IS IT TRUE? Part 2 July 5, 2011 Vetting and Betting

4

Lunch with the President????

IS IT TRUE? Part 2 July 5, 2011 Vetting and Betting

IS IT TRUE that today is the last day for the factions within Woodruff Hospitality LLC to mend their fences and declare that they can close the deal and will work together under this corporate banner to build and operate a Downtown Convention Hotel?…that if they do that then the Evansville Redevelopment Commission will have avoided having to issue yet another RFP in an attempt to get a developer that can perform according to some to be determined contract?…that as we have said before, this is what happens when no VETTING PROCESS is in place prior to signing contracts?…that this is also what happens when no elected officials are in positions of responsibility when substantial sums of public money are being spent?…that the ERC and the Evansville City Council need desperately to take a crash course in VETTING so that whenever and if ever a developer comes forth with an acceptable plan that we do not get into another embarrassing expensive situation that was easily avoidable with just a little up front thinking?

IS IT TRUE that the City County Observer certainly hopes that by the end of this month that this situation is rectified and that a fully VETTED developer is under contract to proceed?…that we shall be watching the actions of both the ERC and the City Council in the next month to see if there is any ability or even the will to put a VETTING PROCESS into place?…that we wish them well but may just bet that they won’t make it happen should such a bet be possible to make?…that this whole process will likely be repeating itself in August with the McCurdy being the object of attention?…that it has been a four year disappointment as well?…that the VETTING PROCESS that we hope is put into place could be useful down at the McCurdy too?

IS IT TRUE that the mind of government really seems to work in strange ways?…that President Obama led and supported an effort to ban the playing of poker online?…that the same President is now selling lottery tickets for $5 each with the prize being “Lunch with the President”?…that there may be over 1 Million of those Presidential scratch-offs sold netting his campaign a cool $5 Million?…that for those who are into the scratch-off game there is a way to make some money from this scheme?…that the winner of this lunch could SELL this privilege to the highest bidder?…that this idea to SELL lunch with the President would most likely bring a bid of at least $50,000?…that selling the lunch would cause one to have to declare gambling earnings of $50,000 on an income tax return?…that the federal taxes would amount to as much as $17,500 and the state taxes would be $2,200 leaving the winner with $30,295 to stimulate the economy with?…that off of this one little lottery scheme that the President’s campaign would get $5 Million, the state and federal governments will get $19,700, and the economy will get goosed up by $30,295?

IS IT TRUE that whoops, it takes $5 Million in consumer spending off the table and gives it to a politician?…that pulling $5 Million off the table that was certainly destined for consumer spending will most certainly cost the states about $350,000 in sales taxes that won’t be collected?…that we should forget the whole scheme lest it lead to “Game with the Governor”, “Martini with the Mayor”, “Cocktails with the Council”, “Absinthe with the Assessor”, “Shots with the Senator”, or even “Coffee with the Judge” being arranged by selling lottery tickets or pulling tabs?…that our local government is already hopelessly addicted to a revenue stream that is dependent on gambling?…that this is not a good example for the President to set for others who seek public office to use as a fundraising technique?

4 COMMENTS

  1. It could be worse. Didn’t Mary Hukill get the Executive Inn over in Owensboro?

  2. Did your first round of FOI requests turn up any real dirt? Was the VenueWorks temporary contract the most interesting thing that was discovered? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall any real shockers that came from that info.

    • The contents and assumptions of the appraisal were quite interesting to those who delve into financial details. The contract itself is moot at this point but it will be a valuable reference when another one is signed. That is all that we asked for in the first one. I think it is significant that there are all of the claims about box seats being sold and that there has been no public meeting to approve pricing or any contracts. That is directly the opposite of what the contract calls for.

      • Excerpt: “I think it is significant that there are all of the claims about box seats being sold and that there has been no public meeting to approve pricing or any contracts.”

        Yes, it IS significant, and perhaps, “Snegal?”

Comments are closed.