I am glad to see promise under the rug. I wasn’t overly for or against the idea, but I think it was poorly pitched. I see where the benefits would have been, and I find it hard to believe that anyone that wasn’t college material to begin with would have anything to do with it. Oh well, I’m sure there’s other ideas out there to stimulate the economy around here, say infrastructure for example.
I am more interested in the s**tstorm that ensued before and continuing after the voting. This Mark Nelson thing just plain pisses me off. I am starting out with saying I would like to see an image of the actual document. Until then, I can’t say that it’s worth all that much heart burn. Rumor has it that both the bank and the Gills have signed off on having the document released, and it’s Mr. Nelson that has not allowed this to proceed so far. In that case I would begin to speculate that Mr. Nelson has something to hide. In fact, if the document is not eventually released, it will likely cement in my mind that the accusations are nothing but true and that this guy belongs among the likes of the other Davenport morons that appear to attempt sabotage on anything resembling progress.
My other concern is the mayor. I wasn’t sure if I was watching Mayor Gluba on TV or if it was the gaff master himself, Joe Biden. I understand that Gluba was mad, and so was I when I heard some of the allegations, but you have to be a little politically correct. That kind of riled response is part of what made the council a circus to begin with. Take a breath, stop the name calling, and stop whining. Make a case with hard evidence and move on.
The timing of the Times article to me is suspect, but I do take the follow-up by the Times in the comments at face value that they were checking facts and would have run it earlier if they could verify what the Gills were saying. Who knows. What I do know is that regardless of the timing, the content of the appraisal, or the outcome of the overall project, someone is leaving this with egg on their face.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I appreciated the candor that Steve Thomas used in the comments section of the 1st Blackhawk article. He said that they were screwed either way, because if they sat on it until after the election the Pro-Promise people would have screamed, and if they ran it when it was ready, the anti-Promise people would have screamed. They basically chose to piss of the anti-Promise people, instead of sitting on the story.
There's obviously some truth to the story, or Nelson wouldn't have tried to justify his anti-downtown views on talk radio. I just wonder how many other developers he's scared off with this kind of outdated assessment of downtown's viability.
Also, welcome back. I could use a few people to take some of the heat off of me...
Hi Craig. Great cover.
You "find it hard to beleive that anyone that wasn't college material to begin with wouldn't be interested" in the Promise? EXACTLY. It would only attract people who were college material, or at least willing to work towards that end. It wouldn't attract the dead-enders that some of the opponents were saying it would.
Nonetheless, I agree that it was poorly pitched. Malin & Guard tried hard to answer the questions about the holes it would put in the budget, but there were too many unanswered questions about how it would be administered, awarded, managed, changed over time, etc.
Post a Comment