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

Rejection of riverbank bids urged

March 13, 2013

Marietta City Council’s lands, buildings and parks committee members have recommended that city law director Paul Bertram III reject all bids submitted for the lease of a 300-foot section of......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(18)

doggonit

Mar-14-13 9:32 PM

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WeCanDoBetter

Mar-14-13 11:36 AM

Way to keep it classy…doggonit

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WeCanDoBetter

Mar-13-13 4:37 PM

Clickhere…The bid specifications explain what is meant by “commercial” and what is meant by “recreational”. I urge you to please get a copy of both bids and the bid specifications for both areas from the city and see for yourself. This would clear up any confusion you may have concerning what is meant by “commercial” and what is meant by “recreational” per city council.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

clickhere

Mar-13-13 4:18 PM

WeCanDoBetter.....A merchant vessel is a ship that transports cargo or passengers. The closely related term COMMERCIAL vessel is defined by the United States Coast Guard as any vessel (i.e. boat or ship) engaged in commercial trade or that carries passengers for hire. This would exclude pleasure craft that do not carry passengers for hire or warships. They come in a myriad of sizes and shapes from twenty-foot inflatable dive boats in Hawaii, to 5,000 passenger casino vessels on the Mississippi River, to tugboats plying New York Harbor, to 1,000 foot oil tankers and container ships at major ports, to a passenger carrying submarine in the U.S. Virgin Islands. So size doesn't matter. It's monetary.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WeCanDoBetter

Mar-13-13 3:21 PM

Turner…I find the coverage of this story lacking as well. And you are right, if you haven’t attended any of the public meetings you would have no evidence “that one is right and one is wrong.” However, if you did attend the meetings you would see that Mr.Sands did not meet bid specifications. Please get a copy of both bids from the city and see for yourself.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WeCanDoBetter

Mar-13-13 3:02 PM

Clickhere…The term “commercial” actually refers to the type of boat. The VG is a commercial boat of a certain size. The term “recreational” refers to smaller pleasure craft. The decision was made by council to have one lease space for “commercial boats” and one lease space for “recreational boats”. It doesn’t have anything to do with subletting dock space for profit; it only refers to the type of boat that can be moored in each lease area.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

clickhere

Mar-13-13 2:34 PM

How can the Woodfords not be considered commerical? Are the Woodfords renting dock space? Or is it first come first serve? Defining commercial: "Commercial" meaning prepared, done, with sole emphasis of salability for profit! I'm just looking at both-sides here.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tessie

Mar-13-13 1:34 PM

The epic fail is not Mr. Bertram's. It is the epic fail is of an employee within the city's administration. This man worked very closely with Mr. Sands to craft a bid for that parcel that did not meet the specifications outlined in the bid package. As such, that bid should have been thrown out. Instead, this city employee as gone way beyond his authority with the sole reason being that he wishes to create chaos.

It is past time for the mayor to rein this joker in. What the "Joker" is doing may cost the City of Marietta (me & you) quite a lot of money. He did the same with the 7th/Greene/Pike intersection by being a contrarian and creating chaos when it was unnecessary. Mayor Matthews, he's doing you no favors, but is making you look very bad. Better take the reins of power back before it's too late.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Turner

Mar-13-13 1:34 PM

@WeCanDoBetter... I never said it would come to Parkersburg, I said that it would be welcome. I also didn't indicate that the Gem would be losing the original dock space. I agree that the locals have just as much a right to bring in revenue, and that they support the city as well, but not as much in the masses. The locals don't get the area publicity in bigger cities( article on the Gem in the Columbus Dispatch.The locals also don't bring in large groups which support museums, locally owned restaurants, and businesses.

I am entitled to my opinion that it is outrageous, just as you are entitled to yours that it is someone elses fault.

I find the coverage of the story entirely one sided. There are no quotes in this piece from either party, nor do we have any evidence( not being provided with either sides bid package) that one is right and one is wrong.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WeCanDoBetter

Mar-13-13 12:55 PM

Turner…the Valley Gem is still keeping its original location where it has always been. So there is no need for outrage, they are not moving to Parkersburg and there will be no “detrimental loss to the city of Marietta”. The Valley Gem wants the property that has been used by recreational boater for years. Furthermore, the Woodford docks are full of boaters who bring revenue to the city by buying gas, going to restaurants and shops etc. As far as “the bid was won, and lawfully is supposed to be awarded to the highest bid”, the bid has NOT been won and there are legitimate concerns from council that the Sands bid did NOT meet bid specifications. Once again, you can blame this epic fail on LD Bertram.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Turner

Mar-13-13 12:31 PM

This is outrageous. While I am of the opinion that the Valley Gem would be a detrimental loss to the city of Marietta, as well as the cities revenue,I am also of the opinion that Parkersburg would welcome a business with so much to offer with open arms! Enough is enough. What benefits do the Woodford's bring to the city in using the dock space? Are they bringing in tourist groups,bringing revenue to the city and other businesses?

It is absurd to me that this has gotten to this point, the bid was won, and lawfully is supposed to be awarded to the highest bid which in this case was Sands. End of story.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Tessie

Mar-13-13 11:27 AM

The "drama" of this story has come about because ONE individual employed by the city, made it so. He is self-described as an instigator, and a pot-stirrer. He takes pride in this trait, but should feel ashamed of this destructive, childish, character defect. Unfortunately, he isn't even mentioned in this article, but I'm sure many know exactly who he is.

The Sand's bid did not meet specifications for that parcel, plain and simple. After the bid was made, he wanted to further change the approved use of that parcel and certain members of the city administration supported him. This maneuvering was done for one reason and one reason only. It was done so that Mr. Pot Stirrer can be the center of attention. Why does the head of the administration not not see this? Everyone else involved does.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WeCanDoBetter

Mar-13-13 11:09 AM

There was NEVER consensus among council that the Sands bid met specifications. It only took TWO members of council to recommend that the Sands bid proceed to full council for a vote. Get a copy of the Sands bid and you will see it is in violation of bid specifications. This was an epic fail on the part of LD Bertram.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

WeCanDoBetter

Mar-13-13 11:08 AM

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Lizard

Mar-13-13 11:08 AM

Close all the parks and green space. The city can't afford upkeep. Too many people want too many things that cost the tax payer money. Sell these properties to private individuals whereby the cost won't be carried by tax payers and the land will generate real estate tax income again.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

wps3417

Mar-13-13 10:40 AM

This stinks like rotting fish! The bids were , according to previous articles, done properly and Mr. Sands had the better bid.The Woodfords start yelling, and city council runs for the corners! Amazing. If Mr. Sands is out of compliance with his contract, as is stated, then let the proper department handle that situation. STOP the drama.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

bulldog58

Mar-13-13 10:19 AM

pay till you win thats the game there playing with this. Why dont the city just give the other side of the river to mr.sands where that old tarp covered eyesore is this way the city wins ,woodfords win, and i don't have to look at that eyesore every time i go by!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

yellowrose

Mar-13-13 8:29 AM

Has anyone asked where the human waste is going from these boats??

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 18 of 18 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