myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Cable Park meeting with Hood River Port Commission tonight
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Northwest USA & Canada
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CUSalin



Joined: 11 Mar 2001
Posts: 299
Location: Portland / Hood River, OR

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

puppydog wrote:
The friends were the "stalking horse"


And neither to you.

_________________
CU Sailin'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jota



Joined: 28 Feb 2001
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 8:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CUSalin wrote:
cgold wrote:
I think the cable park was a distraction. All they wanted was the hotel, and while everyone argued about the cable park, the hotel slipped in with hardly a comment.


I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but you have no idea what you're talking about.



CUSailin, do you know what you're talking about? Cause we're all just speculating. if you have knowledge of this situation, we'd be interested to hear it.

There was some talk that the cable park was somehow tied to the availability of financing for the hotel/office development.

But if it wan't that, nor a strategic "distraction" from the hotel, why would Naito have gone through all that? Because building a cable park would have been a lucrative business investment? That's hard to believe.

Does anybody even know if they were building it for a third-party operator or concessionaire, like the hotel is for the Hampton Inn company? It's hard to believe that the Naitos themselves actually wanted to get into the cable park business. But we never heard about any cable park company waiting in the wings - which suggests to me that MikePhillips and cgold are right, on this point at least.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mikephillips2011



Joined: 09 Jun 2012
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Thu Oct 11, 2012 11:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jota wrote:

"Fake opposition"? Now that's just ridiculous. Do you live here, do you know these people? You think Naito is paying them or something?

Yes I do live here and I do know many of those people. I am certain that the "Friends" are led by actual shills and supported by useful idiots who have no idea how they are being played.
jota wrote:

News flash- you don't need to hire fake opposition - just propose a dubious and high-profile development and you'll have real opposition.

Of course I know there is real opposition. It's just that the Port and Naito consider the "Friends" to be the stakeholder spokesmen for all of the opposition. It's very convenient for the powers that be that the "Friends" are now so friendly with Naito. I wonder how that happened?

Friends of the Waterfront = Shills = Fake Opposition
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phazle5499



Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 1:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mikephillips writes:
<<Friends of the Waterfront = Shills = Fake Opposition>>

<<I am certain that the "Friends" are led by actual shills and supported by useful idiots who have no idea how they are being played>>
________________________

Fake Opposition?? Shills?? useful idiots being played by the Naitos??
I think I read somewhere that the Friends have 2 pending lawsuits (endangered species act and clean water act) as well as a pending LUBA (Land Use Board of Appeal) review against the Naitos "hotel" project.

So, who are the "shills and useful idiots" being played by the Naitos??? Do you really think the Naitos put them up to this???
Time for a reality check.

.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CUSalin



Joined: 11 Mar 2001
Posts: 299
Location: Portland / Hood River, OR

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

jota wrote:
CUSalin wrote:
cgold wrote:
I think the cable park was a distraction. All they wanted was the hotel, and while everyone argued about the cable park, the hotel slipped in with hardly a comment.


I guess you're entitled to your opinion, but you have no idea what you're talking about.



CUSailin, do you know what you're talking about? Cause we're all just speculating. if you have knowledge of this situation, we'd be interested to hear it.

There was some talk that the cable park was somehow tied to the availability of financing for the hotel/office development.

But if it wan't that, nor a strategic "distraction" from the hotel, why would Naito have gone through all that? Because building a cable park would have been a lucrative business investment? That's hard to believe.

Does anybody even know if they were building it for a third-party operator or concessionaire, like the hotel is for the Hampton Inn company? It's hard to believe that the Naitos themselves actually wanted to get into the cable park business. But we never heard about any cable park company waiting in the wings - which suggests to me that MikePhillips and cgold are right, on this point at least.


Thier motivations unknown, the entire notion being presented by MikePhilips and cgold on this forum has no basis in reality and should be dismissed by all straight-away. They have no idea what they are talking about and clearly have not been involved in this process.

From conversations and correspondence with many involved in this process, including Naito Developement, there was at one time a notion that development of, and tenancy for a hotel and office / regail building on the South end of The Basin where dependent on the construction of a cable-park which Will Naito planned on owning and operating.


It appears that at this time, due to much consideration and effort on the part of The Friends, The Port, Naito Developement, The Mayor, and several concerned citizens.., a viable alternative has been formulated, which does not include a cable-park but rather an espanade with public access to the Basins waters, habitat restoration, and the hotel /offce developement. In my opinion this plan is the best presented so far and I urge all to support it, or present a better idea.

_________________
CU Sailin'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mulekick84



Joined: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 337

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey CU,

Why do you spell development, "developement?" You did it three times in your posting above.

One thing is for certain, you guys are really dedicated to your kiddy pool!

_________________
I spend all my money on windsurfing gear and beer, the rest I just waste!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jota



Joined: 28 Feb 2001
Posts: 180

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CUSalin wrote:
From conversations and correspondence with many involved in this process, including Naito Developement, there was at one time a notion that development of, and tenancy for a hotel and office / re[t]ail building on the South end of The Basin where dependent on the construction of a cable-park which Will Naito planned on owning and operating.


Well that still begs the question: what does that mean to say that the development of the hotel was "dependent on" the construction of the cable park? A financing issue? Until someone can articulate a rational reason this made sense for the Naitos, all signs point towards it being a clever diversionary ploy. And I can think of one local partner in this project with political skills who could easily have anticipated hotel opposition and advised Naito on the cable-park diversion plan. Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

CUSailin, I am pleased that the cable park appears to have been derailed, and I support efforts to improve the basin for the community, although I have reservations about the hotel (not least being its horrible architecture and it blocking the pedestrian PAW as well as auto access to the Spit). I do appreciate your ardent opposition to the cable park as reflected in your many posts, and your willingness to take on the (sometimes wacky) pro-cable posters. Thank you!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phazle5499



Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 12:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yeh, I had written way back that the Naitos may have just thrown out a chunk of raw meat (the cable park) to distract the attack dogs while they sneak in the back door to steal the jewel (the "hotel"). But it looks like that didn't turn out too well for them. They may ultimately get the "hotel", but not the way they had planned it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CUSalin



Joined: 11 Mar 2001
Posts: 299
Location: Portland / Hood River, OR

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mulekick84 wrote:
Hey CU,

Why do you spell development, "developement?" You did it three times in your posting above.

One thing is for certain, you guys are really dedicated to your kiddy pool!


Because I'm developementally challenged, and there doesn't appear to be spellcheck on this vehicle.

_________________
CU Sailin'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CUSalin



Joined: 11 Mar 2001
Posts: 299
Location: Portland / Hood River, OR

PostPosted: Fri Oct 12, 2012 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

jota wrote:
CUSalin wrote:
From conversations and correspondence with many involved in this process, including Naito Developement, there was at one time a notion that development of, and tenancy for a hotel and office / re[t]ail building on the South end of The Basin where dependent on the construction of a cable-park which Will Naito planned on owning and operating.


Well that still begs the question: what does that mean to say that the development of the hotel was "dependent on" the construction of the cable park? A financing issue? Until someone can articulate a rational reason this made sense for the Naitos, all signs point towards it being a clever diversionary ploy. And I can think of one local partner in this project with political skills who could easily have anticipated hotel opposition and advised Naito on the cable-park diversion plan. Wouldn't surprise me a bit.

CUSailin, I am pleased that the cable park appears to have been derailed, and I support efforts to improve the basin for the community, although I have reservations about the hotel (not least being its horrible architecture and it blocking the pedestrian PAW as well as auto access to the Spit). I do appreciate your ardent opposition to the cable park as reflected in your many posts, and your willingness to take on the (sometimes wacky) pro-cable posters. Thank you!


Well, what I understood from the way it was explained to me by The Naitos was that they had one or more "pre-signed" tenants for the commercial / retail portion of thier development whose committment and biz model were dependant or somehow aligned with close proximity to a cable park. In addition, the hotel management company (Hampton Inns) was at least in part counting on cable-park patrons to stay in thier hotel. All good things for them, right?

Since then, I think wisdom has prevailed that a suffecient qty of tenants and patrons could find a hotel and office/retail attractive without a cable park (now including Lot #1). Make sense?

I really don't think there was any "diverstionary" tactics here. Wil Natio did a lot of work in attempt to gain public support for his cable-park vision and many were really excited about the idea. I think they were truely surprised by the degree of public opposition once word of the project became more widely distributed.., and now have expressed tentative acceptance of an alternative plan which does not include a Park. They really aren't getting anything they didn't already have outside of maybe not having to deal with an elongated legal process and not building a cable park.

There you go.

_________________
CU Sailin'
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Northwest USA & Canada All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 13 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group