verbal and written, had 18 in support of a vote, 21 against, and one who preferred more compromise, not necessarily a vote.

"Yeah, I am," said Bruce Carey, when asked if he was disappointed with the outcome. "All it is, is an advisory vote."

An advisory vote is a non-binding vote, the results of which the City Council could consider when making a final decision.

"I'm ready to chuck the whole thing and start over," said McEvers, on the compromise route.

Dick Stauffer, a designer on Team McEuen who helped craft the plan, said the design team and steering committee will wait for direction from the City Council on what it should do next, including going back to the drawing board.

At last check, the first phase of the potential project on the downtown park overhaul - called its footprint - was estimated to be around $17 million.

More about

More about

More about

  • Discuss

Welcome to the discussion.

45 comments:

  • Ambrosia posted at 4:29 pm on Sat, Mar 24, 2012.

    Ambrosia Posts: 14

    Maybe the council should try and ask for advice from Aaron DelSignore. He does have some experience and I'm sure that together we can find a solution that would make everyone at least half happy.

     
  • 56YearOldNativeWithAVoice posted at 6:11 pm on Fri, Jan 20, 2012.

    56YearOldNativeWithAVoice Posts: 150

    Hey JoeIdaho,NOT. YOU ARE A TRANSPLANT HERE! That must make you a liberal

     
  • Kirkland posted at 9:19 am on Thu, Jan 19, 2012.

    Kirkland Posts: 11

    Chouli: I am just giving a reality check to "majority". Since when is a voter turnout of 29% of the registered voters a majority? It is math. And if you review my numbers again, it is even less for the actual councilmembers who won. It is not a ridiculous comment and how rude of you to say so . Did I ever say I was against a public vote? and what does it matter how often I vote?

     
  • chouli posted at 8:14 am on Thu, Jan 19, 2012.

    chouli Posts: 1264

    Kirkland: LOL…how convenient for you to ASSUME that voters that do not vote are all happy and content with the McEuen plan. That’s just ridiculous. You are able to know the citizens intent when they don’t vote… and are absolutely sure that it’s because they obviously agree with you. LOL…

    Here’s a news flash…the only votes that count are the ones that get cast. If people don’t vote their opinion doesn’t count in the election. You don’t get to extrapolate extra support because people didn’t vote.

    And you’re saying that you only vote when you are against the status quo. So, do tell, how often do you vote?

     
  • DeNiles posted at 5:25 am on Thu, Jan 19, 2012.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    Kirkland..... For any election overseen by the ex-Clerk Dan English we have no true idea what the voters really wanted. Now elections are properly run.

     
  • VandalJosh posted at 12:53 am on Thu, Jan 19, 2012.

    VandalJosh Posts: 106

    A gondola could work. You could ride it from McEuen to the Dave Smith lot.

     
  • WilliamWMiller posted at 11:45 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    WilliamWMiller Posts: 106

    They should have proposed a gondola for McEuen, heck it worked in Kellogg. Beginning of the end for the ones who know better.

     
  • Kirkland posted at 9:25 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    Kirkland Posts: 11

    @chouli and mister d: What on earth are you talking about - majority of voters?? Since when is 29% of registered voters who took the time to vote considered a majority?? I am sure you folks voted because you wanted the public vote on the park overhaul. If the remaining 71% of the registered voters felt the same as you, they too would have voted. That's what I always do,especially if I am against something.
    Saying Bloem, Kennedy, Goodlander and McEvers were voting against what the majority of the voters wanted is just not credible.

     
  • Flash Gordon posted at 9:20 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    Flash Gordon Posts: 1242

    Ever since the McEuen Plan was introduced years ago and subsequently reintroduced over the years one over riding "theme' seems to have emerged. The general public wants the baseball field and boat launch to stay in its present form .

    Those who favor the McEuen Plan will not take no for an answer and have consistently added more and more lipstick to that pig in the hopes of wearing and tearing the public sentiment down.....with little or no success. The current gang of four knows this and believes, despite the public sentiment, that there is a very small window of opportunity to get something done before they are removed from office.

    I would hope that there is a way to slow everything down to a grinding halt and that way lies with the use of tax payer dollars and the inability to generate a consensus on this very contentious issue.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 9:00 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    This is pretty simple.

    The people FOR this DEBACLE of government spending are generally Liberal AND transplants here. They say things (STUPID) like "will raise property values" and have NO problem spending other people's money, JUST LIKE they did in California. (Until it went broke).

    VERY clear example of taxation witout representation.

    I didn't know one of them owned Rustlers Roost. Last time I go there, for sure.

    Deanna Goodlander & Edonger are nothing more than old school "we know better than the public" servants. It's absurd that they still have seats, the same goes for Bloehm.

    They need to be kicked to the curb.

     
  • chouli posted at 8:50 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    chouli Posts: 1264

    I agree...I'm very much looking forward to voting against the incumbents...goodlander, kennedy, woody (very disappointed, woody) and especially bloem.

     
  • mister d posted at 8:20 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    mister d Posts: 1531

    This makes my vote during the next council elections easier for me. I will not vote for those who do not represent the majority of voters. Out with the old and in with the new.

     
  • kimknerl posted at 8:14 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    kimknerl Posts: 286

    56YearOld, this park will not be built as the original plan shows, in 2013 Mayor Bloem and 3 incumbents will be off the council, and LCDC will be no more.

     
  • VandalJosh posted at 8:11 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    VandalJosh Posts: 106

    The replacement for the Legion Field is proposd to be a "minor league style facility". It will have a capacity of 1,000 to 2,000 and use turf that has to be replaced every ten years or so. They are hoping the land at Cherry Hill will be donated, but they are really just throwing numbers out there. They made sure to say that McEuen is only a concept, so things could actually be added to this by the time they break ground. And the final plan has to be approvd by the state of Idaho because the city has used federal grants on about 50% of the parks in CDA. This seems fine for building new parks, but on pre-existing parks it makes no sense, as the city now has a piece of land that falls under federal regs and is actually controlled by a liason with the statedown in Boise.

     
  • 56YearOldNativeWithAVoice posted at 8:11 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    56YearOldNativeWithAVoice Posts: 150

    @VandalJudd: Again, here's yer sign.

     
  • chouli posted at 7:57 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    chouli Posts: 1264

    sheesh,56...you have a hostile tone & there's really no need. granted, we dont agree but that doesnt make me less credible than you, or anyone else...

    I'm not exagerating the cost. The quotes earlier were in the 40 to 50 million price range. The replacements for the boat launch & ball fields are not included in their quotes. That stuff isnt free nor is it cheap. The boat launch currently is 5 lanes, has protected breakwater, and is paid for. It would need to be replaced with equal or better. The costs of removing and replacing it will be very high, & as an added bonus, there's all the environmental factors that will come into play...disturbing sediments, impacts to fish, heavy metals being disturbed, etc...

    My thoughts are... why not build another boat launch to take some of the demand down at 3rd street but keep that boat launch as well.

     
  • VandalJosh posted at 7:54 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    VandalJosh Posts: 106

    65yearoldcatlady I don't think it's that far fetched, and I didn't ask your opinion. If you're just on here looking for a fight, i'd rather have it in person.

     
  • 56YearOldNativeWithAVoice posted at 7:05 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    56YearOldNativeWithAVoice Posts: 150

    @Chouli: You lose all credibility when you exaggerate the price tag by tens of millions.

     
  • chouli posted at 6:44 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    chouli Posts: 1264

    @56...McEuen is already fabulous.
    It's open and green and beautiful year round. I'm a ‘ less is more’ kinda person. The other parks are developed & full of stuff. Why not have a park that isn’t built to the hilt??

    I like the existing small play area where I don't lose sight of my grandsons when we play there. I would love to see a remodeled rest room @ McEuen, but the open zen- like area is marvelous...and it's already paid for! Why would we want to spend 45+million to build a park when we have one? I don’t want dancing urban water features or most of the bling designed into the showy plan.

    Who are we building it for? This is my neighborhood park and I'm very interested in how it changes...and I'm not interested in building a mega-park for the Resort customers next door. I don’t care to impress tourists or the condo owners.
    This is a small north Idaho town and I wish we could act like it again. North Idaho = natural beauty.

    And don't presume I'm full of pride & hate...I just don't agree with our coucil's vision of CDA's future.

     
  • 56YearOldNativeWithAVoice posted at 5:56 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    56YearOldNativeWithAVoice Posts: 150

    @Chouli: Been right here ,buddy ,watching . When the park is all finished and fabulous, hopefully you won' t be too full of pride and hate
    to admit that the council made a very good decision.

     
  • 56YearOldNativeWithAVoice posted at 5:52 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    56YearOldNativeWithAVoice Posts: 150

    @VandalJosh: Here's yer sign. What a moronic thing to say.

     
  • chouli posted at 5:24 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    chouli Posts: 1264

    I guess I’m not really surprised…just disappointed.

    The city council and mayor should be listening to the citizens. Not passing the public advisory vote tells me that they feel extremely threatened by the way the vote would turn out. They must expect the public to vote against their grandiose theme park to the tune of at least 45+ million dollars. Hmmm…if that’s the case then they OWE it to the citizens they are SUPPOSED to be representing to NOT push this further without the public support. Just who are they representing???

    The spin is bordering on ridiculous…
    Kirkland: “The majority was silent - content with the direction of the City Council. If they weren't, they would have been voting. “ That’s BS and you know it.
    56yearold…: “Thank you for not buckling to the views and cheap shot opinions of a few.”
    Opinions of a few??? Where have you been?? There has been overwhelming public response to this issue. Especially now with our economy so compromised, it’s too much money and too extravagant.


     
  • VandalJosh posted at 4:34 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    VandalJosh Posts: 106

    I for one am excited by this. Through this and other urban renewal projects, we can increase property values and in turn property taxes to a level that will make it unaffordable for all the lower class scum to afford on the small income they make working in tourism. We can finally make CDA an upper class haven and the rest of you can move. I propose to the City Council that we put in toll booths to get money from the lowlifes in Post Falls, Dalton Gardens, and Hayden that come into our town to use this park. I fully expect 20,000 visitors a day. Thumbs up if you live in a high rise condo near the new park.

     
  • inclined posted at 3:41 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    inclined Posts: 682

    What happened? I was there, but I went to sleep. It was so, wonderful
    Is the price for non LCDC land site-debt, constitutional? Because, if the ball fields don’t go to LCDC land, LCDC won’t pay for those, right?
    Will LCDC, by eminent domain, take land(yours or mine) for those "equals or betters"?
    And if that has to happen before the rest, won’t that call for a bond issue right off, taxes(did not the council commit to no new taxes?), unless LCDC will have to procure that new site-land first, yes?
    So the $40 million tops figure, covers paying for land outside LCDC, taken over by LCDC?
    The constitution issue, not applicable, because LCDC will still already have the money, so no debt? No new taxes because LCDC will buy needed site-land now, and, voila, it’s still a go?

    And if fifty people were outside, in the breeze, pleading “public vote”---did it matter?
    And should we have had 200 people in public comment part of the meeting---did it matter?

    And Woody starting off, all mushy, set the stage for that “third option”…No vote anyway- option. But, there was a lulling. It mattered. It was warm. Lights lowered, kind of like church.

    There are seven people up here, all very intelligent, articulate…say who?
    Mr. Kennedy, seeing no correlation with 3 Public Vote candidate-win, and his No Vote mandate? He certainly is one of those intelligent, articulate entities.

    Having so few come to support Public Vote demo out front might mean a fair weather issue?
    That, this city government is still a calculated done deal, money in the pocket, railroad Co?
    Not to worry. The 30% of people in CdA proper, making under $20 thow, on their begging properties, don’t have to worry. Their property values rise is their lollipop, and city intention?

    In the fifteen years since conception, we’ve had two liberal presidents, changing all the dimensions, all the parameters, still part of the package, right? Depression is not a new paradigm? Is it not obvious elite are different animals? But who is in the zoo?

    If the fifteen year plan, since LCDC did not have to abide by State Constitution, and what they do now, does not have to go through City Government, are we not down to the serious intrigue? But, actually, isn't pimping a crime? Is there not a ring here? And who are the prostitutes for Sugar Daddy?

     
  • DeNiles posted at 3:09 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    IMI-UBU So you play while you work. Must work for the gov't.

    It's spelled 'Woody' as in 'too much wood'. So here's this deal. Regular folks are not like a taxing entity. They can't just steal someone else's income at a whim. So they budget stuff. You know they make ends meet. And as long as Woody is demanding they spend $millions$ on a new his new McEuen playground I think they should cut Woody out of their budget so they can better afford it. Gotta start somewhere and thar's no better place than the Roost. B'sides Woody's slop food really isn't very good anyway.

     
  • Always Curious posted at 3:08 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    Always Curious Posts: 460

    Did anyone really expect anything different?

     
  • babydriver posted at 3:08 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    babydriver Posts: 1393

    Think of all the motel maid, food servers and bus boy jobs this will generate!

     
  • IMI-UBU posted at 2:10 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    IMI-UBU Posts: 98

    Hey DeNiles,
    I have to work while typing so I may not put all of the info. correctly as I am not as lucky as you to be able to sit at home with lots of time on your hands.
    Just so you know I still say good for Woddy and the council for not being bullied into making their decision.
    Again you are no superman so why do you call yourself that when you are really Lois Lane.
    GO CITY COUNCIL!!!!!!!
    By the way when the area is developed then don't show up, just stay home and cry.

     
  • 56YearOldNativeWithAVoice posted at 1:33 pm on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    56YearOldNativeWithAVoice Posts: 150

    GREAT JOB CDA CITY COUNCIL!!! Thank you for not buckling to the views and cheap shot opinions of a few. You did the right thing.

     
  • milburnschmidt posted at 11:44 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    milburnschmidt Posts: 1161

    As the economy putters along and food stamp use increases and folks struggle to pay their bills its just outrageous that they would ask the city council to reconsider a multi million park. Whats the matter with these folks dont they realize these weighty measures have already been considered at wine tasting events and social events and back room offices. How dare they ask the mayor and council to change their mind by daring to ask for a vote rather than rigged hearings. Dont these lowbrows realize by voting it would show a lack of support and show the elite up. The idea citizens should be able to show by vote they dont want the project or any other project would take away the power of these elected officials have to pursue personal agendas and its nonsense to think they should pay attention to the guy paying the bills. Pay your taxes and shutup and but out they know whats best (for them). Next those bozos will want cuts in govt spending if you can believe it.

     
  • JoeIdaho posted at 11:21 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    JoeIdaho Posts: 2841

    So, 4 of the coucilmen knew better what the public needs to do that the puiblic does, and they make it clear that the public doesn't know as much of have as much intelligence as they do.

    THIS is whay I AGAINST edinger in every form. Bloehm, too.

    It's incredibly insulting that they would actually vote to make decisions on this based on what THEY want instead of what THE PUBLIC wants.
    Just another CRYSTAL CLEAR example of how even local government is far out of control.

     
  • kimknerl posted at 11:12 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    kimknerl Posts: 286

    Kirkland, since you like to throw out that stale augment on percentages, here is a more realistic way of viewing the latest election results:

    79.3% did not support Adam Graves, either by voting for Edinger, or not voting at all.
    84.2% did not support the “bought and paid for” George Sayler, either by voting for Gookin, or not voting at all.
    83.8% did not support John Bruning, either by voting for Adams, or not voting at all.

    The incumbents in 2013 will see the same levels of defeat.

     
  • DeNiles posted at 11:01 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    IMI-UBU.... Read it again. It does not read 'JonnyQPub-L-ic' as you suggest. Either he can't spell or you can't read.

     
  • kimknerl posted at 10:21 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    kimknerl Posts: 286

    In all honesty, Woody McEvers is not solely responsible for what happened last night, and I won’t choose to avoid Rustler’s Roost based on his poor politics. I just don’t eat at Woody’s restaurant because the food lacks the quality I get at Fort Ground Grill.

    I will, however, make my displeasure known by giving my time and whatever else I can to see that this is the last term on the City Council for McEvers, Kennedy, Goodlander, and Mayor Bloem. These four so-called public servants have sold out to corporate greed and the greed of their own well-being. There goals are not in line with creating living wage jobs in this city.

    I found it interesting in this story in the CDA Press that there were 18 public comments in support of a public vote, and 21 against. Funny that there was no mention that 6 of those votes against were in the form of letters from the friends of the likes of Kennedy, Goodlander, and Bloem; people too lazy to physically come out and show their support like the obviously overwhelming group that was there in favor of a public vote.

     
  • Sheeken Hunter posted at 10:14 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    Sheeken Hunter Posts: 178

    Majority silent and content? The other perspective is that they have come to the conclusion that the council is going to do what it is going to do, regardless of their vote. In balancing the two perspectives, given the immediate past election results and the 4 hold overs' votes, I think the latter is the more valid.

     
  • Kirkland posted at 9:58 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    Kirkland Posts: 11

    Somehow people seems to forget that only 6,299 people voted out of 21,554 registered voters in the City of CDA and that equals 29.23%. So that is hardly the majority or a mandate which are words that are heard in connection with this issue. And if you break it out by candidate, Dan Gookin was supported by 15.8%, Steve Adams by 16.2% and Ron Edinger by 20.7%. Again, hardly the majority by a long ways. The majority was silent - content with the direction of the City Council. If they weren't, they would have been voting.

     
  • LocalMom posted at 9:53 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    LocalMom Posts: 15

    I was at the meeting last night and I commend the Mayor for pushing this forward. The theme from most of the council and Mayor last night was compromise. This is a large complex project and the council has worked to include the public the entire time (15 years). Those who say that the public isn't being considered are greatly mistaken. Thank you Mayor Bloem, Councilman Kennedy, Goodlander and McEvers for thinking of the future of our community.

     
  • kimknerl posted at 9:47 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    kimknerl Posts: 286

    I became confused when I heard the word "Service " used with
    Civil 'Service', State, City, County & Public 'Service'

    This is not what I thought 'Service' meant.

    But today, I overheard two farmers talking, and one of them said he had hired a bull to 'Service' a few cows. BAM !!! It all came into focus. Now I understand what these agencies are doing to us.

     
  • IMI-UBU posted at 9:16 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    IMI-UBU Posts: 98

    WHAA!! Deniles.
    Good for you JonnyQpublic .
    DENILES, You are no Superman at all just another cry baby.
    Why not drop your stupid superman picture and put up a picture of a dog chasing his tail.
    NOW GO A HEAD AND ATTACK.
    I LOVE IT!!
    GOOD FOR WOODY AND THE RUSTLERS ROOST CAFE.

     
  • DeNiles posted at 9:02 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    jonnyq****** Your webname is offensive and should be removed from this website.

     
  • JonnyQPubic posted at 8:51 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    JonnyQPubic Posts: 325

    Public comments counting 18 for, 21 against. Oh yes, that certainly is an overwhelming endorsement for a vote isn't it? Rustlers Roost is a fine place to eat and I doubt Woody will miss the few customers like you.

    And thanks for perpetuating the Hagadone Illuminati. That's what makes the comments here so entertaining.

     
  • I Carry posted at 8:18 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    I Carry Posts: 418

    How sad. Really. The above article states "it required the leadership of elected officials." How interesting that these elected officials know more, are smarter, and can see how the citizens support them in the park's quest.
    Maybe someone can get legal action started. I think the Mayor knows the project would be shut down if a vote was taken, so is pressing forward before it can be stopped. After the Mayor is not relected, the new council can stop the park with only a few million dollars spent on "a footprint." That would be a fitting sign-stomped on, leaving only a footprint.

     
  • Jeffrey Wherley posted at 5:30 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    Jeffrey Wherley Posts: 3969

    Well, it finally begins. The new Council members are firmly on the site of Representative government, to vote as their constituents want. While the Old members maintain their desire to vote for what their constituents should want. Representation or Dictatorship, which will prevail in CDA, after the next council election cycle?
    Tune in next cycle same batty time same batty channel. Until then Dictator Bloem will reign supreme.

     
  • immortal posted at 5:28 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    immortal Posts: 258

    Never in doubt. It was pay-up time. And we all know who paid the bill.

     
  • DeNiles posted at 4:33 am on Wed, Jan 18, 2012.

    DeNiles Posts: 2450

    Hmmmmmm A 'NO' vote by Woody. Rustlers is sorta way out of the way. I mean like out-of-reach or more like out-of-the-question. Especially on Saturdays and Sundays. Nope I'm thinking everyone should be saving their Rustlers Roost going-out-to-eat money for the McEuen Fluff project. That's my decision..... a NO vote on the Rustlers issue. Jeesh, glad that's settled.

     
default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Stocks