Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Valley Gem owner’s bid has inside track on using docks

February 27, 2013

The days may be numbered for the Muskingum River Boat Docks, whose owners have apparently been outbid for a lease on the city-owned dock space by the owner of the neighboring Valley Gem Sternwheeler......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(27)

clickhere

Mar-13-13 1:46 PM

How can the Woodfords not be considered commerical? Are the Woodfords renting dock space? I'm just weighting both side here. Commerical meaning prepared, done, with sole emphasis of salability for profit!

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tessie

Mar-01-13 10:27 AM

Oh come on DA, do you really think I would name who did it before the investigation is completed? It was someone who thinks they're far more powerful than they are. It was someone who should definitely be removed from his position.

Sorry, you're going to have to read between the lines on this and do your own searching.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DevilsAdvocate

Feb-28-13 10:04 PM

@ Tess,

"A City official ordered the plat map to be altered to reflect that the City owned the parcel that the Woodfords have been leasing. Then when caught in the act, it was changed back. That's a felony and that person should be charged."

Come on Tess.. If you know, you gotta share with the rest of us. There is no more meat in yours than the paper.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tessie

Feb-28-13 8:34 PM

What exactly do you want to know DA? It's mostly there in my posts. This information is available in the Council minutes. Unless of course that same city official decided to do a little editing.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WeCanDoBetter

Feb-28-13 3:54 PM

Yes BeRight…the city is going to screw the boaters. Marietta Councilman Mike McCauley, D-2nd Ward, says "At the end of the day it's just the dollars”. This is NOT true because the VG has never paid a dime to use the city owned property where it is currently docked. Sands told council he wanted the Woodford’s space and they put it out to bid. Citizens need to call members of council and let them know this is a b.s. land grab.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

BeRight

Feb-28-13 3:19 PM

The people who dock at that faclity buy gas at the harbor. Where does the VG buy their fuel? The City really screwed those boaters. I say that the City Charge the VG for the parking under the bridge.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DevilsAdvocate

Feb-28-13 12:55 PM

Tess, the suspense is killing me! You have alluded to something twice, and it is driving me nuts. At this rate I will be older and greyer waiting on an official report. What are you talking about?

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tessie

Feb-28-13 11:45 AM

There are two parcels there. One used free by the Valley Gem that's owned by the city, and one leased by the Woodfords.

Yes, Marietta Times how about some investigation about who actually owns that parcel of land. The State of Ohio said they own it and the City of Marietta said they own it. The City choose to collect lease fees on the recreational boaters dock space, but not on the Valley Gem's space. Why is that?

The City better thoroughly reexamine this bid award. The City is opening itself up to lots of trouble down the way, possibly a lawsuit, which will cost the taxpayers.

A City official ordered the plat map to be altered to reflect that the City owned the parcel that the Woodfords have been leasing. Then when caught in the act, it was changed back. That's a felony and that person should be charged.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

slogoin

Feb-27-13 8:51 PM

Tess,my granfather told me 35 yrs ago that that parcel had no official owner.I dont know why he knew this,but was a avid boater and may have known due to affiliation with Mtta. Boat Club

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tessie

Feb-27-13 8:18 PM

Mr. Homer is correct. Exactly how can the V.G. be viewed as anything other than a commercial vessel? It can't and that's how its license was issued.

By the way, how much was the bid the V.G. made on its current space? That may tell the story on who reneged on the agreement.

Sure hope the story of an official who changed the plat records last year becomes public. That's a story to investigate. It's a felony whether it was changed back or not when it was discovered.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tessie

Feb-27-13 8:08 PM

Two leases were "packaged" to be bid upon. One was for the currant dock where the V.G. is located. The other is where the currant docks owned by the Woodford's exist. As the bid packages were being developed, Mr. Sands agreed to not bid on the Woodford's dock space since his is a commercial operation for the V.G. and the Miss Lily. The Woodfords agreed not to bid on the V.G.'s currant space since their docks provide space for recreational boaters.

There was a verbal agreement and it was read into the council minutes. Both were fully aware that someone else could bid on the spaces, but agreed to not bid on the others space. Mr. Bertram and Mr. Hupp are fully aware of this, as is each council person and audience witnesses. No commercial operation is to be used at this lot.

The highest bid only counts if the specifics of the bid are met. The V.G. does not meet the specs so it should be considered invalid.

Someone asked who owns the actual docks. The Woodfords own

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

withoutapaddle

Feb-27-13 4:35 PM

To me this is an open and shut case. Both bids met the specifications but VG was the highest bidder. This should not take up anymore of the City’s time and energy. As I understand it, the question that council had was regarding the VG docking in a non-commercial docking space. Last night’s presentation by the VG answered that loud and clear. THEY ARE NOT DOCKING THERE. The VG is clearly maneuvering in a federal waterway and are never docked in the non-commercial space. What I found from last night’s meeting was an issue brought up about sewage disposal. The VG had a clear plan of disposal but the Woodford’s do not and made no attempt to talk about that issue. As a citizen of Marietta I am concerned that their current sewage is simply being dumped in the Muskingum River and the Woodford’s are skirting around that issue. Why is it that council is not concerned about that disgusting fact? Why is it that council would even consider awarding that docking space to people who have no plan fo

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WandyisCool

Feb-27-13 4:15 PM

Maybe I am clueless, but what would happen to the docks the Woodfords own, if Sands gets the lease?

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WeCanDoBetter

Feb-27-13 1:53 PM

Mrhomer…the VG is a commercial vessel and they want use of dock space allotted for NON -commercial boats. They already have the lease space that council set aside for commercial vessels but that isn’t good enough. They also want the non-commercial vessel dock space thereby kicking out recreational boaters. Oh, and they are willing to NOW pay the city for their space even though they haven’t for over 40 years. Hope that helped.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MaryPoppins

Feb-27-13 1:26 PM

No commercial vessels permitted. That is the end of the chapter, verse, and story.

Ignore one law, and you might as well ignore them all.

8 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

mrhomer

Feb-27-13 1:10 PM

Can someone exlain to me how the Valley Gem isn't a commercial vessel...I don't quite understand what defines commercial.

7 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WeCanDoBetter

Feb-27-13 12:39 PM

Sands just wanted the Woodford’s property and pushed and prodded the city to get it. He only bid $139 a year over the Woodford’s bid, hardly a windfall for the city. So, the Woodford’s who paid the city for the use of the property get kicked out along with all the boaters who depend on the Woodford’s dock space. In their place is the squatter VG. Truth is “Sands bid showed the Valley Gem would have to make use of river space west of the docks to connect with the Miss Lily”. What about no commercial vessels? Parse it how you like, no boater will be able to use this space because it will need to be available for the commercial vessel VG.

6 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

doggonit

Feb-27-13 12:06 PM

I usually ignore "ignorances" wecandobetter. This story is not over. The truthes about all parties involve will come out, just wondering if you will have graduated from romper room school by then to comphrend the the truth?

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

doggonit

Feb-27-13 11:56 AM

You must be "pals" of the Woodford! Or maybe have your boat docked there? You don't have any idea of what's really going on here. Hightest bid......is highest bid, end of chapter. Take "special notice", I didn't say story. If the Woodford's wanted the sace so badly, why didn't they bid $4000.00 or $5000.00???????????? The Law Director's rueling is just, thank god we finally have an honest and fair Law Director who has dignity and respect to his duty to serve the people this town. Noland and Vukovic have "always been motived by their own personal interest..." I said chapter, not story. The truth shail set you free!

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WeCanDoBetter

Feb-27-13 11:28 AM

Really doggonit…is this junior high school? Your comment makes no sense.

6 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WeCanDoBetter

Feb-27-13 11:19 AM

Doggonit…Not collecting rent from VG for over 40 years and then putting out a paying lease holder begs to question who is REALLY in bed with whom. Maybe your “inquiring mind” should ponder that instead.

9 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WeCanDoBetter

Feb-27-13 10:02 AM

The VG has never paid a dime to the city for over 40 years for the city owned space that it has used. Now McCauley says "At the end of the day it's just the dollars.” What about 40 years of not collecting ANY money from the VG? It is only because the VG wanted the Wordford’s space that council put it out to bid. The Woodford’s paid the City for their lease unlike the freeloading VG. I don’t think they are worried about the dollars or they would have collected from the VG a long time ago.

8 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

yellowrose

Feb-27-13 8:59 AM

Highest bid wins. Woodfords should accept it and move on. What goes around comes around. Curious as to how they figured their bids. If they are both in compliance, there shouldn't be any more discussion. Period. "No" surprise that Vukovic sided with Noland.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DeputyDawg

Feb-27-13 7:50 AM

Run it out of town just like the city run every thing else out

3 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MaryPoppins

Feb-27-13 7:40 AM

Move on and move the Gem.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 27 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web