Coincidence? This is very interesting. All the shady political maneuvering that was done by the city council and there are no recording of the meetings. It just keeps getting better and better.....
Here's a background on the story. This is an email message forwarded to me by someone who is working with Julian Gorski:
I just ordered a DVD of (the October 6th meeting), which they said I could pick up this afternoon. He called back about five minutes later and said that because of a mistake, that meeting didn't get recorded (neither audio nor video nor either), which is why it isn't already online. He's been here 18 months and this is the first time this has happened. Very strange, given the sidebar conference, the issue of not announcing a conflict, etc., which could be important.
Do you know anyone who might have recorded it, either in the audience or at home? Does anyone have a recording of this??
It was very disturbing to me that Howard Wakeland settled with the city and did not press the case further. It does not allow for a legal precedent to prevent the Historic Preservation Commission from their create-their-own-rules-as-they-go-along-crusade to stifle multi-family development.
Howard Wakeland's case was nothing next to Julian's (from what I'm hearing). The good news is that Julian Gorski closed on his house with the Urbana Development Corp. and the money is in the bank. Does anyone know if the city backed the UDC? What would happen if the UDC got sued, which you have to assume is a serious possibility. Julian Gorski reportedly communicated to the UDC that he intended to fight them. Was this disclosed the city when asking for taxpayer backing?? I would not assume their project will go smoothly.
From the N-G article here is Prussing on Howard Wakeland, "In the future, she said the city would take steps to make sure the historic preservation commission and other city bodies, including the city council, are following proper procedure "so we can avoid these kinds of problems."
Brilliant idea. I suspect her problems are just beginning.
whoa, that is interesting. they completely botched both the video and audio recordings of the meeting? was it broadcast live? i've never heard of them not recording a meeting. it certainly suggests a consipracy even though that might be jumping to conclusions. perhaps a city council member records the meetings off of UPTV?
It was very disturbing to me that Howard Wakeland settled with the city and did not press the case further.
Nothing in Urbana ever pleases you, eh?
Why would Wakeland have pushed it further? If they settled, that means he received enough to make it worth his while. Did you want him to be a martyr or something? Seriously, it disturbs you that he didn't want to spend more time and money to risk getting nothing out of the deal?
Let's be honest with ourselves - you just hate the Urbana city government regardless of their actions. You've posted that the city settled with Wakeland, they will work to make sure everyone follows proper procedure, and that Gorski actually received money from the UDC. How are any of these bad for business?
Thought police wrote: Let's be honest with ourselves - you just hate the Urbana city government regardless of their actions.
To ThoughtPolice: Does your moniker empower or enlighten you to read into a person's mind what s/he likes or hates ?
B is for
BozoBusiness wrote:What would happen if the UDC got sued, which you have to assume is a serious possibility.
I suspect her problems are just beginning.
To B is for Business:
Whom do you believe might sue UDC?
What type of problems are you anticipating for the mayor?
The meeting's not getting recorded was caused by the ghost of Richard Nixon
Michael Fuerst
(Click here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers.)
Does your moniker empower or enlighten you to read into a person's mind what s/he likes or hates ?
Of course not. But careful observation of one's rhetoric allows me to draw conclusions about that person's views.
Don't get me wrong - I don't think Urbana's the most business-friendly area (I'm not a fool, after all). However, it seems that B is for Business loves to point fingers at them no matter what they do. In this case, we see that the city overruled the historic preservation commission's decision and reached a settlement to allow a developer to demolish an old building, but apparently this isn't good enough for some.
There was a related editorial in the N-G today:
http://www.news-gazette.com/news/opinions/editorials/2008/11/21/preservation_cases_raise_big_issue_in
"Did you want him to be a martyr or something? Seriously, it disturbs you that he didn't want to spend more time and money to risk getting nothing out of the deal?"
Howard let them off easy. I suspect Howard and I are on the same page. Just a hunch.
"Don't get me wrong - I don't think Urbana's the most business-friendly area (I'm not a fool, after all). However, it seems that B is for Business loves to point fingers at them no matter what they do. In this case, we see that the city overruled the historic preservation commission's decision and reached a settlement to allow a developer to demolish an old building, but apparently this isn't good enough for some."
BS. The city did not overrule the commission decision. They voted for the decision and then unanimously agreed to settle when they were called out. That's supposed to be good enough for me? Good grief. The city dares developers to sue and than backs off when they do. It's an annoying game.
"The meeting's not getting recorded was caused by the ghost of Richard Nixon"
My guess is the city clerk's office who communicated to callers the day of the vote that they were confident a vote would take place. The city clerk was the one who want back and complied with Prussing pushing through the decision without the attorney's questions being answered. I could point you to the video, but guess what...
"You've posted that the city settled with Wakeland, they will work to make sure everyone follows proper procedure, and that Gorski actually received money from the UDC. How are any of these bad for business?"
Good grief (again). The UDC sets up a system where they don't have to buy a property until someone else does, uses the city to force them to sell, and I'm supposed to think that's reasonable when they settle a lawsuit they were certain to lose? Due process was eliminated. Creating a commission without any structure is not due process. I'm supposed to feel happy when Prussing makes a token statement and agrees they need to take a closer look?
It is time to be accountable.
Of course not. But careful observation of one's rhetoric allows me to draw conclusions about that person's views.
Soon you will be accusing me of disliking Urbana, although I have lived in Urbana for almost three decades.
Michael Fuerst
(Click here for Urbana postage stamps, T-shirts and bumper stickers.)