Now it’s a recall of the Fraser Rec District board, but what’s next?
To the Editor:
AGAIN and STILL: The goals of the “Concerned Citizens” (CC) are changing, unclear and, ultimately, destructive and expensive. Let’s review:
First, the “CC” of one, Pat Rupert, urged a “no” vote on the Fraser Valley Metropolitan Recreation District bond projects; bond vote passed; he sued; he lost his suit.
Second, “CC” were against the election itself to then being against the courts; challenged the vote, lost again.
Third, in June and July, “CC” were against the contract with Cornerstone Holdings (Grand Park).
Then, “CC” changes, now against the location of the rec center.
Next, “CC” state in a public meeting (August 2008) their goal is to “reverse” the rec center and “reverse” the bond vote.
Then suddenly the “CC” states they are against three of the directors and they start a recall effort because those three signed a contract with Cornerstone that gave the district $4.6 million in land and infrastructure for the rec center. After all, nothing else has worked for them. I’m sure they will find the needle in the haystack if they look long enough.
Oh, and let’s not leave out the “how dare the board agree to letting a multimillion dollar contributor have a say in the name” fiasco. Coors Field, Invesco Field at Mile Hi, Petco Field any of those ring a bell to anyone?
Yet another change in direction, the “CC” say they would not hinder construction (after saying in August they would “reverse” the rec center) but would rather “make Clark Lipscomb … pay for the Grand Park Recreation Center.”
Viki Bale thinks by saying something is so, it makes it so. Her letter of Dec. 9 makes this clear.
She claims that there’s a need for extreme measures because of an extreme condition she invents. She states: “If you don’t call signing a contract that changes the status of a publicly held tax-free bond to a private property bond an extreme situation, then I don’t know what is.”
She’s right ” she doesn’t know.
The bonds are tax free because the rec center and the land is public land with full public access. Because her lawyer Mark Rudis wants to elect three people to the board to use public funds to argue to the IRS otherwise doesn’t make it so. That’s right, they want to argue to the IRS that the public rec center is really private and therefore “force” Clark Lipscomb to “buy” the rec center. That’s the great, bright future Bale and Pat Rupert and their cohorts want for our Valley. Such a course of action would involve endless delays, bitter lawsuits and would ultimately kill the rec center that the people voted for last year, costing the taxpayers even more money.
Bale, with the advice of her lawyer Mark Rudis, wants desperately to make that public rec center into a private one so they can challenge the bonds. This is a denial of reality, counterproductive, costly and, ultimately, bad for the Fraser Valley.
What in the world, one could reasonably ask, does this group intend to do if elected to the board? Take your pick. But rest assured it will change again and it won’t be good for the pocket books of taxpayers. Pat Rupert has already cost all of us in excess of $425,000 ” i.e. timing of bond sale, election supplies, lawyer fees and the like, and it continues to grow.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.