Good luck to all the competitors that will soon be descending on the QC area to participate in the John Deere Classic. I'm hoping to make it over there on one of the free days, although it promises to be just as hot as last year.Congrats to the SoLo blog, as the very next post by Ambrose Fulton will be #600 for the oldest active Davenport politics-related blog around.
34 comments:
I work in the Village and have heard people talking about some controversy about the 11th Street Precinct remodeling and pizza parlor expansion and Alderman Meyer’s objection or concerns. I believe it has something to do about Liquor Licenses, or he doesn’t like the project? Can anyone tell me what this is all about and why would Alderman Meyer be involved outside his ward?
Seems to me the remodeling and pizza parlor are very positive, an existing business doing well and reinvesting in their neighborhood. If the business has met all of the city requirements and obtained all of the required permits, what is the problem?
Don't worry, Alderman Meyer's 15 minutes are about up. He realizes that and he is reaching for straws to try to get a few more minutes in the lime light. It will soon be fine.
(The owners of St. Paul's Park in East Village, who created and cared for it, were not told, I repeat were not told, of plans to lease a portion of the park to the business next door after they turned it over.
It is all about doing the right thing, about being ethical no matter what the benefit of the project may be, but who cares?
Are you suggesting that all of the other Alderman stay out of projects in the downtown and on the riverfront,which is primarily in the Third Ward.
Let's see, where shall we begin, Isle of Capri move?
The email below is fron the City Design Office)
******************
Keith,
Yes, we know that (corner)parcel(St. Pauls Park) is privately owned. The owner has been working with City staff
to turn it over to our ownership provided we can guarantee that it will be turned into a
public park and remain a public park in perpetuity.
It was discussed that if this transaction does take place, then the City could lease a
small amount of space adjacent to the south façade for alfresco dining for the pizzeria.
This, we felt, has potential to fulfill the request of the land owner as well as help
promote Wizor's small business.
Ken Oestreich has been in contact with the owner of the corner parcel. If you desire more
information you can contact him.
Our supervisor is Clayton Lloyd.
Darrin (Nordahl)
(City Design Office)
Once an issue is before the city council, all of the alderman have a responsibility to become involved, especially when it's the public's money which is to be spent. Your examples miss the point.
Alderman Meyer was not elected to represent beyond the third ward. There is nothing before the council regarding this business and no reason for Meyer's interference.
If the only thing encroaching on the park is outdoor dining, that doesn't seem so bad. We need more of that around here.
Alderman Meyer:
The letter you posted seems to suggest that the city and owner of the property have open dialogue and are discussing the possibility of leasing a small portion for outside dinning.
Why is outside dinning a problem?
What are you specific objections to this project?
What is bad is that this "small business" BAR owner constantly is squawking to politicians to use similar ordinances and actions to limit his competition! Seems now the shoe is on the other foot! It is NOT his property, it is CITY property! He will have to spend HIS OWN money on expansion!
9:09 - your insults of Meyer are unacceptable and resemble Bill Boom's camp. Last election, Boom and his people posted so many immature and negative posts on all of these blogs about Meyer. I tell you this time that will not be unchallenged. Think before you post immature comments. We know it is you Bill and your comments make people sick. Meyer is a good person and a good alderman. Many of us who are represented by him and know him, know this.
I think Meyer was asked by the "park" owners to help them. The city is lying to them and misleading them. What else is new? He is just attempting to help the citizens here. There is nothing wrong with that.
re: 10:47 post from Darrin Nordahl. "It was discussed...." I sure wonder discussed by who, when, and to what outcome? Based on the information on this blog I'd bet the park owners were let in late to that discussion.
You gotta love how the city is ready to give the land away even before getting ownership. Poor pitiful trusting park owners. Shame on them for thinking an agreement by the city to keep the park a park needed to incluse a plat map. No leasing, no downsizing, no cantilevered al fresco dining if that is what the park owners intend.
I applaud Alderman Meyer for getting involved at this stage as there seems to be disagreement on how the city is conducting negotiations. The full council would eventually vote on property acquisition and leasing, but Alderman Meyer's presence at this stage can help the council vote on the matter clear of lies, deception and built up hostilities.
By the way if liquor licensing is involved here it's also Keith's business as a member of the Public Safety Committee.
No one has answered my question, of what is wrong with outdoor dining slightly overlapping a park? It seems like it would improve the feel of that corner. Of course, I haven't seen the design yet either.
Nothing is wrong with it, if all parties agree to it. It sounds like the owners (Correct me if I'm interpreting this wrong) will sell the parcel to the city IF they keep it as a park for ALL to use. Not just patrons of this kinda shadey businessman's.
If the park is privately owned, the owners can allow the uses they approve of. Outside dinning isn't the issue.
The issue is how do the current owners want to use the land. If they choose to sell the land and profit from the sale, they loose their say on how the land is to be used, unless the buyer & seller agree to covenants. If they donate the land to the city, they have every right to negotiate covenats for the use.
None of this needs Alderman Meyer. The owners asking him to help is inappropriate when it is a private property issue. Is Alderman Meyer using his position to influence a favorable outcome for the private property owners?
I'm sure Alderman Barnhill will vote in favor of this. Heck it's another watering hole for him.
What is wrong with it? Well QCI, this SAME council has given other businesses one hell of a hard time getting outdoor "dining"(and drinking) licenses on property THEY OWN!!!! Your boy Malin is as crooked as a run over snake, and his lies and deceptions NEVER seem to end!! If this grumpy/greedy village business owner wants this parcel of land...well then by all means let him BUY it! And for once, quit trying to spent he cities money on YOUR pet projects..Charlie Jr!!!!!
What is wrong it the way this is happening. It is the city and the biz owner misleading the public and the current park owners in to a deal they don't want to embark on. Meyer is doing a fine job on this and it should be Howard doing it actually. When are we going to vote her out of office along with Frink?
If the information presented in the various posts is correct, Alderman Meyer is trying to help the owners of private property negotiate with the city of Davenport to transfer the property to the city.
An Alderman should represent the best interests of their ward and the interest of the city. I don’t see how trying to influence the outcome of a negotiation between the city and a private property owner to favor the property owner is not a conflict of interest, at the least.
If Howard & Frink are not involved, it is probably because they understand the potential for conflict of interest.
If the private property owner needs help negotiating with the city they should hire a lawyer. When it is all said and done, the property owner profits, whether it is through the sale of the property or the benefit of tax savings from gifting. This is not a job for any Alderman.
QCI at this point whether you like outdoor dining on this spot is irrelevant. You don't own either property or live anywhere near it. Your tax dollars are not at play to buy it, yet anyway. The issue is how private citizens are treated by the city administration. Are they being treated with openness and equal access to information and advice.
Never a bad idea to ask if there is a conflict of interest when an alderman is involved. But ask it of Craig Malin too. I have faith Alderman Meyer would disclose any conflict of interest and act accordingly. The only thing Keith may stand to gain is a tiny park to monitor for trash pick up and the well deserved thanks for preserving this lovely spot in our city. The park owners really have their hearts in the right place and it is an outstanding gesture they are trying to fulfill.
Don't forget that Keith works for the voters, not for the city administration. He is NOT the staff but elected to represent us and that can mean challenging the administrators and holding them accountable.
I agree that an alderman should not be too involved in this kind of thing, but we has such lousy staff at this city that he has to be involved. Our staff stinks and we need a CA who can fix that./
Keith Meyer is to be commended for his citizenship and it is obvious that his supporters recognize his commitment.
Good citizenship should not be confused with being a good Alderman.
A good alderman is first a good citizen and remains one after election. Without good citizenship we get confused leaders like Ron VanFossen and Craig Malin. Keith Meyer IS wearing his alderman cap for this park thing. Keith isn't willing to see one good citizen get screwed over so another good citizen gets a few more feet for business expansion, especially when the city is involved in crafting the deal, which it is i.e Darrin Nordahl. I believe that's called a concern for ethics.
From time to time Craig Malin expresses with disapointment that people often will love their neighborhood but not their city. Well here you go, this park thing is a really good example. Two unassuming people who have personally tended this small parcel for many years on their own time, for the enjoyment of many, have decided to bow out with a grand and generous gesture and the city pisses on it.
On their own time AND dime.
Here's an idea; why doesn't Keith run for mayor or at large?
That way he can watch out for the entire city.
1:09 - yes but a citizen does not have any power to stop a shady deal. Had it not been for who Kieth is (an alderman), he would not have known the inner workings of this deal. The staff and the pizza club owner are breaking the law.
Is this property the one where it is the old fire station. I noticed a banner hanging from it yesterday regarding improvments coming.
4:12:
What law?
I think Meyer is politically grand standing!!! (again) He has vocally slammed the Village by stating that the Village will be recieving all the funding at the expense of all other neighborhood projects in this city. He even stated in he prefers a lottery for funding. (that's just brilliant Keith) Keith....we have a great thing in the Village whether you like it or not. We have a fine representative in Lynn, you have enough problems in your own ward. Maybe Keith should introduce a "lottery" for his next election. Hopefully they will pull Boom's name out of the hat!!!!!!!
The old fire station is a fire museum. Several older members of the Davenport Fire Department who were involved with it retired and moved form the area. Recently a younger bunch has been working hard to start making improvements to the museum and having it open more for tours. Hopefully it will again be a successful part of the village experience.
After all the hysterics, it turns out the pizza's outdoor dinning is to the front of the building.
There may still be a request that involves the park, that needs to be confirmed one way or the other.
Post a Comment