Comments by momus
Page 1 of 31 | Next
Posted on March 26 at 10:55 p.m.
Tell,
There are no "special permissions", no state agency stoping people from painting their walls, and no "extreamly costly" hoops for businesses; but there are financial incentives (making things less expensive) for people wanting to revitalize buildings. The program was clearly outlined in a public meeting. I'm guessing by your response that you did not get the opportunity to attend. However, maybe you can take the opportunity to contact the people involved with the proposed project so you can get some clarification on some misconceptions that you might have. The more I've learned about the proposed district, the more I like the idea.
This proposed project makes renovation of downtown buildings more affordable. This project encourages development and reinvestment. This proposed district will bring a lot of good development downtown, encourage historic preservation and makes downtown an area more open to investment. Those are good things, aren't they? The above article states that all the state has the power to do is comment. That's it. The city council has the right to do with those comments what they will. In return, building owners can save a bunch of money with the use of tax credits, if they so choose. I'll agree with the poster above that said this is 'great for Emporia". However, if we buy into the false argument that some boogey man will tell us what drapes we can and can't hang, this is an opportunity that will pass us by. I hope that doesn't happen.
Posted on March 15 at 11:24 a.m.
Instead of throwing money in an attempt to get businesses to relocate in Emporia, can we focus a little more attention on expanding our existing businesses, or encouraging our own citizens to open up businesses that help fill market gaps? Instead of hoping for some huge outside entity to come in and save the town, isn't it more realistic and cost effective to save ourselves? We don't have an optimum population or median income to suit many chains in Emporia. Why not focus more time and energy on a grow from within strategy? We're not going to get a Target or an Olive Garden in the foreseeable future, but an existing business person may be able to tweak their business, or an entrepreneur may create something new that is even better than a chain. And, if a business has local investors and takes off, lord knows the return would be better than the investments in the current stock market ;).
Posted on March 9 at 6:47 p.m.
I hate double posting, but I should state that the link I posted above includes information that is posted by non-mainstream media sources. I cannot vouch for the credibility of the posted information, but I can say that most publicly traded retailers are obviously struggling. Those struggles, along with the jobless rate, should make expansion plans for big boxes in marginal markets extreamly difficult. Sorry, I should have qualified my post in my first response.
Posted on March 9 at 6:36 p.m.
If the stock market would have stabilized, Lowe's could have prevented some store closings and continued with their expansion plans (as stated in your cited November 2008 article), but many publicly traded chain retailers (including Lowe's) had to adapt their market strategies after our economic circumstances became more clear.
http://land-of-confusion.com/2009-store-...
I too am concerned about this proposed development.
Posted on March 1 at 1:20 p.m.
Are you willing to let the most well armed nation in the world fall into a state of anarcy? Are you willing to let what is supposed to be the world's democratic beacon extinguish? Are you ready for the consiquences that would undoubtedly occur in a world without a USA? I'm sorry, I can't hope for the failure of this nation.
Posted on March 1 at 12:34 p.m.
Observation,
That's my point. When the opposition is in power, they can do nothing right. When our party is in power, they can do nothing wrong. If we don't want to swing from one extreme to the other then we need to comprimise and find some middle ground (and realize the imperfections that exist on BOTH sides of the isle). There are more moderates than liberals or conservatives (IMO). Right now, the majority of the nation wants the government to intercede and stabalize the economy. If we don't have a stimulous plan, what is your plan?
Posted on March 1 at 11:57 a.m.
And we wonder why the nation is in the state it is in. It seems that most are more interested in name calling and pointing out what is wrong with the other side rather than what is right in their way of thinking. It's disappointing.
A couple of points reading through responses after my initial question: 1. I think their are a lot of people who WANT to work in the US. However, we have an entire industrial class that is rapidly evaporating. Not everyone can be a CEO, Dr. or Engineer. Not everyone has an advanced skill set in professional areas. If we create jobs that trancend the gambit of skill sets we potentially create a situation where everyone is living off of "themselves" as opposed to dependancy on a CEO of a MNC that is uninterested in the social well being of the nation. You can only have so many people at the top of the employment chain, and we have become a top heavy nation.
2. Again, the alternative to a spending stimulous is??? Yes, we create more debt, which is something I am not the least bit excited about, but the alternative is letting the nation crash into economic oblivion. Evidently, some would like the economy and government (including its leaders) to fail. I'm not sure we grasp the full ramifications of what a failure would mean for us, and the world at large. The stimulous bill is a combination of tax cuts and spending, not unlike what President Reagan did when he cut taxes and more than trippled our debt during his Presidency. However, I think that we need to learn from the past and SAVE (read: use surpluses to pay down debt and invest in the future). However, the last time we had a surplus, the public screamed that the surplus was "their money" and they didn't want the government to have it. Well, taxes are our money, and the debt is our debt. The government is us, and we are them. This liberal versus conservative crap may work during an election, but our boat is sinking while two sides are griping about what type of wood to use to patch the hole. Amazing.
Posted on February 28 at 1:07 p.m.
I'm hearing a lot of negative here, and I think increasing debt is a scary prospect... But, I'm just wondering if anyone has an alternative plan to get this nation's economy back on track, or if we are comfortable doing nothing and hoping things just work themselves out.
Posted on February 22 at 12:35 p.m.
I used Wyoming as an example because they sit on top of one of the worlds largest super volcanos that could some day blow up and destroy most of the western US. Deflating some of that pressure while producing energy would (IMO) be a good thing. But you are right, their are unintended consiquences to most projects.
In regards to China and India, I tend to look at those two nations a little differently. As both of those nations rapidly increase their use of automobiles, more pressure is placed on a depleatable resource. I got a book from Town Crier a couple of years ago (sorry, the name escapes me at the moment) that essentially equated the shift in power from one civilazation to another with that civilizations dependance on and ability to adjust to fuel standards. Man power, horse power, wind, whale oil, coal, oil (what's next)... As resources were used up, emerging empires battled to control existing reserves (or thier tech). We see China already flexing muscle in Sudan and Iran. We risk becoming resource imperialists if we fail to identify and develop the next fuel standard. The developing world's increase in demand will more than compensate for our (hopefully) decreased need for foriegn produced fossil fuels, resulting in readily increasing prices for a steadily decreasing supply of fossil fuel.
If we develop our alternative standard, we can then export our tech and know how to the rest of the world. Wouldn't it be nice for other nations to trade deficit in relation to the US for a change? No nation will ride this energy wave perfectly, but I would rather us be on the front end of innovation rather than bring up the rear.
On ‘Travesty’
Page 1 of 31 | Next
Posted on March 27 at 7:34 a.m.
As the article stated, the organization would simply have to go to the city and show that there are no "feasible and prudent alternatives" to the demolition, which shouldn't be that hard if the building is in as bad shape as you say. The city commision would then simply say "we agree" (assuming your information about the state of the building is correct), and the building goes down. Again, the state has the right to comment, but the final authority belongs to the local governing body.
On City discusses historic district