Home » Riverside parking plan draws fire » Unverified Comments


  • N45BA,

    I also suspect there might have been some chest bumps & bro grabs involved. But seriously, it really can't be stressed enough that the co-owner of this development is on the Planning Commission, Sales Tax Development Corp, TREPAC (Halepaska & Armstrong campaign donor), and Main Street Project. And we're being told there were no inside/backdoor dealings.

    While we're on the subject...

    December 13, 2010 at 11:06 a.m.
  • Wow, the discussion on this thread alone is more rational & reasonable than any that's occurred in the Council chambers on this subject. All that's left to figure out is what could possibly be causing them to circumvent reason. It seems like they're pampering some fellow legacy builders.

    Does anyone think there's a 4-to-3 ratio of Victorians who support this kind of cronyistic expenditure? Are we being represented by this action?

    December 13, 2010 at 9:43 a.m.
  • What I think that stinks is how the plan changed. Last discussion had the restaurant only paying for lighting and the parking was all down by the restaurant. Now we have parking closer to the zoo (supposedly) and the owners chipping in more. And it all got cheaper. I wonder if something isn't being slipped past us. Does anyone else notice that these spaces are not near anything but the restaurant? Being a past disc golf player, they are not going to park and hike to the first hole. And most going to the zoo have children they don't want to hike that far. So just who are these extra spots for?

    The city can afford this, but they can't build sidewalks around the schools.

    December 12, 2010 at 11:46 a.m.
  • This is a tough one. The restaurant and new parking are good for everyone, I think. The public benefits by having access to an exciting new venue, the city benefits by increasing the tax base, the business owners benefit (hopefully) by making a profit.

    It's hard to believe that a member of the planning commission and a real estate developer (the owners) would not have known in advance that parking would be a problem. Had they made their offer for the property contingent on a public/private parking cooperative, council and everyone else involved would most likely have agreed.

    We're bound to be missing something. Maybe there was a legal or technical reason why a contingency offer could not be made. If so, I wish the Patillos would clarify things publicly. Until they do, what we have here is the appearance, at least, of a backroom deal. That's too bad, because I don't think I'm alone in my fervent hope that this project is a success.

    December 10, 2010 at 3:50 p.m.
  • My question is when and only when there is a flood again in the park who will be stuck repairing the damage? I do like the new version in which a few spots in front of the zoo.

    December 10, 2010 at 10:11 a.m.
  • same ol underhanded deals

    December 9, 2010 at 7:43 p.m.
  • My bad, 13 are on their property...they others are not, so they are getting their required parking spaces on city property....

    December 9, 2010 at 6:42 p.m.
  • 'Everything is under control. Louise Hull Patillo is on the Planning Commission. Wink wink, nod nod.'

    BOOOOOOOOOOOOM, head shot !

    December 9, 2010 at 5:23 p.m.
  • *cough, cough*

    December 9, 2010 at 12:47 p.m.
  • Watchdog said: "And if the plan has deficiencies then they must be addressed thru a variance with the planning commission."

    Everything is under control. Louise Hull Patillo is on the Planning Commission. Wink wink, nod nod.

    December 9, 2010 at 12:44 p.m.
  • There are worse things to be called than a conspiracy theorist.

    I would hate to be called a liar and a cheat, for instance.

    December 9, 2010 at 12:09 p.m.
  • Well, well, well, another deal. With most citizens who do business with the city, before all building permits are issued a building plan must be presented to the city and approved by the planning commission this includes a site plan and any building plans that must be accomplished. And if the plan has deficiencies then they must be addressed thru a variance with the planning commission. When was the variance issued and who signed off on in approving the plan for public funds to be earmarked for private use. With the work that is already in progress I would venture to say that the behind closed doors deal was reached well in advance of the article that was published in the Advocate in early November. It is obivious from that article that the owners knew about the lack of parking and need for additional parking and the city had already committed to providing some financial support for the business owners. Think about it, would work be allowed to begin, if the building permits were not issued and all the hush hush deals already agreed upon. Why do we have yet another deal where the private sector is going to benefit at the expense of the tax payer(i.e. woodway streets closing)

    December 9, 2010 at 11:28 a.m.
  • I relish the dismissals of my (our?) criticisms as "conspiracy theories." While I realize the term is meant to draw on borrowed connotations since they can't articulate a sound argument of their own, I choose to use a literal interpretation of the term. We know Cm Halepaska and the Patillos have "conspired" to wick funds from Victorians to prop up a business venture that obviously can't survive without government assistance. Although, this is more fact than theory.

    My favorite part of this whole thing is how much further Paul Polasek has pulled his own pants down to expose his Country Club Republican underoos. For a guy who speaks at Tea Parties and trumpets the merits of free markets & limited government, he sure can dish out some corporate welfare. It's a shame GOP_LoveChild has missed this opportunity to point out the hypocrisies of a Tea Partier.

    December 9, 2010 at 9:57 a.m.
  • Santa Will always has a get out claus.


    December 9, 2010 at 9:50 a.m.
  • Hey Tommy H,
    You forgot to include the UFO landing pad for all the conspiracy theorist.

    December 9, 2010 at 8:24 a.m.
  • Shoot low, boys--they're riding Shetland ponies.

    December 9, 2010 at 8:01 a.m.
  • Some of you folks need tin foil hats to ward off the conspiracy signals that are being beamed down to your brains from who knows where.

    December 9, 2010 at 7:42 a.m.
  • I just love this part of the Advocate. I have lived in Victoria over 40 years. Went to the zoo once years and years ago. Didn't miss anything then and don't miss it now. Won't miss the restraunt there or not. I was here when the park was a park. Before the post along the streets were in the park to control your parking. Motor bikes made trails that were shut down to call them hiking trails.

    Business Parking? Before I purchased a building in Victoria I went to the planing Department for a varience on parking. They ask me why do I want a varience if I don't own the building? I replied, Why do I want to own the building if I cannot get a varience? After the Planning Dept and City Council they all gave me a varience on a building that I did not own.

    My sugestion for the park. Give up the restruant. Victoria already has a half dozen restruants that are good. Required parking was part of their construction. Or or Or, Park and rid the Bus.

    December 9, 2010 at 7:36 a.m.
  • Do any of you really think that Armstrong, Halepaska, Polasek, and Rangel give a @#$%& what any of us think? Just watch the disgust illustrated by Mr. Mayor when anyone disagrees with his opinion.

    This is a railroad, insider deal to "develop" a "friend of the city's" property. Plan and simple.

    December 9, 2010 at 2:23 a.m.
  • goags,

    Feel free to disprove my claims, then we can have an honest discussion. I back up my claims with facts, which you've failed to do.


    Thanks for your concern about how I find the time to evaluate the performance of my elected representatives. I get paid to use my multi-dimensional analytical skills to solve complex problems, and sometimes I choose to employ those skills on my own dime to scrutinize the actions of my government. When did you find the time to scour my comment history in order to fashion such a grand wholesale dismissal of my comments?

    December 9, 2010 at 12:21 a.m.
  • This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

    December 8, 2010 at 11:42 p.m.
  • I think a refresher is in order:

    December 8, 2010 at 11:28 p.m.
  • Victorianbybirth,
    They are baying for all 67, based on the article "deal calls for them to build and pay for 13 parking spaces on their property at an estimated cost of $15,000. It also calls for them to pay about $48,500 to build another 54 parking spaces ". Then the public gets to use all 67.

    December 8, 2010 at 11:25 p.m.
  • They are paying for 13 out of the required 67....

    December 8, 2010 at 10:59 p.m.
  • Same negative, anti-business, commenters as there are in many Advocate articles. Previously these same people were complaining that there wasn't parking close to the zoo and the business owners weren't paying for the required parking spaces. Now both of those have occurred and the same people are finding more to complain about.

    December 8, 2010 at 10:15 p.m.
  • I think this is a win win for the business and the city! If council members can't see that there is something wrong. Is it because someone wasn't in on the know? Well maybe so but lets not make another big to do over something that is good for the City!

    December 8, 2010 at 10:10 p.m.
  • 100% insider deal

    i hope all involved eventually see some sort of prison time

    December 8, 2010 at 8:12 p.m.
  • Jeff,

    I am not discussing the cost variances that were mentioned. I want the proof that Mr Soliz said "My criticism is of certain people on council who were aware of what the complete plan was and did not make that information known to the rest of council." This is what I am referring too. Provide me the proof that Council (4) knew the plan when the deal was being made. Otherwise Soliz is blowing smoke.

    December 8, 2010 at 7:49 p.m.
  • Mr. Soliz sounds like he is doing his homework, paying attention in class & is voting with the best interest of his constituents in mind. Mr. Armstrong scoffed when Mr. Soliz won his seat, saying something to the effect that he was not "equipped" for the job, sounds to me like Victoria needs 4 more like Mr. Soliz!

    December 8, 2010 at 7:38 p.m.
  • Let's look at the facts.

    On November 9th it was reported that 117 parking spots would cost "$182,000 for material and equipment and use city labor to build it". $182K for material and equipment and at least an equal amount of "city labor" totals to $364,000. In addition the private business owners were going to pay $31,200 " for the lighting in exchange for their customers being allowed to use the parking". On November 9th 117 spaces to cost around $395,200.

    Today reports 134 spaces (54, 40 & 40) to cost $156,600. 17 more spaces then in November at a cost of $248,600 LESS then the amount reported just 1 month ago. Some really creative accounting is being done OR the public is not getting the entire story. I would lean toward the latter of the two.

    Dude, if the entire story can't stay consistant for even 30 days what makes you believe it has been consistant for the last several months dating back to the original purchase? I still believe that if it had been made known during the bidding process that the city was going to construct additional parking adjacent to this property there may have been many more interested bidders and the price paid would have increased.

    How many times in the past has the city allowed a private business to bypass the variance process for a piece of property that could not meet the parking criteria by "giving" them public property for their own private use? My guess would be you won't find another incidence of this taking place.

    Thank you Mr. Hagan, Mr. Soliz and Mr. Truman for standing up for what is right. This deal is not right, is not fair and reeks of favoritism.

    December 8, 2010 at 6:54 p.m.
  • Mr. soliz,

    Where is the proof?

    December 8, 2010 at 6:31 p.m.