BREAKING NEWS - EWEB INITIATIVE

While the signature initiative, challenging EWEB's rather sneaky choice to "go under the radar" via the URBA process, is the right idea, the signature gatherers are missing many critical points, needed to make a cohesive case before the public:

1) EWEB has no real business plan driving the Roosevelt project - an economic justification that will bring a return on the rate-payer's investment of AT LEAST $86 million dollars. Most capital projects have a projected payback period within which the particular project will pay for itself through savings realized. EWEB has shown no such plan to the public - it all appears to be a sunk cost we rate-payers are "expected" to bear.
2) The premise that EWEB must move is flawed to begin with. The utility, in existence for over 95 years, has been on this site for the majority of the time, has not been a polluter as other industrial complexes have, and owes nothing on this land, if it were to stay. The idea of replacing those buildings deemed an eyesore or otherwise-deficient, has not been studied in sufficient detail by EWEB - check it out for yourself.
3) EWEB's original plan, when this process started around the year 2000 was to 'move the entire utility or not move at all.' For some reason, when moving the entire utility fell through, moving roughly half of the utility became the new mandate. When moving half of the utility into a "green" building proved too expensive for the board, stripping down the building's plans to bare minimums, with no room for growth, in order to get the project past the board became the mandate du jour.
4) As with similar "split-the-organization" projects, there will likely be various hidden, unanticipated costs associated with splitting the organization into halves, in terms of duplicated infrastructure, off-site meetings, daily lost-efficiency, increased expenses, etc. Rate payers should ask EWEB to demonstrate that the new building will provide for growth of the utility for the next 10-20 years - if it does not, then why undertake the expense and raise rates?

I consider myself to be a moderate environmentalist, but I also have to consider the personal economic ramifications of poorly-formed decisions of our city council and public utilities, realized in terms taxes, fees, etc. It is this potential for an additional economic hit in terms of rates, this lack of a real quantitative business plan, and the reluctance to make a clear, concise, case to the public that makes Roosevelt seem like a very bad idea.

If you agree, then get your neighbors involved, sign the petition and VOTE. At the very least, our collective-voice can require EWEB to sufficiently rethink, plan, and either revise this project or come up with a better use of our hard-earned rate-payer dollars. Failure to think, consider, and act may leave us with reduced services and significantly higher rates long after the current EWEB Board is history.

Weekly, here is your chance to be visionary! Offer 500
dollars and some coupons to ew advertisers to the citizen (of any age or background) who submits the most exciting drawings/vision/site plan for the property. We all know government citizen consultation on issues like this are somewhere between nano and non existent. A design contest will ferret out the best design ! Give everyone 9 months or a year. People of the city (stakeholders/users) are the best planners. And where is Lane county's rep on the committee? As public/ private pork barrelers pave every inch of our river it will be lane county residents flooded out by the City of Eugenes movement to pave our entire greenway into a live work eco-industrial park from hell. And about the 500 bucks-the crazy activists in our community will scrounge it up and pay you back .

http://www.greenwasheugene.com/eweb.html

Ted, it would be good to interview our new city manager about his affiliation with the "movement" known as New Urbanism . The Congress for the New Urbanism (the organization lobbying for implementation of New urban Masterplans who hatched the movement) has become extremely controversial and has local ties the new york times has described the organization as an "architectural cult" have local connections(you owe). Two good articles about this problem are "New Urbanism in the Crosshairs" and the " the Battle of Biloxi". The articles are easy to find by title with google. Then you can read about the former uo professor/guru who is greening the pentagon in the New york times . Just use google: NYT New Urbanism it's in the Army Now.

Your endorsements are your right-provide space for people to respond though(it looke like ew wants the last word on who's good and not)EW likes control of the issues and packaging of candidates(and excessive bashing of hardworking lane county commissioners).Want better results from Lane county? Give them fair coverage is a good start. Lane county has done more for Eugene neighborhoods in one day than the city of Eugene has done in years. Lets move the Weeklys office to the (sprawl) called golden garden and be done with it.

Riverfront advocates and baseball fans who who want civic preserved should attend a Wednesday hearing(5pm at city of Eugene council chamber) and oppose a greenway permit for the Costner Nike field of schemes.

NO MEDIA LIKE HAVING TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC SO I DO THEIR WORK FOR THEM. THANK YOU TO THE FOLLOWING ULTRALAZY SOURCES:KEZI,KLCC,KMTR,KVAL . I AM SURE YOU ARE ALL BUSY BUYING NIKE TRINKETS AT THE TRIALS SHAM. JOURNALISM AWARDS ARE SURE TO FOLLOW. ALSO THE ALUM CENTER SITE QUIETLY MOVED A HALF BLOCK EASTWARD RECENTLY.

You have failed to help notify the public about the hearing tonight. Innocent mistake or shady sustainable UO arrangement? It makes you wonder. Is something in our water supply in Eugene? What planet are you guys on?