sjspeck:
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 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:
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:
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.
