At the Information Meeting on Monday, May 16th, there was discussion among council members on when to bring their event center location decision before the full council for an official vote. Council Chair Greg Jamison stated he would like that action to occur by the first or second council meeting in June.
There are a lot of rumors out there on which way this vote is going to go and who is going to end up being the swing vote. Observers are saying that there is no question that councilors Anderson, Entenman and Rolfing will vote for the Arena/Convention Center location. They have been pretty vocal about their support for the mayor's plan from the very beginning and no amount of information that has been forthcoming has swayed them in the least.
Councilors Jamison, Erpenbach, Aquilar and Brown have listened to presentations, asked questions and considered both locations and it appears they are leaning heavily towards the Cherapa site as a final consideration.
Guess who appears to be the swing vote? The new guy on the block appointed by the city council to fill the vacant seat left by Bob Litz. Councilor Karsky has been heard saying he favors the Cherapa site. He has said it before his appointment to the city council. He has said it in meetings with the BID group. Now he saying that he supports the Cherapa site but might have to vote for the Arena/Convention Center site. Either he has no conviction or he's getting real pressure from the likes of the mayor and Councilor Entenman.
How ironic is it going to be to have the newest council member who was not even elected to the position be the deciding vote on the event center location. I think if he forces this to a 4-4 vote requiring the mayor to break the tie, we should name it the Dean Karsky Event Center.
What a legacy to have tied to your name.
This whole EC debate has been nothing less than a dog and pony show for the last year. No surprise it coincides with 'honest mikes' tenure as mayor. To the silent majority debating 'where' instead of 'how' is truly baffling and frustrating.
ReplyDeleteJennifer has said....
There are definitely four camps of thought and support regarding this major project.
A. The No Camp
B. The Just Build It-Who Cares Where Camp
C. The Arena Convention Center Camp
D. The Build It Downtown Camp
~~~~~
I myself think the vocal minority is in for a real surprise, much like they were on the Drake Springs indoor pool vote a few years back. The people I have contact with the most are the silent VAST majority who fall under the NO CAMP category. They are also the same group of citizens who actually show up at the voting booth. That's why I believe this mayor will do what he can to keep an up or down vote on the need for an EC off any ballot. IF this circus was finally on a ballot, how do you think it should be worded?
Polly Amalo
I wish I was on the council, then at least we'd all know where my vote was going (no pressure would get to me). Maybe I'll run next time.
ReplyDeleteThere should be no vote by the City Council until the Ethics Board rules on the conflict of interest issues against Entnman.
ReplyDeleteI refer to Entenman, Rolfing and Karsky as "The Three Stooges". Seems to fit on most issues lately!
ReplyDeleteIt looks like Dean will have a chance to either do the right thing (ie what's in his heart) or like the Mayor choose the politically expedient path. Most polticians would relish that opportunity as it will show whether or not he deserves to be elected to his seat or voted out.
ReplyDeleteIf you really want to see what a sham the AECOM report is, take a comparative run through this report done for Ownesboro, KY last June; FYI they are 1/3 our population base:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.owensboro.org/sites/default/files/public/2010_Feasibility_Report-Final_Draft.pdf
This is an example of a complete analysis that a person can actually make an informed decision on. What we got from AECOM was the regurgitation of the sales pitches from SMG & Global Spectrum.
Since you bring up the report, remember when the CVB Director, whose responsibility it is to book events into the Convention Center, said at the "press conference" that she was never contacted for input. What does that tell you about the sham being pushed by this mayor, Darrin Smith, and their two buddies Entenman and Rolfing. I don't think Rolfing has had an independent thought since he joined the council. And, Entenman...nobody said you had an ethics problem, it's a conflict of interest issue so your over the top cry baby ranting was pretty self serving and not a pretty picture. What a group we have leading the city.
ReplyDeleteI'd fire the CVB director if she worked for me. There is hardly anything scheduled in the Arena all summer. So what would be different with a new EC? What is going to draw people DT in the summer, prime attraction time for people to stroll around and spend money, to an EC if there is nothing going on?
ReplyDeleteIf you didn't get a chance to see the KELO piece last night on Lincoln, Nebraska's effort to build an event center, click on their website and watch it. Powerful information regarding their efforts to find the right location. Those citizens and city leaders said it best - downtown is what drives their city and building it where there are no hotels, shops and restaurants makes no sense economically.
ReplyDeleteTo heck with Karsky, someone needs to hold Anderson down and give him a good apple rub, maybe rub some sense into his head and get him on board with the DT location. I'm surprised he would support an Arena location when we know how he feels about softball and McCart field. I think it would be a shame that Karsky, Johnny come lately would hold the balance of the location in his hands. I'm wondering if Jen could fill us in on city ordinance when it comes to a tie-breaker and the Mayor. Would seem odd that he would put this in the council's hands then he gets to decide afterall.
ReplyDeleteCity Ordinance 2-9, Presiding officer duties state:
ReplyDelete(d) The mayor shall vote only in the case of a tie vote, his name being called last.
City Ordinance 2-23, Ordinances, resolutions, motions and other documents requiring council approval state:
(h) An affirmative vote of at least five of the council shall be necessary to pass an ordinance. A resolution, motion or any other proposition may be adopted by a majority of those present.....
I forgot to add the City Charter language to the above clarification comment:
ReplyDeleteCity Charter Section 2.11, Procedure states:
(c) Voting. Voting, except on procedural motions, shall be by roll call and the ayes and nays shall be recorded in the journal. Five (5) members of the council shall constitute a quorum, but a smaller number may adjourn from time to time and may compel the attendance of absent members in the manner and subject to the penalties prescribed by the rules of the council. Each council member shall have an equal vote; the mayor shall only vote as necessary to break a tie. All actions of the council shall be by a majority of those present, except no ordinances or any action calling for the expenditure of money in excess of the state bids limits for municipalities or filling of vacancies as set forth in section 2.06 shall be valid or binding unless adopted by the affirmative vote of five (5) or more members of the council.
Anderson SHOULD support a downtown EC location based alone on the fact that the Cherapa site stands to provide substantial, positive economic spinoff to the Whittier residents and business owners in his northeast district!
ReplyDelete