THE GUARDIAN received the poll conducted of downtown business owners on the issue of TVCC in Downtown Caldwell. The Results came out 82.4% against locating TVCC downtown and 17.6% in favor of locating TVCC downtown. This serves to remind us all that "in God we trust" but all others must bring data to the table. Sample size was 17 businesses with only three approving of the below question. The poll done by a couple of concernened citizens is much more than has been brought to the fore by the Mayor and Team Garret.
The poll sheets were hand carried by downtown business people and read as follows:
"Considering that at the downtown location of the TVCC college it will be necessary to buld a muli-level parking structure at the price of $15-$18,000 per parking space with no room for expansion for the school in the future, and it will be necessary to acquire land to build the parking structure where as at the skyranch (sic) site. which is also city owned land and already paid for, plenty of room for expansion and parking for up to 900 vehicles that can be developed at approx 1/15 the cost per vehicle, do you as a downtown business person support the location of TVCC College in downtown." APPROVE DISAPPROVE Signature and name of business
Mayor Nancolas and TEAM GARRET, site all the non-data support for putting TVCC in downtown. It is fairly easy to hit the speed dialer and get people pro-mayor to show up and speak to this project. A data supported position is hard to refute.
THE GUARDIAN has seen three different options offered up by private developers at no cost to the taxpayers for TVCC. The Urban Renewal option downtown for a building that is admittedly too small and has been acknowledges as too small by both the mayor and chairman of the urban renewal board.
You could not run a private business in this manner and expect to survive. Caldwell taxpayers should be outraged at what is going on here and demand voter oversite of this boondoggle project.
Ignoring the fact that the basic premise of the polling question rests upon an assumption that is not proven- please provide us with the hard numbers on your privately conducted opinion poll. How many downtown businesses were for? How many against? A whopping representative sample of 17 businesses with 3 for and 14 against yields the percentages that you cite.
ReplyDeleteHardly a representative sample of business in Caldwell.
BTW, all businesses and property owners in Caldwell pay the bill for downtown redevelopment, not just "downtown" business.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Why is the current Mayor Nancolas trying to shove this down the people of Caldwell's throat?
ReplyDeleteHey Quis,
ReplyDeleteThe redevelopment of DT and all urban renewal is paid for by all county taxpayers in one form or another. They forego lower property taxes so you can scatter money to the wind and call it a "plan".
The singn down at 10th and Blaine on the "catalyst project" is a farce. It is not right and the city wonks know it. It is a major source of embarassment for Caldwell.
It is one thing to question the wisdom of urban renewal. (A valid concern given our tax levy rate.) However, it is quite another to tout a privately conducted poll that centers on a slanted question about a parking garage that isn't in any plans as providing "data" that represents "downtown business".
ReplyDeleteI note that the wording of the first paragraph of the Guardian's initial post has now changed to include the sample size. Good for the Guardian. Transparency is good. Slanted use of slanted polls of an unrepresentative sample of an effected population is not.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Who is embarrased by progress or a plan for progress? Who is embarrassed by a sign that shows that Caldwell has plans (albeit imperfect plans) for moving forward after decades of listening to the same old voices advocating stasis? Is it more embarrassing to be advocating nothing and opposing everything or to be searching for a path out of the mindset that "we are what we are" or to be supporting a positive plan that includes the opportunity for the education and training of our future? Should our children wait for the Guardian and his cronies to provide us with a roadmap out of this malaise or should we take the reins and ride forth with hope? It is the choice between a vision of Caldwell as a growing community vs. a vision of Caldwell as it has been. I choose the positive vision. Unfortunately, the Guardian can't see past his own nose on this one.
ReplyDeleteTell me how the YMCA is bad for Caldwell.
Tell me how an educational facility in downtown Caldwell that will bring in hundreds of students to better themselves within our city boundaries is bad for Caldwell. Tell me how this isn't what "urban renewal" should be about. Tell me.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
I will tell you why it is bad:
ReplyDeleteAsk the YMCA what the actual # of subsidized memberships is compared to full payment memberships?
Ask TVCC where THEY would like to be located, not where the Urban Renewal board (Eljay Waite, Garret Nancolas) want it?
Urban Renewal should be TRYING to bring TAX generating business to Caldwell, not wasting our money on businesses that would be good for Caldwell, but generate ZERO tax revenue. I for one am glad that someone is looking out for taxpayers and not just listening to the political (baby kissing, country music singing, always your friend) retoric that we have been fed for years.
The YMCA is SUPPOSED to provide access to programs for those that can't support them. Urban renewal and the City have absolutely nothing to do with the subsidized memberships at the YMCA. Nothing. Urban Renewal is still paying the debt on their commitment to build the facility - nothing more.
ReplyDeleteTVCC can't make up their minds on their own? Why doesn't the developer at Sky Ranch, or elsewhere just build a better building and then recruit TVCC? I'll tell you why, because those screaming for the development of that facility at Sky Ranch are just waiting for their turn at the teat of Urban Renewal. They aren't against the use of Urban Renewal money, they are just against the fact that it isn't they who are benefitting.
Who is saying that a parking structure is needed?
ReplyDeleteThere is currently HUNDREDS of empty parking spaces in the Downtown core in need of parked cars.