|
Post by Nancy on May 28, 2009 14:10:30 GMT -5
Will we be told tonight what the Board's counsel is advising them to do?
|
|
|
Post by Bwahaha on May 28, 2009 18:31:42 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. Looks like Sanders was too much of a coward to find out. Now we can expect another $10 contribution to the election funds from ... as he does another non election.
|
|
|
Post by ... on May 29, 2009 11:22:21 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. Looks like Sanders was too much of a coward to find out. Now we can expect another $10 contribution to the election funds from ... as he does another non election. A "Coward" you infer or does she see what's coming? I think it's just a resume' and adding your name to the list of prospective replacements in lieu of a campaign.
|
|
|
Post by Lance on May 29, 2009 19:54:54 GMT -5
not inferred, called. Hunsinger & Holcom are showing they are on the ball when it comes to asking questions and putting their "advisors" on the spot, holding them accountable to what they are "advising" asking for documentation. You think they are just going to take someone's word for it when it comes to someone's opinion? NO and hell no! They want the proof! Sanders IS a coward. If she had waited out the day she would have found out she had another 90 days before having to make a decision. She was frightened to stand up for her principles. She didn't think that LNG should be on the river but she was frightened at the possibility of being responsible for a lawsuit. She cut and ran to let the other four take the fall. If that is what being in the armed forces taught her either our armed forces have gone down hill or she's an anomoly. Hmmm, anyone want to guess which "platitude" ... is going to come up with as a rebuttal?
|
|
|
Post by Randy on May 30, 2009 14:35:02 GMT -5
I am for Oregon LNG but I am against the present Lease and sublease, as presented in these articles and from what Bill and Floyd said in the video. "We" through the Port are getting a bum deal. While it was Calpine that gave us the bum deal and Hansen was just a vp of that organization and he is now a prez of the new Oregon LNG this is his chance of giving us a GREAT deal.
I am not pleased about this Havens guy showing up and once again creating the gloom and doom regarding the threat of our safety if LNG comes here. Let's just close down the WHOLE river then -if people only knew what is being shipped right past us ALL OF THE TIME.
The PRISTINE salmon nursery that Bradwood is supposedly going to ruin? 1) the fingerlings are NOT in the channel, they run along the shore in the shallow water. Ballast water has NOTHING to do with the fingerlings LIFE cycle. 2) LOOK at the sloughs surrounding Puget Island! Dump sites with two feet of dirt over the top of them. The water GLOWS at night as it seeps into the Columbia River. The "FRIENDS" in Wahkiakum County should look in their own backyard before they ... about a CLEAN resource like natural gas.
I say let the LNG companies in, if they make it worth our while. Why should we care whether or not LNG is NEEDED here? No one made Jacobs PROVE his hotel was needed before allowing him to build it OUT OVER THE RIVER with GAS PIPELINES running to it! What happens when the tsunami hits and his hotel is tossed and rips away from those gas pipelines? What then, huh???
What's the deal, if your bro is a member of the sierra club and columbia riverkeepers you get a free pass to do what you want on the river as long as you support their cause financially?
|
|
|
Post by ... on Jun 1, 2009 11:54:11 GMT -5
I am for Oregon LNG but I am against the present Lease and sublease, as presented in these articles and from what Bill and Floyd said in the video. "We" through the Port are getting a bum deal. While it was Calpine that gave us the bum deal and Hansen was just a vp of that organization and he is now a prez of the new Oregon LNG this is his chance of giving us a GREAT deal. I am not pleased about this Havens guy showing up and once again creating the gloom and doom regarding the threat of our safety if LNG comes here. Let's just close down the WHOLE river then -if people only knew what is being shipped right past us ALL OF THE TIME. The PRISTINE salmon nursery that Bradwood is supposedly going to ruin? 1) the fingerlings are NOT in the channel, they run along the shore in the shallow water. Ballast water has NOTHING to do with the fingerlings LIFE cycle. 2) LOOK at the sloughs surrounding Puget Island! Dump sites with two feet of dirt over the top of them. The water GLOWS at night as it seeps into the Columbia River. The "FRIENDS" in Wahkiakum County should look in their own backyard before they ... about a CLEAN resource like natural gas. I say let the LNG companies in, if they make it worth our while. Why should we care whether or not LNG is NEEDED here? No one made Jacobs PROVE his hotel was needed before allowing him to build it OUT OVER THE RIVER with GAS PIPELINES running to it! What happens when the tsunami hits and his hotel is tossed and rips away from those gas pipelines? What then, huh??? What's the deal, if your bro is a member of the sierra club and columbia riverkeepers you get a free pass to do what you want on the river as long as you support their cause financially? That was one of the first questions asked by K.C. ... at our abrupt introduction to Calpine's Peter Hansen and the dirty little deal dealt us by our Port on that little $39,000 a year sham of a lease: "How much are you people willing to pay to play in our community?" to which Hansen gave a non-answer of which has been LNG Speculator rhetoric since.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jun 1, 2009 16:42:08 GMT -5
I am for Oregon LNG but I am against the present Lease and sublease, as presented in these articles and from what Bill and Floyd said in the video. "We" through the Port are getting a bum deal. While it was Calpine that gave us the bum deal and Hansen was just a vp of that organization and he is now a prez of the new Oregon LNG this is his chance of giving us a GREAT deal. I am not pleased about this Havens guy showing up and once again creating the gloom and doom regarding the threat of our safety if LNG comes here. Let's just close down the WHOLE river then -if people only knew what is being shipped right past us ALL OF THE TIME. The PRISTINE salmon nursery that Bradwood is supposedly going to ruin? 1) the fingerlings are NOT in the channel, they run along the shore in the shallow water. Ballast water has NOTHING to do with the fingerlings LIFE cycle. 2) LOOK at the sloughs surrounding Puget Island! Dump sites with two feet of dirt over the top of them. The water GLOWS at night as it seeps into the Columbia River. The "FRIENDS" in Wahkiakum County should look in their own backyard before they ... about a CLEAN resource like natural gas. I say let the LNG companies in, if they make it worth our while. Why should we care whether or not LNG is NEEDED here? No one made Jacobs PROVE his hotel was needed before allowing him to build it OUT OVER THE RIVER with GAS PIPELINES running to it! What happens when the tsunami hits and his hotel is tossed and rips away from those gas pipelines? What then, huh??? What's the deal, if your bro is a member of the sierra club and columbia riverkeepers you get a free pass to do what you want on the river as long as you support their cause financially? That was one of the first questions asked by K.C. ... at our abrupt introduction to Calpine's Peter Hansen and the dirty little deal dealt us by our Port on that little $39,000 a year sham of a lease: "How much are you people willing to pay to play in our community?" to which Hansen gave a non-answer of which has been LNG Speculator rhetoric since. Hogwash. Bradwood has proven over and over again how much it is not only willing but already DOES pay to play here. Despite the Anti rhetoric of speculation that Bradwood won't pay its taxes or will sell off and thereby not be bound by the terms of its contract all the Anti's can do is SPECULATE because everything to date points to the FACT that Bradwood is participating in community events, contributing to community life and has done so since it decided to make a go of it here. And this is DESPITE the FACT that people like you d**n the LNG industry whether the companies bringing it in DON'T pay a community (Like Oregon LNG) or DO pay a community (Like Bradwood). To many of us this is what has changed our minds about LNG and, in particular, BRADWOOD. They aren't the monsters that the antis have made them out to be. They are good neighbors, despite the bad publicity, the negative slant everything they do is given, and the continued lies that antis tell. Perseverance to continue to do good things in our community has won many hearts. The antis contribute NOTHING to our community, except meeting their own selfish needs.
|
|
|
Post by Nancy on Jun 1, 2009 16:47:59 GMT -5
Will we be told tonight what the Board's counsel is advising them to do? Why can the County Board tell what their counsel has advised them yet the Port Board won't tell us what their counsel has advised them? Isn't "privileged communication" only at the discretion of the CLIENT, not the attorney? The CLIENT can wave that "privilege" whenever they choose to, can't they? Isn't that what the County Board does? Its only privileged until the Board rules on whether or not to disclose it! Perhaps if we had known what the Boards' attorney(s) had been advising them to do five years ago the Board wouldn't be in the position it is now?
|
|
|
Post by ... on Jun 4, 2009 11:19:24 GMT -5
Will we be told tonight what the Board's counsel is advising them to do? Why can the County Board tell what their counsel has advised them yet the Port Board won't tell us what their counsel has advised them? Isn't "privileged communication" only at the discretion of the CLIENT, not the attorney? The CLIENT can wave that "privilege" whenever they choose to, can't they? Isn't that what the County Board does? Its only privileged until the Board rules on whether or not to disclose it! Perhaps if we had known what the Boards' attorney(s) had been advising them to do five years ago the Board wouldn't be in the position it is now? And isn't that Attorney the same attorney for both... Andy Jordan, a Portland based attorney?
|
|
|
Post by Anonym on Jun 4, 2009 13:42:27 GMT -5
..., did you throw your hat in for Sanders seat yet?
|
|
|
Post by Paul on Jun 5, 2009 4:12:30 GMT -5
Why can the County Board tell what their counsel has advised them yet the Port Board won't tell us what their counsel has advised them? Isn't "privileged communication" only at the discretion of the CLIENT, not the attorney? The CLIENT can wave that "privilege" whenever they choose to, can't they? Isn't that what the County Board does? Its only privileged until the Board rules on whether or not to disclose it! Perhaps if we had known what the Boards' attorney(s) had been advising them to do five years ago the Board wouldn't be in the position it is now? And isn't that Attorney the same attorney for both... Andy Jordan, a Portland based attorney? YOU know a local land use attorney?
|
|