|
|
Post by NCO Staff on May 26, 2009 5:13:18 GMT -5
Post comments from current Port articles on NCO here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Randy on May 26, 2009 15:58:35 GMT -5
I do not understand how CRK missed the point of the golf course being illegal once the new zone went through.
I thought I heard something about it at the time and then it was suddenly hushed up or irrelevant?
The pass through amount is ridiculous. The port gets NOTHING out of this deal. At the time we were told 1) that we would get a golf a course that the public could use and would bring in revenue for the port 2) that there would be additional revenue from the lease of the property once the project went in. But now we find out the golf course CANT ever happen AND no matter whether the LNG project goes through or not the Port does NOT get additional money for 60 years! It will always only be based on the bare land value!
Will they have to even pay taxes on their project? Or will the taxes be the responsibility of the Port or the state since the project is on their land???
|
|
|
|
Post by wanna bet on May 26, 2009 17:46:46 GMT -5
If Foster & VandenHuevel had killed this back in 2005 Foster wouldn't have had three years gaining fame fighting it, thus planting himself in the AG's office. AND Columbia RiverKeepers wouldn't have had four more years of donations flowing in!
|
|
|
|
Post by ... on May 26, 2009 18:30:09 GMT -5
If Foster & VandenHuevel had killed this back in 2005 Foster wouldn't have had three years gaining fame fighting it, thus planting himself in the AG's office. AND Columbia RiverKeepers wouldn't have had four more years of donations flowing in! And what better place to attack the whole mess from than the A.G.'s Office and especially one working, as it appears, in the interests of 'The People'. This is not going to be pretty. |
|
|
|
Post by Randy on May 26, 2009 21:42:41 GMT -5
If Foster & VandenHuevel had killed this back in 2005 Foster wouldn't have had three years gaining fame fighting it, thus planting himself in the AG's office. AND Columbia RiverKeepers wouldn't have had four more years of donations flowing in! And what better place to attack the whole mess from than the A.G.'s Office and especially one working, as it appears, in the interests of 'The People'. This is not going to be pretty. What better place? 49 other, better, AG's without taints on them for opposing an industry solely on the grounds that they have a personal aversion to it? Maybe the state attorney for the feds? maybe the Feds, overall? One working in the interests of "The People"? Is that why NONE of the State of Oregon departments would sign a waiver regarding Foster "investigating" anything that had to do with LNG, except the Dept of Energy, who's boss was recently ash canned or the head of DSL, Steve Purchase? Only TWO people at the state level trust the AG's office to be serving the best interests of "the people" when it comes to LNG but we are supposed to believe that this AG and his minion Foster (or is it the other way around?) are going to fairly look at this issue? Wasn't it Marquis' democrat headquarters that rigged their party to pass a resolution against LNG? Maybe that was the "conflict of interest"  If so, it isn't in the past, it is current. Marquis can't be a leader in his local party, heading the charge against LNG and also, "unbiasedly' be investigating an LNG issue. Neither can the current AG. IF Kroger is honest or has an ounce of integrity he would pass this along to another branch to be investigated. If he keeps it, this so-called investigation is tainted from the word "go". |
|
|
|
Post by ... on May 26, 2009 22:08:23 GMT -5
And what better place to attack the whole mess from than the A.G.'s Office and especially one working, as it appears, in the interests of 'The People'. This is not going to be pretty. What better place? 49 other, better, AG's without taints on them for opposing an industry solely on the grounds that they have a personal aversion to it? Maybe the state attorney for the feds? maybe the Feds, overall? One working in the interests of "The People"? Is that why NONE of the State of Oregon departments would sign a waiver regarding Foster "investigating" anything that had to do with LNG, except the Dept of Energy, who's boss was recently ash canned or the head of DSL, Steve Purchase? Only TWO people at the state level trust the AG's office to be serving the best interests of "the people" when it comes to LNG but we are supposed to believe that this AG and his minion Foster (or is it the other way around?) are going to fairly look at this issue? Wasn't it Marquis' democrat headquarters that rigged their party to pass a resolution against LNG? Maybe that was the "conflict of interest" If so, it isn't in the past, it is current. Marquis can't be a leader in his local party, heading the charge against LNG and also, "unbiasedly' be investigating an LNG issue. Neither can the current AG. IF Kroger is honest or has an ounce of integrity he would pass this along to another branch to be investigated. If he keeps it, this so-called investigation is tainted from the word "go". Did we hit a nerve Randy Boy? This is about 'The Port' and what some call a 'Bogus Lease' and a Port that needs a thorough looking over in its ethics and practices from what I hear. Anything else you want to get off your chest, go ahead, I'm here for you my man. |
|
|
|
Post by sensible argument on May 26, 2009 22:22:20 GMT -5
the only conflict of interest Marquis had going on was his internal conflict. "Do I spend my time fighting for the people or spend my time fighting the County for my stipend?" Guess which one he chose?
|
|
|
|
Post by Randy on May 26, 2009 22:40:22 GMT -5
What better place? 49 other, better, AG's without taints on them for opposing an industry solely on the grounds that they have a personal aversion to it? Maybe the state attorney for the feds? maybe the Feds, overall? One working in the interests of "The People"? Is that why NONE of the State of Oregon departments would sign a waiver regarding Foster "investigating" anything that had to do with LNG, except the Dept of Energy, who's boss was recently ash canned or the head of DSL, Steve Purchase? Only TWO people at the state level trust the AG's office to be serving the best interests of "the people" when it comes to LNG but we are supposed to believe that this AG and his minion Foster (or is it the other way around?) are going to fairly look at this issue? Wasn't it Marquis' democrat headquarters that rigged their party to pass a resolution against LNG? Maybe that was the "conflict of interest" If so, it isn't in the past, it is current. Marquis can't be a leader in his local party, heading the charge against LNG and also, "unbiasedly' be investigating an LNG issue. Neither can the current AG. IF Kroger is honest or has an ounce of integrity he would pass this along to another branch to be investigated. If he keeps it, this so-called investigation is tainted from the word "go". Did we hit a nerve Randy Boy? This is about 'The Port' and what some call a 'Bogus Lease' and a Port that needs a thorough looking over in its ethics and practices from what I hear. Anything else you want to get off your chest, go ahead, I'm here for you my man. LOL! Where else would you have to be but at the other end of a computer hook up? Who is this "we"? You got a turd in your pocket? You and all the voices in your head? Really, who talks about themselves in the royal sense except loons with dreams of grandeur? If you think this is merely about "The Port" and the "bogus" lease you are as ignorant as many claim. IF you had been voted on as a commissioner WHOSE advice would you take? Would you bother to have attorneys for the port, or would you fire them all? Would you bother to have staff recommendations? Would you research every matter yourself? Would you pay to have experts in every field flown in to each Port meeting before making a decision? How would you convey to the public that you had done "due diligence" on each and every topic/matter/issue that comes before a board? Do you think port commissioners should be experts in ALL fields before they are considered good enough to serve or make decisions on behalf of the rest of us? What if 100 people show up at the Loft on Thursday night (the Loft could just call it Anti LNG Thursdays) and all demanded the Port use its property for casinos and ... houses, do you think that the Port Board can do something -even if it is against the law -just because a group of people DEMAND it? The people voicing their opines on Thursday had better have the law/legal council on their side or they won't make any headway on this one. If there's a way for Hansen to be threatening a lawsuit if the Port doesn't sign you'd better believe he is threatening one! If all the anti people got is VandenHuevel and Foster advising them they'll lose just like they did when they took Calpine to LUBA the first time around! |
|
|
|
Post by it aint oxford on May 26, 2009 22:58:53 GMT -5
Did we hit a nerve Randy Boy? This is about 'The Port' and what some call a 'Bogus Lease' and a Port that needs a thorough looking over in its ethics and practices from what I hear. Anything else you want to get off your chest, go ahead, I'm here for you my man. is it possible for you to speak in regular speech patterns instead of using pustulant platitudes all of the time? from what I hear some are saying you are unable to form a coherent thought that isn't saturated in contrived homilies, inane idioms, or rambling metaphors. |
|
|
|
Post by ... on May 27, 2009 9:39:20 GMT -5
Did we hit a nerve Randy Boy? This is about 'The Port' and what some call a 'Bogus Lease' and a Port that needs a thorough looking over in its ethics and practices from what I hear. Anything else you want to get off your chest, go ahead, I'm here for you my man. is it possible for you to speak in regular speech patterns instead of using pustulant platitudes all of the time? from what I hear some are saying you are unable to form a coherent thought that isn't saturated in contrived homilies, inane idioms, or rambling metaphors. And yet, it evokes an inane and pointless response from you anyway. The question I have is, is the lease with Port of Astoria and Oregon LNG valid or not and should it be upheld and can Oregon LNG prove a need for this project anyway? My answer is it should be squashed immediately and Oregon LNG required to renogotiate and present proof of need before any lease of any kind is approved. The Port operation and performance? It's in some serious trouble here if the State gets involved and starts digging into its murky depths of recent history. In my view that is. Thursday night ought to be some real entertainment and a showcase for an accurate citizen performance assessment of those five and the new Executive Director, should one decide to go. Yessiree, real entertainment and a sign of what the Port's future holds for us under that leadership. |
|
|
|
Post by learn 2 write on May 27, 2009 14:28:05 GMT -5
is it possible for you to speak in regular speech patterns instead of using pustulant platitudes all of the time? from what I hear some are saying you are unable to form a coherent thought that isn't saturated in contrived homilies, inane idioms, or rambling metaphors. And yet, it evokes an inane and pointless response from you anyway. The question I have is, is the lease with Port of Astoria and Oregon LNG valid or not and should it be upheld and can Oregon LNG prove a need for this project anyway? My answer is it should be squashed immediately and Oregon LNG required to renogotiate and present proof of need before any lease of any kind is approved. The Port operation and performance? It's in some serious trouble here if the State gets involved and starts digging into its murky depths of recent history. In my view that is. Thursday night ought to be some real entertainment and a showcase for an accurate citizen performance assessment of those five and the new Executive Director, should one decide to go. Yessiree, real entertainment and a sign of what the Port's future holds for us under that leadership. Your emotional drivel does nothing to advance a plausible reason to either sign or not sign the State lease. Every single thing that is done in this area is a "portent" of "what's to come" according to you. Accurately, if one were to look up the work "platitude" there could be a screenshot of any one of your inane posts. |
|
|
|
Post by ... on May 27, 2009 22:36:48 GMT -5
And yet, it evokes an inane and pointless response from you anyway. The question I have is, is the lease with Port of Astoria and Oregon LNG valid or not and should it be upheld and can Oregon LNG prove a need for this project anyway? My answer is it should be squashed immediately and Oregon LNG required to renogotiate and present proof of need before any lease of any kind is approved. The Port operation and performance? It's in some serious trouble here if the State gets involved and starts digging into its murky depths of recent history. In my view that is. Thursday night ought to be some real entertainment and a showcase for an accurate citizen performance assessment of those five and the new Executive Director, should one decide to go. Yessiree, real entertainment and a sign of what the Port's future holds for us under that leadership. Your emotional drivel does nothing to advance a plausible reason to either sign or not sign the State lease. Every single thing that is done in this area is a "portent" of "what's to come" according to you. Accurately, if one were to look up the work "platitude" there could be a screenshot of any one of your inane posts. Just more inane BS with no substance of input to the discussion on Port and the Skipanon lease. Knock yourself out trying to avoid facing it but, it will not go away and this sitting Port Commission's future is on the line here. And as usual with this site, this is not about me at all and stay on subject. Jeesh!! Even with a bunch of new bells and whistles to confuse the reader, it's still the same old crap. |
|
|
|
Post by Jan on May 28, 2009 1:43:55 GMT -5
No matter how many platitudes you spin on it, their "future" does not rest on this decision. No matter how you spin it, your ineptitude is not the fault of the site you are visiting.
Either way that the board chooses to go the port has a possibility of being sued. The voters can/should sue on the grounds of an error of omission when Calpine neglected to reveal the outcome of voting for the zone change would result in the golf course being an illegal use of the land. The voters could jointly sue the City of Warrenton and the Port for that one. Calpine no longer exists and all of their debts have been discharged with the bankruptcy proceeding. Sue Peter Hansen, or the officers individually? Possibly.
SNG could sue the Port if they don't sign. Nonperformance, Breach of contract, are just two off the top of my head. I am sure Hansen is hinting at quite a few more.
Port should give every indication that they aren't going to sign. Hold out until friday at 4:45. Hansen better sign a new sublease BEFORE the state lease is signed. The new sublease should state that the rent is 1 Million a year. Flat out. That's it. No negotiating.
If Hansen doesn't sign, don't sign the state lease. Whatever Hansen is threatening, the sublease says, "As is, where is" and it says, "nothing is to be construed as implied". Nowhere in the sublease does it say that the Lease with the State must be maintained.
|
|
|
|
Post by pissed off paulie on May 28, 2009 5:02:24 GMT -5
WHO was the legal counsel that advised the Port to sign the original sublease with Calpine? Who drew up that sublease? Those are the ones who's future should be at stake at this moment. The ADVISORS to the board.
WHO gave money to Columbia RiverKeepers so they could go to LUBA against Warrenton? THAT's who I'd be suing for NONPERFORMANCE! They chose losing points and totally ignored the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS error of omission!
YE GODS! Those CRKs are crooks!
|
|
|
|
Post by ... on May 28, 2009 9:36:13 GMT -5
"Jan
Guest
Re: Port comments
« Result #2 Yesterday at 10:43pm »
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No matter how many platitudes you spin on it, their "future" does not rest on this decision."
Watch.
|
|
If so, it isn't in the past, it is current. Marquis can't be a leader in his local party, heading the charge against LNG and also, "unbiasedly' be investigating an LNG issue. Neither can the current AG. IF Kroger is honest or has an ounce of integrity he would pass this along to another branch to be investigated. If he keeps it, this so-called investigation is tainted from the word "go".