Comments by slvrnblck
Page 1 of 13 | Next
Posted on November 19 at 10:42 a.m.
I enjoyed watching Caydrick but he is not D-1 quality. He is too small and doesn't play defense and is too streaky. He did have that scorers mentality which is good and he will probably do fine in college. If he can get his education for free...or at least part of it, all because he played ball, that is pretty good in itself.
Posted on November 19 at 10:26 a.m.
methusla--
EOFB is Emporia Open for Business. Yes they are the group who opposes the ban but have made compromises for the CAE.
EOFB's proposal is very loose while CAE's is very tight.
Furthermore, I agree with Josie's lets just vote and be done. I personally think the ban will pass, but would be happier to just have the public vote on it so we all know what the majority wants.
On Save his job
Posted on November 18 at 5 p.m.
methusla--
You are missing the point. I am not taking anyone's rights away, neither is crack, not the government. You can still smoke. That makes no difference to me. What does matter to me is when you smoke your byproduct is then exhaled into the air for all of us to breathe whether we choose to want to or not. Unfortunately, some smokers are very disrespectful with where they smoke and have been disrespectful enough that a group got together and decided that we are going to need the government to step in and place a ban on smoking in any place the public can go. That is a terrible shame that the disrespectful smokers forced this to happen.
On Save his job
Posted on November 18 at 3:14 p.m.
BJ--
You make absolutely no sense. If you were to actually read the posts that crack wrote and then take it one step further by actually comprehending them you would realize that he is not for spousal abuse, or saying that it should or should not be legal. He is saying that at one time spousal abuse was an accepted activity, it is now illegal because the government did what they are supposed to do and stepped in to help it's citizens, regardless of if they thought it needed to be done. He believes the same should be done in this situation, take a currently legal accepted activity and make it illegal to do in places the public goes, for the benefit of all of it's citizen's health.
It is his belief and he in entitled to it. Just like you are entitled to yours and I am to mine. You keep accusing crack of attacking others or being disrespectful.....maybe you should look in the mirror to figure out whom the really disrespectful person is.
On Save his job
Posted on November 17 at 11:55 a.m.
rbow--
You said earlier that this is coming to a vote in April, can you clarify that for me? Does that mean that the commissioners are going to table the issue and bring it to the public or are they going to vote one way or another and then the individual groups will take the alternative proposal to vote in April?
I am under the belief that both the CAE and the EOFB have enough signatures to combat the ban either way. Am I correct?
On Save his job
Posted on October 31 at 9:45 a.m.
treetrunk--
You are absolutely correct that the consumer will pay the additional sales tax which will then be passed on. I misspoke or mistyped rather.
The point is still that having the higher taxes in their store is a DISadvantage not an ADvantage.
Posted on October 31 at 9:43 a.m.
momus---
I still do not see how Lowes gets and unfair and unnecessary business advantage. They have to pay the same things that everyone else does so I do not see their advantage.
The infastructure in a plan for growth to benefit future retail that you speak of, I assume, is the land on Graphic Arts Rd. The same problems with the Peak property would still be had with the other property. You would still have to put in the access ways and widen roads etc. So it's not like we are costing the city any more and actually becasue there is money allocated for 24th already we are actually saving money because we will be reimbursed for that.
And, lets also be clear that Lowes didn't ask for the TIF, the developer did. The developer is the one who benefits from the TIF. Lowes may not even come into Emporia, it might be Home Depot or someone else. That is still TBD. Lowes has shown the most interest though.
You misunderstood my Sutherland and Hills references. My point is that they could have asked for TIF/TDD if they wanted but they made the choice to remodel existing builidings. Lowes does not believe that the existing buildings available are either worth remodeling or they believe that the location is poor. So, instead of spending 1-2 million in renovations on Big Lots and being in a poor location, the are going to spend 5 million to be where they believe they can be the most successful. (I am completely making those #'s up to illustrate a point)
Posted on October 30 at 2:46 p.m.
incentive: A benefit or consideration, financial or otherwise, given to induce specific action.
I do not consider the TIF to be a benefit to Lowes. I consider it a benefit to the people of Emporia and to the developer. Obviously, if we approve a place for the developer to bring in potential businesses then he has a better chance at getting paid. Like I said, the only benefit that Lowes gets is that they get to build in what they deem "the most desireable location" available.
As you said earlier, the city designated the TIF to lure more retail to Emporia...which is true but it is done so, so that businesses will come to town and not have to worry about fixing the streets etc in order to run their business. That is the businesses benefit. The people are the ones that get the real benefit. They now have money specifically allocated to make the needed repairs and they get the new business in town, which creates jobs and alternative places to shop or eat or get service from.
Can you tell me what businesses paid their own development fees? The businesses who have been the most outspoken so far are Sutherlands and Hills. All Sutherlands had to do was remodel an existing building. The didn't have to create roads or widen streets for their location...it already existed. Same with Hill's they took over a building and remodeled it to fit their needs, but the infastructure was in place. Lowes will still pay for their whole building just like Sutherlands. They will still pay their property taxes, just like Hills. They will still pay sales tax just like everyone else, except they will pay an additional 1% more in order to pay back the city for the infastructure costs.
And btw, I live in that area. Something desparately needs done with 24th Ave. It is not a safe road IMO. The city, as I pointed out earlier, has already set aside money to pay for this however, we now get that money repaid to us....what a benefit for the city. I wonder what we will do with this new "found " money.
Posted on October 30 at 12:26 p.m.
I want to know why you think it is an incentive and furthermore why that "incentive" outweighs the "costs" that Lowes will have to incur to come here.
IMO the only incentive Lowes gets is that they get to build where they want.
Also, the TIF is an incentive for the citizens of Emporia. By approving the TIF, we get to bring in a development to the city that will be anchored by a nice home improvement store, we get better roads etc, we get to have competition which should bring down prices and create better service, and we get to keep alot of money that is leaking from our city. That is a great incentive for our city. I want to know how you think this incentive applies to Lowes.
Page 1 of 13 | Next
Posted on November 24 at 4:58 p.m.
slvmblk--
Quit using other people's usernames!! Be creative enough to come up with your own.
On Truman spoils the party