Comments by Steven Hyman
July 01, 2009
Its the City's obligation to tell property owners they did illegal actions to their property, not the other way around. It also seems to me that HMB has a habit of repeatidly doing just that. Oak Park is the latest costly example (although nothing like Beachwood) of government arrogance.
Maybe getting hit with some costly judgments will change that attitude. If nothing else, these payments will reduce the amount of money we have been wasting on costly litigation with such poor results.
July 01, 2009
Like I said, why wasn't this mistake corrected a long time ago. The City had 25 years to right their wrong.
As far as the federal judge, I was referring to the MWSD lawsuit and that appeal. Nobody has said anything about his ruling but we are appealing. Based on what?
July 01, 2009
The City was wrong in flooding Keenan's property and owed him money. I agree that I thought $41 million was too high. But if we appealed and lost, we would have seen that judgment skyrocket to $50 million with several years of interest tacked on. I still think that would have been an irresponsible thing for government officials to do with their constituents money. Anyway, for those in favor of appealing, we will all have a chance to see how that option plays out with MWSD. Interestingly, no one has…
July 01, 2009
To me the biggest blunder the City made was not settling this issue 10-15 years ago. We were wrong, we damaged Keenan's property, we should have settled. Instead, we spent over $5 million on lawyers and rolled the dice on a trial and lost in a $40 million judgment. One of the big disputes which have divided our community was to appeal or not appeal. If the purpose of the appeal was to reduce the amount of money owed, the settlement did that. If the purpose of appealing was to keep fighting because…
June 30, 2009
As I said, this should have been resolved 10-15 years ago. Instead each administration made it worse and kicked the ball down the field for their predassors to deal with. The music stopped with the current CC and they had to deal with the mess they inherited.
Did they reduce the debt, yes. Could it have been handled better, yes. Was 1991 the cheapest solution, yes. Will we ever agree, no!
June 30, 2009
Barry, you are right. HMB shot its wad on a worthless piece of dirt. And everybody knows this although I bet they knew it years ago. I wrote about this 9 years ago. Now when some of the PUDS around HMB start to play the drumbeat of development, HMB will be too weak and broke to put up a serious fight. Other cities will also see how destructive HMB's policies were and try a more concilatory approach. Besides the obvious of HMB never draining water on someone's property, they should have settled this…
June 30, 2009
$40 million is what it cost HMB to fight a foolish battle and have it drag on for way too long. At best, this 23 acres is worth around $3-4 million (water connections not included) yet this fight till you die attitude by several administrations has inflated the cost of acquisition to this incredible inflated amount of money. Beachwood's legacy will be a text book case of what not to do. Hopefully HMB has learned its lesson, although the expensive way, and not repeat this mistake again. If for no…
June 30, 2009
Everything has its place. Spending $40 million (including interest over 30 years) to preserve Beachwood's wetlands isn't worth it to many people I know. If anything, it will do the opposite and show how costly it can be to fight and lose.
June 29, 2009
Beachwood looks really nice in the painting. It just doesn't look that pretty when you consider the projected $40 million (including interest) cost to the residents. What a staggering waste of money that could have been better used elsewhere.
BTW, I'd be careful walking around on someone's property without permission.
June 29, 2009
Add the caption "For $25 Million and Rising, you can enjoy this view!" For the same amount of money you could have bought 600 acres of N Wavecrest or for $45 million bought Martin's Beach. Not a bad deal considering its only worth $3-4 million (water not included)!
May 15, 2009
I'll admit I'm a bad speller but can you answer this 5 word question?
May 15, 2009
Cheri, thanks for reminding me of my past comments. I'm kind of into illeration so my terminology has evloved to where I now prefer wetland weeds. Of Course Beachwood has a special species and that's man made wetland weeds which is fitting considering the mindbologing price HMB is paying for this overpriced piece of dirt. The only positive comment I can make about Beachwood is that its near my favorite restaurant McDonalds. Of all the spectacular places on the Coast, this doesn't make my top 20 or…
May 14, 2009
Actually Cheri I use the term wetland weeds which can be found in abundance in such scenic treasures like Beachwood. Perhaps this man made blunder should be made sacred, it is among the most expensive overpriced pieces of dirt on the Coast as well as a lasting testimonial to the failure of government.
My comment about wildflowers was that they were covered here while the post I started got a pass. But we've already covered that.
May 14, 2009
Sabrina, please except my apologies. I din't mean to disparage the beautiful wild flowers that compliment the spectacular scenery we are blessed to live in and enjoy. I'm proud to have made the Coast my familiy's home for over 25 years. This happens to be one of the prettiest places I've ever seen.
May 14, 2009
Vince, the reason I've repeated myself so much is because no one seems to want to directly answer my simple 5 word question. You seem to be extremely knowledgeable about MWSD but you too dodge my question and focus on secondary or tertiary points. Its true I've been against wasteful litigation spending here and have written about it for over 10 years. History has also proven me right on that point but that's not what this is about. The reason I posted here was because of a comment made by Moss Bitcher…
May 14, 2009
Barry, how is saying "lemming" out of line while calling Jim Larimer a "Wing Nut" OK? Is it because one is God's chosen creatures with feelings and wing nuts are man made?
May 14, 2009
Vince, obviously this is a land use issue. And its interesting from many angles. Here you have a tenant trying to take away land from the US Government. You seem to be the most knowledgeable person about MWSD who has responded to my simple question yet you and all the other commenters don't want to answer my question. The coverage on this has been weak to non-existent. The Times piece was the most informative with quotes from County lawyers. There is another side to this story but no one on MWSD's…
May 13, 2009
Please stop dancing around the question NP, what is the reason for the appeal?
May 13, 2009
Vince best article on this decision was by the SM Times which got into conversations with the County attorneys. The Review covered it twice. Here nothing until my question. As far as legal costs go, I don't have a clue which is why I asked. You think maybe $300k so its probably twice that. Maybe you'll get lucky by passing the hat around for donations, otherwise this is on you. With times tough, people may not be that generous. And I'm glad to hear that you think those silly little words written…
May 13, 2009
Everybody is stretched thin but this is certainly more important to many people I think than guitar groups or dead birds or wild flowers. As I started this piece off, I said its interesting from a real estate perspective. This covers government sale of property, deed restrictions, eminent domain, fights between local agency and county, local versus Feds, leases, permits, water rights, US Court of Appeals, new owner, stonewalling, more legal spending, lack of media coverage. When David takes on Goliath…
Page 2 of 12 pages < 1 2 3 4 > Last ›
Facebook
Twitter
RSS