sjspeck:I was quoting from the article, not a specific quote within the article: (bold highlight is mine):
From this article:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/local/articles/0225marina0225.html
If you'd care to comment on some of the other allegations the Arizona Republic made in the article regarding Alan Holcomb and his connection to Pensus, I'd like to hear the coalition's position since I feel the Arizona Republic has presented a slanted view - as imo they frequently do.
Maybe it's just semantics, but in the first sentence you claim that the Coalition does not want another marina period.
Then you allude to the fact that Mr Finch would like to be able to bid and win the bid. So if the unthinkable did happen and Mr. Finch won the bid and forced the BOR to do an EIS and the county came back in support of the second marina again - since it already has for Mr. Finch's competition - surely you can see the potential for this scenario to occur - wouldn't that then pave the way for Mr. Finch to either develop the second marina or sell off this suddenly valuable asset to a third party developer?.
Steve, thank you for your questions and polite discourse. Moreover, if we don't agree about this issue we do agree when it comes to the Republic. It was clearly intended as a hit piece but I do not think it scores any real points. If I am not making myself clear, I do apologize. I admit that this can get complicated at times.
If your scenario came true then Mr. Finch would be awarded the second marina but, from my understanding, he would not legally be allowed to sell it to a third party under the County's contract. However, the scenario you present is highly unlikely because the BOR office of jurisdiction, out of Colorado, has already stated that a second marina would have a significant impact.
I do see your point, though, and do not want anyone at anytime to think I am evading. Under that scenario, Mr. Finch would have to develop the second marina according to the terms of the contract. There would be no legal recourse he or the Coalition could take under those circumstances. The upside is that his bid would be far greater than the group out of Illinois, which was only 2.75% of annual revenues. He is currently paying 6% and would pay 2 to 3 times what Scorpion Bay Marina would pay. That would mean more money to the County for traffic and safety expenditures. Furthermore, the County would be forced to follow the law, which will have beneficial ramifications for other future contracts. Lastly, and I can only speak for myself here, the lake would be managed by someone who actually cares about safety and pollution on the lake as opposed to the current bid winners, who have no desire to see an EIS study on the lake.
When I first learned that the County awarded the bid at less than half what Mr. Finch has been paying for the last 2 decades, I knew I had to join the Coalition. To me this was the red flag that something 'fishy' was going on. (Please excuse the bad pun)
sjspeck:Forgive me if I'm just a little skeptical that Mr. Finch and Pensus Group, out of the goodness of their hearts would go through the expense of an entire successful bid process - including I'm sure a considerable downpayment or even possibly payment in full of the bid - not sure how that works exactly... What would be the point to all of that? Human nature being what it is, it's what I'd do, business is business...
Forgive me but I am not sure I follow... If I understand what you are saying, I can only tell you what Mr. Finch told me. He said that he believes another marina would hurt the lake and hurt his livelihood, even if he was awarded the second marina. And he will take every step to protect both the lake and his livelihood. I know that Garrett didn't understand this point so let me further explain. For Mr. Finch his livelihood is the lake. If the lake gets too dangerous, it will hurt his business and his reputation. If the lake gets too polluted, it will hurt patrons and wildlife alike. This will lead to bad news stories, law suits and result in damaging his livelihood. Therefore, for Mr. Finch protecting the lake protects his livelihood and vice-versa. Sure he could theoretically win, get the second marina and have a few years of more profit. But if profit was all he cared about he surely wouldn't fight to have the EIS performed. If profit was all he cared about he would have added 200 more slips to his marina as he is entitled to under his contract. He hasn't because he believes the lake is at capacity now.
sjspeck:Why doesn't the coalition just work to prove the invalid nature of the bid and make the courts force the county, BOR, Board of Supervisors and whoever else in involved declare the process closed and state for the record that no new marina should ever be built? Wouldn't that serve the Coalition's purpose better?
This is exactly what we are doing. We have multiple law suits working their way through different courts. And Mr. Finch has stated and, of course, the Coalition has stated, for the record, that no new marina should ever be built. And by bidding in the 90's and 2002 process, Mr. Finch successfully derailed that new marina. In addition, if it wasn't for his financial support, there would be nothing to stop the latest contract. Maybe this explains why I get a little hot when people wrongfully attack his motives. I think he has proven, with his time, energy and pocketbook, his good intentions on multiple occasions over the last 15 years.
sjspeck:I may not agree with all your answers as I feel some of them show an (understandable) bias but thank you for responding to my post and clarifying many items. Sorry about the length....
My last post on this subject as we could endlessly debate this argument here...I'd appreciate a last response.
And I thank you Steve. Even if you don't ultimately agree, you have made this an enjoyable and honest debate and I respect your insight.