In today's paper, the Tribune's editorial board is taking the county to task concerning the latest snafu regarding a proposed land exchange.
According to a comment County Commissioner Joe Briggs made here: "Aaron (Weissman) is correct that the details are sketchy as this proposal was just floated in recent days as a way for the city to acquire the land they need without having to compensate the county for the differences in the value of the land". [emphasis added].
According to a comment County Commissioner Joe Briggs made here: "Aaron (Weissman) is correct that the details are sketchy as this proposal was just floated in recent days as a way for the city to acquire the land they need without having to compensate the county for the differences in the value of the land". [emphasis added].
This development has been in the works for quite some time. Wouldn't you think this would have been a detail worked out in the beginning?
Why do I have a feeling there is more to this story than we are hearing?
7 comments:
As you say, there is a great deal more to the story and I it is unfortunate the Tribune chose to throw kerosene on this honest difference of opinion.
Thankfully, the Tribune is dead wrong about both the City and County Commissioners, we are all adults and we can settle our differences quite well.
Apparently, in the Tribune's eyes, unless the County unilaterally surrenders assets to the City we are out of line. It is too bad they choose to ignore the facts of the situation as well the legal and ethical responsibilities that the County has to all of its citizens before forming their “Opinion”.
It appears the editors of the Tribune don’t believe that the citizens of Cascade County who live outside of the city limits have any rights and our efforts to make sure that they are protected are misplaced. Obviously, I disagree; I serve all 81,000 residents of Cascade County, not just those in the City. I readily admit, it is a difficult balancing act sometimes, but this is not one of those times.
The City has known for months that MDOT would not allow 4th Ave NW to be the access into the Federal Court Building, but yet the City waited until just recently to approach us with a land swap proposal.
By the way, contrary to the editorial, the City does not “already own this property”. 4th Ave NW is precisely what the City needs to acquire from the County. It is in fact not a City street, nor even a public roadway, it is a private drive owned by the County. Fact checking is such a wonderful thing…..
The plan created by the City to move the road to the new location involves several parties, James Talcott Construction, the City, the County and the Cowboy Bar. The deal includes the City obtaining two small parcels from Talcott, one which is required for the construction of 3rd Ave NW (the new access road)and the other which will provide access to the County property once the new road is built.
Both of these parcels are to be transferred to the County at a cost to the County of $13 per square foot and the County is required to grant the city an easement for the new road. The City will also obtain from the Cowboy Bar, a parcel required to complete the new road at $13 per square foot.
The problem is that unlike all of the other parcels involved in the swap, the property the City wants to buy from the County is only being valued by the City at $3.75 per square foot instead of $13. Keep in mind that all of the parcels are small and they all touch. How is it that the land owned by the taxpayers of Cascade County is worth only 1/3 as much per square foot as the surronding parcels?
What we have said is that all of the land being swapped in that one block area ought to be valued the same, the taxpayers of Cascade County should not be expected to subsidize either the City, the Cowboy Bar or Talcott.
This apparently makes us territorial and childish in the eyes of the Tribune editors.
Another point made by the Tribune that is not in keeping with reality is that I somehow voided the deal. This is also totally false. The “deal” was a contract requiring the signature of both parties. On Tuesday we approved the agreement as written by the City Staff so as to expedite the construction the road. The City Commission amended the agreement so as to not allow the taxpayers of Cascade County to be compensated should the City be unable to transfer 4th Street to the county.
The City Commission unilaterally modified the “deal” negotiated by their own staff and in doing so, voided the agreement we had already signed.
I would also note, that an agreement that we proposed to the City last week included language to allow the City to either provide cash compensation or transfer 4th Street to the County. The City staff rejected that agreemnt and offered the counterproposal that we signed and the City Commission rejected.
We are also being chastised for not just allowing the construction to begin without a deal worked out.
Let me ask you, if I showed up on your doorstep and said “I think I want to buy your property so how about I move in and start to remodel it. We can work out the details later of how much I will pay you for it.” Would your response be “Sure move right in, here is a hammer, have at it.”? I sincerely doubt that you would feel that gracious and trusting.
Cooperation between the City and County is a good thing, but that level of “trust” the Tribune advocates goes beyond reasonable.
I would be happy to supply any and all details of this project that we have with the public at any time.
I should also note that my irritation is not directed at the City Commission for having questioned their staff’s recommendation. Such questioning is both healthy and appropriate. My irritation is with Tribune for not bothering to check the facts in advance of issuing their opinion this morning.
Joe Briggs
County Commissioner
I'll give the county the benefit of the doubt, as it's still more 'open' than the tyranny we see
on secret records at city hall.
Commissioner Briggs,
Thank you for your thoughts. The Great Falls Tribune is an embarrassment to the newspaper business. Can't get their facts straight, totally biased, and over-priced. You're doing a great job and it's good to see you're running for reelection next year.
Actually the Great Falls Tribune is the best newspaper in Montana! I read the other papers from time to time (Helena IR, Missoulian, Butte Standard and Billings Gazette) and they do not come close. They do make mistakes, but who doesn't? I do agree that the Tribune is costly for advertisement! Subscription cost is not out of line with the cost of business. I also am glad to see that Joe is planning on running in 2010. I do hope the county and city officials can get their act together and do something positive for the citizens of this county and city.
Our Tribune is one of the worst rags I've had the displeasure to read. Anonymous is totally drinking Kool Aid and forgot to wipe the lips. One question...are you an employee or a relative??
Commissioner Briggs;
Thank you for taking the time to make comments here. I would like to take an opportunity to state that our Neighborhood Council currently has no position on the proposal to close 4th Street. We are open to the idea, but need to see more details first.
That said, because of the areas proximity to the 5th and 6th Street one-way couplets and the closed 3rd Street (Davidson Plaza), we are concerned that closing 4th Street will significantly impact the flow of traffic in the lower North side. In addition, we are also concerned about the increase in traffic in the alley behind the Library. We would like to see a comprehensive study of the traffic and parking impact on the area before we make any comment about the potential closure.
We will be discussion this at our council meeting tonight. We would welcome any specifics or details about exactly what form the closure of 4th Street would take.
Sincerely,
Aaron Weissman, Chair
Neighborhood Council 7
Aaron,
Those are all very legitimate concerns which will need to be discussed to see what sort of reconfiguration, if any, is appropriate. We recognized from the outset that such an effort would require a lot of work and input from area residents.
That is why in our original proposal to the City we included a year time frame for the city to run the required processes before deciding whether to pay the County the cash difference between the exchanged parcels or to transfer the street to the county. Unfortunately, that information has not been a part of the media’s coverage of the issue.
As far as details, there are none at this point, but I plan to attend your meeting tonight to explain what we are doing with the old Jail, our existing parking lots and how if the street were to be vacated it might play a role in our planning process.
Thanks for the opportunity to respond to your Council's concerns.
Joe Briggs
Post a Comment