Cable Park Shelved

realharry · Since 03 Nov 2008 31 Posts Oregon

I thought kite boarding was HR's answer to a cable park?
Trent has made a lot of good points, the rest sound like a bunch of crying babies.
Rolling Eyes

DROCK999 · Since 31 May 2007 852 Posts Left Coast Opinionated

pjc · Since 06 Mar 2005 649 Posts Addicted

i want to hear to trent slag on the fishing industry next, my popcorn is getting cold

Trent · Since 10 May 2012 76 Posts Hood River

Someone contacted me this morning and helped me to understand something about this whole thing that hadn’t occurred to me before. They explained that it’s very likely that the financing that Naito had secured would not wait around forever. Honestly, I had not considered that. Not sure why, but just didn’t. So, yes. For me to say that “Naito isn’t going anywhere…” was naïve. It still bothers me to hear Naito lawyers arrogantly explain how they still “…hold all the cards” against our town but, whatever. This morning I’ve got a better view of the bigger picture at hand.

pjc · Since 06 Mar 2005 649 Posts Addicted

Trent, reading comprehension fail? There are like 10 posts on this thread saying exactly what you just now realize. At any rate, better nate than lever.

Sella · Thu Oct 11, 12 12:55 pm

pjc · Since 06 Mar 2005 649 Posts Addicted

i wouldn't get your hopes up - my guess is naitos is already engaging in a PR friendly way to extricate themselves from this mess, and the "compromise negotiations" you are seeing now is just smoke-screen designed to give the appearance "hey we tried".

i have no inside info, just my experience with how this sort of thing works in general.

i've no doubt they have meetings along the lines of "holy crap there are some bargains we need to build stuff NOW", how could they not?

respect the heck out of forrest for trying so hard with this stuff - i watched my dad get burned out playing this game, it's a biatch

forrest · Wed Oct 17, 12 9:28 pm

In case you missed it...

Last nights Port meeting was interesting for sure. Bob Naito was there to deliver and speak about the (attached) letter he submitted to the Port. Essentially, as many know, the Naitos are waiting to hear the Friends' concerns in regards to the hotel project before officially taking the cable park off of the table and endorsing the Babitz/Davies proposal. The Naitos would like to see if they can "work out an agreement" with the Friends' and their concerns on the hotel before pulling the plug on the cable park project completely. This would give everyone an opportunity to win and weigh in. Also, as a business it makes sense for the Naitos not to pull the cable park and count on the Babitz/Davies plan if the hotel cannot move forward since the funding for Babitz/Davies proposal hinges on the tax revenue generated by the hotel and other future port properties.

Currently, the Friends have 2 active lawsuits and 2 others waiting per Brent Fosters oral response to Mr. Naito. The Friends and Foster have stated that they will not enter into negotiations with the Naitos without a confidentiality agreement, meaning no public access to the negotiation content. Fosters reasoning for this requirement when pressed by the Port seemed dodgy from any seat in the room. He listed items like the setback from the water, the foot path, and other construction/environmental related things would be discussed and needed to remain confidential. How is this acting responsibly on behalf of the public one might wonder? His only reason for such a request is that he didn't want words spoken in the negotiations to be misrepresented to the public or press. That was his sole reason. You smell that?? It's a faint odor, but a fishy one for sure.

What I would like to know, is where is all this transparency the Friends et al are so fond of?? Negotiating in private on the supposed behalf of the public's interest? Shouldn't the public get a say in some of this? Not according to the Friends.

The Naitos letter summed it up pretty well by saying, " The Friends is a non-profit public interest corporation. I don't see any reason why they would want their negotiations confidential especially since they are negotiations on behalf of the public interest. All the issues to date have been addressed in the public forum. I see no reason to change."

I'm curious to see how the HR News and other forums will interpret this information. Meanwhile, have a quick read...

forrest · Wed Oct 17, 12 9:37 pm

HR News story, including audio of Brent and Bob:

http://hoodrivernews.www.clients.ellingtoncms.com/news/2012/oct/17/sides-appear-be-impase-how-proceed-over-nichols-ba/

pjc · Since 06 Mar 2005 649 Posts Addicted

"The Friends and Foster have stated that they will not enter into negotiations with the Naitos without a confidentiality agreement, meaning no public access to the negotiation content."

Hahaha, that is pretty funny. They are going to put forward ridiculous arguments, and they don't want people making fun of them.

Think the horses have perhaps left the barn on that one.

Forrest for President!

wakeup · Since 11 Sep 2005 328 Posts always Obsessed

wow!
confidentiality?
what makes them think that they can decide and negotiate on the behalf of the rest of us without us knowing!

what kind of elitists are these people

"give them an inch they'll take a yard,
give them a yard they'll take a mile"

Total destruction, the only solution

dangler · Since 26 Feb 2006 1769 Posts WINDY SPOTS XTreme Poster

THATS THE DOUCHIEST LAWYER EVER.

AND THATS SAYING ALOT

SalmonSlayer · Since 27 Nov 2005 648 Posts Addicted **CGKA Member**

Inept_Fun · Since 14 Apr 2005 1417 Posts Hood River XTreme Poster

Who exactly decided that the friends had anything to do with the public? They are a group of individuals and in no way do they represent the public or their interests.

JonMalmberg · Since 15 Aug 2011 340 Posts Obsessed

Am I missing something? Don't the Naito's OWN that land? As long as they are following city, county, and federal code for development... when do they need any public approval for what they do within those codes?

I understand the issues behind the cable park, but sans the park... Naito should be able to tell all of us to bugger off. When Naito moves on and sells this to a commercial venture that is light industrial, they give the public the bird, it gets developed, and all access is completely gated off... mud on the Friends faces then.

Jon

forrest · Thu Oct 18, 12 9:50 am

The negotiations are about dropping the 2 lawsuits the "Friends" have brought against the Naitos.

While it's not uncommon for these types of things to go confidential, it's not appropriate in this case. Further, all the issues have been discussed in public up until this point, what new issues could there possibly be? The reason to go confidential is the "Friends" are doing something they don't want the public to know about.

It's very obvious they're trying to get money out of the Naitos, secretly. My guess is that it's Brent trying to get his lawyer fees, but it could be the "Friends" trying to create budget for themselves so they can continue to make decisions for the rest of us by lobbing lawsuits at anything they don't like.

I really wonder what all those people who attended "Friends" fundraisers think now. You guys funded a monster. Any member of the board of the "Friends" has veto power over anything from what I know. Now one person on their board gets to have all the power and decision making, if they don't agree with the direction of the "Friends" organization. I have a question for you "Friends", how does a member of the public get on the board? How does the public you claim to represent disagree with your antics?

We're really fortunate that the Naitos are taking a "No Bullshit" approach to this. Last thing we need is money that could be spent on this community being siphoned by these "Plaintiffs of the Hood River Waterfront".