Gulf1: SOC failed because of PNJ picture

September 13, 2006

angryHere is why William Cobb (Stop Our City supporter) believes the Community Maritime Park passed – as per his letter posted on gulf1.com:

False Representation   by William T. Cobb

I am concerned that the (Artistic?) pictures printed so many times and so boldly by the Pensacola News Journal, depicting the ballpark as about 40% of the width of the “Trillium” property, probably were not knowledgeably analyzed by any of those who voted for the “Park?”.

Having checked the site personally, I see that the ball park, PNJ-depicted as 40% of the width of the property, would take only about 300 feet, including stands and all. What would be the Homeplate-to-fence dimension of such a ballpark? Will the Ball Park take a greater slice of the property in the final design?

All of the features of the depicted “Park” would have to be designed for Midget occupancy in order to get a semblance of the ballyhooed “Vision”.

I also think it wrong for the publications, and the fanciful “mailings”, to have shown a great expanse of Beach on the east side of the property, where there is none (and probably never will be), making the property appear larger than it is.

In summary, I believe that the Public was misled by the Promotions of the CMPA, with a majority of the Councilmen supporting, and that the Citizens will eventually see a vastly different “Park” that mainly serves the “Special Interests” that raised the huge “Campaign Fund”.

I believe that the producers of the “conceptual” drawings so widely used bear some responsibility for mis-informing the Public on a matter of civic importance.

__________________________

Cobb will not accept that Save Our City was the one caught misrepresenting the facts – no maritime park, giveaway to a millionaire, just a ballpark, no citizen input, $1-a-year lease.

Advertisements

5 Responses to “Gulf1: SOC failed because of PNJ picture”

  1. Pensacola Pete Says:

    I love it! Now the fossils are saying everyone voted for the CMP because they WANTED a ballpark and were mislead into thinking it would be a BIG ballpark. I guess the next step is to proclaim “There IS NO ballpark!”

  2. Franklin L. Says:

    Cobb is right! The pictures aree frauds! I tell you that The Maritime Parkers fear nothing more than the truth. First things first: The pro park emissaries say we need something and here’s our pet academic institution to prove that what we say is the truth.

    It’s the only way for them to conceal that their stooges at UWF commonly appoint ineffective people to important positions. It then ensures that these people stay in those positions because that makes it easy for power mongers to create an atmosphere of mistrust, in which speculations and rumors gain the appearance of viability and compete openly with more carefully considered theories.

    I won’t bore you with the details, but suffice it to say that one of the pro park elite’s (UWF + Downtown Crowd) favorite tricks is to create a problem and then to offer the solution. Naturally, it’s always ITS solutions that grant it the freedom to empty the meaning of such concepts as “self,” “justice,” “freedom,” and other profundities, never the original problem. Let me accentuate that if we reinforce what is best in people, we shall not only survive The Pro-Maritime Parkers’s attacks; we shall prevail.

    Down with the Park! Let the people prevail!

  3. Joe Says:

    One sharp cookie, this one…

    “Down with the Park! Let the people prevail!”

    Where were you on September 5, Franky?

  4. Jason Says:

    I’m relatively smart, I don’t bore with details. So feel free…
    Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the people just prevail in what is probably the most democratic method of collective decision making known to modern man? The referendum process allowed every citizen of this city to weigh in on the park. People on both sides saw what there was to see and made a decision based on the available information. That, my friend, is self governance at it’s finest. The people did prevail.
    So, in essence, what you’re saying is that the elected City Council isn’t capable of making the correct decision, but neither is the citizenry? You would prefer a monarch?
    As for your “carefully considered theories”, indulge us, we’re all ears. Are you referring to the “Better” Waterfront Park “proposed” by SOC? The very one that never existed? As a conceptual drawing or otherwise?

  5. Scott Says:

    I thought the save our city folks said we just want our citizens to have a voice. They spoke and it should be a dead issue. They had many months to get their points accross. Lets come together and move forward. Enough already, it’s a little late to complain about some picture in the PNJ. The democratic process worked just not in SOC favor. Don’t be a sore sport, you got your vote and it’s done.

Comments are closed.