This is in response to a post from Doorsman earlier today, on a seperate thread. It needed to be pulled elsewhere so I could respond to his/her statement.
Enough of that, tell people how you will if elected institute change instead of slamming something.
Ask me a question to what you are curious about in regards to my position that isn't already covered in my political points, and I would be happy to answer them. And as for "slamming" something - give me an example of what I have said that you would classify as "slamming" - because I am curious on this as well.
As far as the riverfront is concerned, if things work out, the tax payer will not have any burden to carry
I have never commented in regards to the tax payer having to carry any "burden" in the original post. What I have said - and my position is - that I am all for the Riverfront Project as long as certain conditions are met. 1) Let the Public know what sort of Budget we are talking about. We yet have any clue on what the projected total dollar amount is going to be. 2) Let the Public know how much has been spent to date - to get this site location "ready". Some "rumors" have it projected out at well over $500,000. City Administrator Rod Otterness, said that he didn't have numbers on hand - but that they were substantial. Now this is fine - I think as adults we all understand the cost associated with purchasing real estate, preparing a site for construction, as well as drafting/architectural fees, etc.. etc... - but when doing it with public money - we better have a firm grip on cost, and be able to explain it to the tax payer, so they stay in the loop on how the city is spending their money. If that money didn't have to be spent RIGHT NOW - perhaps we could have spent $500,000 on something else - perhaps another half mile of new city street and gutter.
The city has never told anyone how to fund or build a road, the county is the one screaming $2 or $3 million, the city has stated and asked to sit down and talk how to build and if that future road to the FTZ is important enough for this area. There are ways to achieve a desired goal if people talk.
The city has stated that it wants to extend 332 in order to provide road infrastructure. The county estimates a cost of $2-3 Million dollars. When road infrastructure could be provided to the FTZ site from the north - at a cost that has also been estimated by the county for less than $300,000. With that point alone, I feel that it completely negates talking about extending 332 along the city's desired path.
The vacation of the burner road - is simply swapping one road for another - that are seperated by 3/4 of a single mile. There is NO other change than that. The "bypass" exists today, it has for decades. But that doesn't mean that the Hwy 53 businesses should be ignored either. Conversation between the city, the county and Hwy 53 businesses need to take place, with the goal of finding a middle ground - but at the same time understanding that the road is going to be built pretty much as proposed and projected by the county. Some options to consider in my opinion is putting zoning law moritorium's in place to prevent any "service/commercial" based businesses being built along Hwy 332, and perhaps billboard advertising to the south of where Hwy 332 cuts across highway 53, to encourage people to come into town via the Hwy 53 Corridor.
You want to be mayor but you have talking points only and like any of your business adventures in the past, you really have no plans!
This point is the only thing that actually shows YOU as having received bad information - and that you should reconsider YOUR sources. ALL - and let me repeat that word - ALL of my business "adventures" in the past have business plans and at least 5 year financials to go along with them.
Would you stop all planning for the riverfront
Answered above.
Do you agree with the county plan to divert traffic around the city.
Show me this plan - because I haven't seen that one. If you are referring to the Hwy 332 project - then I answered that above. I personally do not agree that the new road would create a bypass - anymore than the current burner road acts as a city bypass. Eventually Hwy 53 will be a 4 lane road - and I don't see people taking the time to slow down from 70+ MPH to "bypass" the city - to go buy gasoline in Canada at a much higher rate - when they can just cruise right into the city, and enjoy a nice meal at the Chocolate Moose, or Sandys, while getting gas at anyone of the gas stations along the 53 corridor.
Oh - and disclosure on who is part of my committee - it just myself - and Gordon Routier. That's it.
Doorsman - if you have further questions feel free to ask them. But if you want to truly see how myself and Mayor Mason differ on topics - give the Chamber of Commerce a call and request that they go forward with candidate debates that they have been considering.
