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/hotel negotiations
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Northwest USA & Canada
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
phazle5499



Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:26 pm    Post subject: cable park/hotel negotiations Reply with quote

It appears that the cable park/hotel negotiations are stalled, at least temporarily. During the recent Port meeting, as well as on other occasions, the Friends have expressed their willingness to enter into negotiations to reach a settlement. However, the Naitos apparently do not want to agree to confidentiality, and prefer to "negotiate" in public. Not sure yet what the Port and City are willing to do. But I do know that negotiations in public are not negotiations. They ultimately destroy any chance of a settlement. I'm sure the Naitos must be aware of this, and routinely negotiate deals in private. Public agencies like the Port and the City, which represent all of us, routinely go into executive session to deliberate sensitive matters. So why would anyone expect that a serious issue like the cable park/hotel development, involving matters of litigation, could be settled in any way other than confidential negotiations aimed at reaching a settlement agreed to by all??
Perhaps Mr. Naito would care to tell us why he refuses to enter into confidential negotiations to reach a settlement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13808

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If some of the funds or lands at stake are public, doesn't the law require pubic negotiations? I don't want a handful of biased commissioners making self-serving deals behind closed doors with my resources; I've seen and fought that in too many states and towns on too many issues. I realize that elected officials must ultimately make such decisions, but doing so early or without public scrutiny exceeds their legal and moral authority in most situations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nicorico



Joined: 14 Sep 2012
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Perhaps Mr. Naito would care to tell us why he refuses to enter into confidential negotiations to reach a settlement.


You can read the Naito's answer to that question here:
http://portofhoodriver.com/waterfront/CP/Naito%20Letter%20to%20Commissioners%20101612.pdf
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phazle5499



Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nico, I'm afraid the Naito letter doesn't answer the question. What I said was,
"Perhaps Mr. Naito would care to tell us why he refuses to enter into confidential negotiations to reach a settlement".

It is a complex matter and it's pretty obvious that the Friends are part of any solution. I don't know that they were ever a part of the preliminary discussions betweren the Naitos, the city and the port, but they should have been. Now is the time for all 4 parties to negotiate--and that means engage in standard negotiating practices which involves confidentiality until a settlement or failure of a settlement occurs. It's a chance for all sides to get together and negotiate in good faith to reach a settlement. I guess if one or more parties is not interested in a negotiated settlement, then I imagine the issues will have to be settled in court. I don't know why anyone would want to go there when there is the option of confidential negotiations to reach a settlement.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnl



Joined: 05 Jun 1994
Posts: 1141
Location: Hood River OR

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

phazle5499 wrote:
nico, I'm afraid the Naito letter doesn't answer the question. What I said was,
"Perhaps Mr. Naito would care to tell us why he refuses to enter into confidential negotiations to reach a settlement".


I actually disagree. I think the bigger question is WHY does the Friends NOT want this discussed in public and only in private? Also why do the Friends think they should be involved in all discussons? It sounds like the Friends have too big of an ego.....

If the Friends are actually our friends (of the Hood River Residents, and the Columbia Gorge), then I think more transparancy is in order.

Sorry Phazle, I don't think you will get much support on this one. AND I was/am against the cable park.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nicorico



Joined: 14 Sep 2012
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 6:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

@phazle: "The Friends is a non-profit public interest corporation. I don't see any reason why they would want their negotiations confidential especially since they are negotiating on behalf of the public interest. All the issues to date have been addressed in the public forum. I see no reason to change."

Sounds like an answer to me. Maybe just not the one you wanted to hear?

If you're willing to let a small group of (4) self elected people negotiate in private on behalf of the public's interest, that's fine, but I am not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phazle5499



Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 8:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are reams and reams of public testimony. Everyone knows what the issues are. My take on this is that there is a concerted effort to do an end run around the Friends and keep tham out of the negotiations. I don't see how that can happen. That strategy is not going to work. The 4 parties (the Friends, Naitos, Port and City need to sit down face to face and deal with the issues to reach a settlement agreeable to all. Vague statements in public about what is being negotiated, (cable park on the "shelf"? What does that mean?) without any written agreements, only leads to misinterpretations and worse and probably will prevent any agreement among the 4 parties. So my question remains--why don't the Naitos want to enter into confidential negotiations to reach a settlement?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnl



Joined: 05 Jun 1994
Posts: 1141
Location: Hood River OR

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 10:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

So can have your question. Nobody cares. Because as stated before WHY do they NEED to be non public hearings? That is a far more important point than yours.

Maybe you have your head so far up the "Friends" butt you can't see the rest of the world, but think about this.

1. Why does "Friends" THINK they should even be invited to a hearing between Naito, the Port and the city? They are NOT a primary party. At best a secondary party.

2. Brent Foster has a PROVEN history of being less than fully honest when "away from the public". So why would I have ANY faith in him being at a non public hearing?

I think you are trying to stir up Sh** when there is nothing here....

As usual you are just paroting crap, try thinking for yourself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
phazle5499



Joined: 03 Jul 2006
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Thu Oct 18, 2012 11:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Johnl writes:
1. WHY do they NEED to be non public hearings? and,

2. "Why does "Friends" THINK they should even be invited to a hearing between Naito, the Port and the city? They are NOT a primary party. At best a secondary party"

______________________________

1. This discussion is not about "public hearings". It's about settlement negotiations. The public hearings have arleady taken place. As I have already said, there are reams of public testimony from the various public hearings that have already taken place. Those are all available to anyone who would like to read them.

2. In reference to #2, above, please explain Johnl just exactly what you think the port, the city and the naitos are going to negotiate without the friends involved?? How are the 3 parties going to move the process along to a settlement?? What are they going to talk about?? What are they going to settle?? The purpose of the proposal put forth by the naitos, the port and the city assumes that the friends will drop LUBA and pending litigation.
I'd like to hear your argument about why you think the friends "are NOT a primary party. At best a secondary party" and how a settlement can be reached without the friends being a primary party to the negotiations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mikephillips2011



Joined: 09 Jun 2012
Posts: 32

PostPosted: Fri Oct 19, 2012 12:21 am    Post subject: Re: cable park/hotel negotiations Reply with quote

At first I thought phsxle5499 was just being sarcastic in saying we should support secrecy but now I see he is actually serious. This has to be the first time I have ever seen anyone actually argue that secret backroom deals between a greedy corporation, sleazy politicians, and an admitted lying attorney is a good thing for the public.

phazle5499 wrote:
However, the Naitos apparently do not want to agree to confidentiality, and prefer to "negotiate" in public.
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 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 1 of 6

 
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