It's a two-way street Rob and your presumptions and suppostions are as condescending as were your comments on the campaign trail. So, let's keep it real. My sarcasm is my frustration with people who think they can poke holes into issues that are far more complicated than they think.
Yes, indeed, Bruce, let's "keep it real," as you are fond of saying. These three sentences are representative of your approach to political discussion/debate. There's nothing specific here at all. You refer to my "comments on the campaign trail." What specifically do you have in mind? And why didn't you say something during the campaign? Hard for me to raise my consciousness if you won't help me with your input. Which issues "are far more complicated" than people think? What's "real" in debate about public policy are the specifics of an issue, which you seem to have a problem with.
The MLK Drive widening is not a result of the lawsuits. That was the plan way back to Willie Brown when the 10th Avenue residents complained that only one entrance would affect their property values...
This is simply untrue. If you read Judge Warren's decision, which methodically goes through the causes of action raised by Lippe and Volker, if unchallenged in court the Concourse Authority was going ahead with an inside-the-park entrance to the garage near the southwestern edge of the Concourse. The judge rejected every claim advanced by Lippe/Volker, except that inside-the-park entrance to the garage. He ordered the Authority to come up with a entrance that begins outside the park. This shouldn't even be controversial, Bruce; it's a matter of fact and was even accurately reported last year in the news stories about Warren's decision.
If you attend the Concourse Authority meetings and other hearings you will hear them say even defend that this has always been in the works and no one should be surprised about it. I am referring to as recent as the November 16 Special meeting.
I was at the November 16 meeting, and I heard no such thing. I heard that the Authority was responding to Judge Warren's order to come back to him after designing a "dedicated" entrance to the garage that begins outside the park. That's what that meeting was about and nothing else.
If you read my post carefully, the widening of MLK Drive is not a dedicated access route. The building of a new underground entrance/exit ramp on 10th Avenue is..."Dedicated" is where it had no effect on what is existing.
Where do you get your definition of "dedicated"? The planned widening of MLK will have lanes "dedicated" to entering and exiting the garage. Hence, it will probably meet the judge's requirements. The idea of digging an underground tunnel to access the garage from Tenth Ave. would have done extensive damage to the park and was rightly rejected by the Authority. Neither Prop. J
nor Judge Warren's decision specified that the outside-the-park entrance to the garage had to be a tunnel, which is what you are implying.
The widening of MLK Drive will have drastic effects on everything existing around it as far as Districts 7 and 4 no less the immediate vicinity of 5.
Where's your evidence for this assertion? Maybe you're right, but you aren't going to convince me or anyone else if you don't provide any evidence.
Rob, no one has lost anything yet. The project is moving ahead at its peril as Judge Warren warned...Why hasn't he made a decision sooner? Is it because there is an appeal on file that has some merit? Obviously, the Judge knows this and wants to wait for their opinion.
Of course the judge has to evaluate the Lippe/Volker appeal, even if it has no merit. That's how the legal system works. There has been no indication yet as to what he thinks of the merit of the appeal. Roberts and Duderstadt did indeed lose last year in their attempt to stop the garage altogether. You need to read Judge Warren's Statement of Decision of August 10, 2004, to see that the anti-garage movement lost on everything but the inside-the-park entrance issue.
On the bond and servicing the bond: As I indicated earlier, Judge Warren has a lucid discussion of the financing of the garage in his decision, and he found that no public money has been involved thus far. The garage is being constructed without public money, and the bond will be financed by money from parking fees as it operates. The notion that not enough people will use the garage, given the past difficulties finding parking in and around the Concourse, seems like a perverse form of wishful thinking on the part of the opponents to the garage.
The City Charter says that ONLY the voters can sell or lease park land. Prop. J did not override this...
According to Judge Warren---whose opinion is more important than yours or mine---Prop. J did exactly that. The voters passed Prop. J in 1998, which created the Concourse Authority to get the Concourse remodeled and to build the garage. You keep citing Prop. J
as the basis for your opinions, but, again, you don't cite specific passages in the measure. Could you be more specific here? The Concourse Authority clearly had the authority to make an agreement with MCCP to build and operate the garage, as Judge Warren pointed out in his decision.
Again, the public was sold the idea that there would be no above ground traffic as there was. That a Pedestrian Oasis would be created. That is what was sold to the voters. That is why I voted for it.
Prop.J clearly states that the Pedestrian Oasis refers to the Concourse itself, and, since 200 parking spaces will be removed from the Concourse when the project is completed, it will indeed be a much more pedestrian-friendly place than it was before the garage. And another 600 surface parking spaces will be removed from park roads to match those created in the garage. Taking cars off the park's surface roads by constructing the garage seems to everyone but garage opponents like a step in the right direction.
You are gonna get a brand new parking garage dedicated to the museums with an entrance that is quite capable of handling the traffic flow. There is no need for another entrance.
Other single-entrance garages in the city---like those at Union Square and the Civic Center---are not located in residential areas like Ninth and Lincoln and Tenth and Fulton. Elementary fairness to the Tenth and Fulton neighborhood requires another entrance to the garage, assuming it can be done sensibly---and I think it can at Ninth and Lincoln. There's another compelling argument for a second entrance to the garage: once people enter the park from any other entrance, they need to have a way to get into the garage without driving all the way out of the park and circling around to the Fulton St. entrance. If no other entrance is provided, traffic in and around the surrounding neighborhoods to get to that single entrance will be much worse.
These are concrete and physical facts.
No they aren't, Bruce. You've provided us with nothing but your opinions, which don't seem to be grounded in the facts at all.
From: Bruce Wolfe [mailto:Bruce@BruceWolfe.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2005 3:48 PM
To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Subject: Your message
Well, I have been told that this thread will stay off the[PROSF] list from this point forward so I am forwarding it directly to you both. My comments inserted below, too[in italics}.