Monday, October 5, 2009

Zircons, Lorje, Grover and more

$ - I am starting to wonder whether our Crown Jewel River Landing is in fact a zircon. When it started the initial investment of roughly 35 million was necessary to clear and clean the site and put the infrastructure in place. In planning for a mix of private/public development the proposal was that tax generated from private development would pay for and maintain the public component. The 35 million ballooned into 90+ million.

I'm an old girl and you could have knocked my nylons off when I heard left wing incumbent councillor Pat Lorje stating we shouldn't "skimp" on River Landing. What's another 7 million? Perhaps Ms. Lorje should quit driving the bus and move to the back!

$ - Next up, Jack Grover. So Jack didn't like his purchaser. After inking the deal, presumably for fair market value, he decided his nemesis should pay more - and the city did. $14,000.00 more. My burning question is: How many more properties does Jack Own?

$ - If you live in a core area of the city and are concerned about mercury content in potable water it is recommended that you run your water in the morning for 10 minutes before drinking it. With an expected rate increase on the horizon, should core area residents get a break for the lost water on the morning water run? Aside from the health concerns, is there a conservation issue here? What's the ever-increasing utility infrastructure levy (hidden tax) being spent on? So many questions, so few answers.


  1. I did find it interesting that the City Manager comes out just before and election to say there was a deficit looming, but don't worry things will be sold come Nov. or even a surplus by the end of the year. I doubt any of the incumbents will be likely the tune of that while door knocking

  2. Civic Mistress I love the Bus comment I almost forgot about Pat's blunder of thinking she was ready for the drivers seat obviously NOT!

    As for the River Landing cost do you have any insight into the "Hotel" complex supposedly making another payment or did the elected officials get that postponed until after the election?

    Keep it up Love the writing. Easy read. And unless your in your 90's you're not old.

  3. It was lead in the water, not mercury. Apart from that I agree. We are on one hand encouraged to reduce water use and then it is suggested water be run for 10 minutes to reduce the lead content. It would take a lot of low flow toilets to make up for that waste of water. Then to top things off, because we have managed to use less water this summer, somehow the city needs to up the rate we pay for water as they aren't making money. Someone is not making sense! Water conservations is supposed to save us money,not cost us more!


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.