Wasilla sports complex woes might hit Palin hard

[srellim234]

Article inside the Wall Street journal his morning about the Wasilla handling of their sports complex is pretty damning to Sarah Palin. Unfortunately, the article isn't on the public WSJ website yet, but I did find some references in the Anchorage Daily News:

June, 2007- http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska....html

July, 2008- http://www.adn.com/matsu/story/474934.html

While Palin was mayor her biggest project undertaken was the building of the sports complex. Before the city had title to the land it began building roads and installing utilities for the complex. That has led to over $1.3 million in additional costs for Wasilla.

In the late 1990s the city was offered the land for $126,000. After months went by with the city never signing the purchase agreement, the Nature Conservancy, owners of the land, sold it to a real estate developer.

The city sued and won the first case. The developer appealed. Palin led a campaign for a sales tax increase and a $14.7 million bond issue to pay for the complex in a city with a budget of $20 million. The city started on all the infrastructure improvements before they actually had the property. In 2002, the same judge ruled that the city had indeed never signed the papers and the developer owned the land.

The city decided to take it through eminent domain and the entire mess has blown up. Instead of buying 145 acres for $126,000 it gets only 80 acres for $836,000 plus interest plus legal fees.

Is this the quality or style of executive experience we really want in the White House? She screwed up her biggest financial project in her small town of Wasilla. Needlessly cost her town at least an extra $185 per person and it's not over yet. Mr Lundgren is appealing the last settlement as being too low. So, he still officially owns the title to the land under the sports complex in Wasilla.

It may cost the city even more.

[rn79870]

Interesting. It seems Palin has a habit of abusing her power when she doesn't get her way. She (the city) is now paying about 1.67 million for what would have been 126 thousand. Poor leadership at it's best.

This is just one more reason I'm betting on a do over for McCain's VP selection. I just can't see his party making him fight the issues and her issues from now to November.

John, as happy as I am about your choice of Palin, we really heed to be looking at the issues, not merely Palin's issues. Think about a do over.

[Jimefam]

Their is NO way that he would even consider a do over. That would be the ultimate flip flop and too costly and admission of failure. At this point we could find out she is the devil and he'd have to keep her on.

[szh]

Interesting. It seems Palin has a habit of abusing her power whenshe doesn't get her way.

Not really. The people who just want to keep doing it the same old way tend to while about it much, much harder. So, the battle has to be more pitched than usual.

This is just one more reason I'm betting on a do over for McCain's VP selection. I just can't see his party making him fight the issues and her issues from now to November.

John, as happy as I am about your choice of Palin, we really heed to be looking at the issues, not merely Palin's issues. Think about a do over.

NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST.

If we want true change, we need somebody like Palin, who is not afraid to do the right thing, and challenge the status quo. Like I have said, I don't agree with her on every issue, but I like the fact that she has a stance, and is not afraid to push hard.

That is the only way to get true change.

For McCain, it shows willingness to be the maverick, buck the system in a meaningful way and not get side-tracked by the typical Washington insiders ... like Biden would!

If the Republicans make the MISTAKE of dropping Palin, then I would be back on the fence. That is why the Democrats want her dropped - because she is attracting voters ... so, the fact is that the Democrats are running scared of her as far as I can tell.

As far as I am concerned, dropping Palin would be a sure way to guarantee a loss in November. There is simply no reason to do so!

The bottom line: it is time for Democrats (and you all) to let go of this continuous harping ... not your business anyway to tell the Republican party what to do. Deal with the reality for a change.

Z

[szh]

Their is NO way that he would even consider a do over. That would be the ultimate flip flop and too costly and admission of failure. At this point we could find out she is the devil and he'd have to keep her on.

Agreed.

Z

[srellim234]

I agree. Dumping her now is an automatic win for Obama as people lose all faith in McCain's judgement. He's going to have to live with the V.P. pick the far right stuck him with and he caved in to. He's forced to defend her as his pick.

[srellim234]

If we want true change, we need somebody like Palin, who is not afraid to do the right thing, and challenge the status quo. Like I have said, I don't agree with her on every issue, but I like the fact that she has a stance, and is not afraid to push hard.Z

It's all a matter of perspective.

Floating big bond issues, promoting higher taxes, taking private property by eminent domain. Unneccessarily costing the taxpayers extra money. Sounds an awful lot like the status quo to me.

Strong stance is great, but action is not warranted unless it's properly done.

[rn79870]

I see that the state of Alaska just gave each citizen $2060 as their share of the profits of Alaskan oil. Now, that's fine, but that's my money too. What is wrong with the great state of Alaska lowering the price of their (our) oil and saving all Americas money. So Sarah's great state is helping gouge us at the pump.

[srellim234]

I see that the state of Alaska just gave each citizen $2060 as their share of the profits of Alaskan oil. Now, that's fine, but that's my money too. What is wrong with the great state of Alaska lowering the price of their (our) oil and saving all Americas money. So Sarah's great state is helping gouge us at the pump.

Based on the fact that the money came from a windfall profits tax that Palin promoted, shouldn't that money actually belong to the shareholders of those companies who took the risk by investing in those companies? Isn't Palin's behavior contrary to conservative philosophies?

[szh]

Based on the fact that the money came from a windfall profits tax that Palin promoted, shouldn't that money actually belong to the shareholders of those companies who took the risk by investing in those companies? Isn't Palin's behavior contrary to conservative philosophies?

You are mistaken on the source of the money. Plus, Alaska did not set the prices - that is a free market situation.

The extra profit to the oil companies went to the companies - to their shareholders (the people who own the shares). Extra profit being "revenue - expenses".

The extra tax went to Alaska - to their shareholders (the residents of the state). Extra tax being "tax revenue - state expenditures".

Pretty simple, if you ask me.

Now, if you meant the Federal gas tax situation, that was not for a Governor of Alaska to decide ... talk to your Senator and Congresspersons.

Z

[srellim234]

Alaska gets royalties on the oil pumped out of there. I am perfectly fine with that.

I object to the windfall profits tax she promoted on top of the royalties. As I said, that money should belong to the investors, but Palin led the drive to take it away from the investors and redistribute it to the people of Alaska. Instead of renegotiating the the royalties agreement, she raised taxes and redistributed the wealth to people who vote in Alaska.

[rn79870]

The bottom line is that EVERY qualified resident of Alaska got something like $2060 dollars. That could have been shared between all Americans, after all, it came from ALL Americans.

[srellim234]

I see the point but I disagree, too. The royalties are based on the quanitity of oil that came out of Alaska, not what the company made nationwide. The windfall tax was likewise based on Alaskan oil quantities.

I certainly wouldn't expect proceeds from a tax imposed by the state of Florida, only on oranges grown in Florida, to be redistributed by that state to us here in California. Oranges grown in California didn't contribute to those tax proceeds.

[rn79870]

The difference is that Alaska was purchased with federal funds. That purchase probably included all the mineral rights and the like. So I as a taxpayer paid for the oil, then I as a consumer paid for the oil. (figuratively that is). The profits should be shared.

In your example the oranges are grown on private property. If they were grown on public (federal) lands would you feel different about the residents of Florida sharing in the profit at the expense of all other citizens?

[srellim234]

The federal government obviously negotiated something that allows Alaska to recoup royalties from oil recovered in their state. Apparently it allows Alaska to impose a unilateral windfall profits tax on things from their state, too.

The federal government should revisit those agreements and see what should be changed to bring Alaska in line with other states. After all, an awful lot of lumber has been harvested from federal lands purchased in the Louisiana purchase. Are those states collecting royalties from that lumber? Do states have the ability to impose state windfall profit taxes on those lumber companies?

If all energy producing states had the same sweet opportunity, there is no doubt in my mind that Oklahoma would be one massive wind turbine producing massive amounts of wind power right now.

[telcoman]

Interesting. It seems Palin has a habit of abusing her power when she doesn't get her way. She (the city) is now paying about 1.67 million for what would have been 126 thousand. Poor leadership at it's best.

This is just one more reason I'm betting on a do over for McCain's VP selection. I just can't see his party making him fight the issues and her issues from now to November.

John, as happy as I am about your choice of Palin, we really heed to be looking at the issues, not merely Palin's issues. Think about a do over.

McCains call for change is a dubious chant at best!

Politico

"Obama also took on McCain’s inner circle Saturday, saying the presence of former lobbyists at the highest tier of his campaign makes him incapable of meeting his pledge to shut down special interest influence.

“Suddenly, he’s the change agent,” Obama said of McCain. “He says, ‘I’m going to tell those lobbyists that their days in Washington are over.’ Who’s he going to tell? Is he going to tell his campaign chairman who’s one of the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington? Is he going to tell all the folks who are running his campaign who are the biggest corporate lobbyists in Washington?

“Who is it that he’s going to tell that change is coming?” Obama asked. “I mean, come on, they must think you’re stupid!”

What the hell has McCain accomplished in his 26 years in Washington?

We need to start with a clean slate in November. Out with all Republicans.

They had eight years and failed the American people miserably.

Aside from going after Obama, McCain and Palin have not elaborated on any solutions for any of the problems we are all facing. More tax cuts for the richest Americans is not a solution but just more of same old same old that we've gotten from George Bush.

Telcoman

[srellim234]

telco, what does that have to do with the discussion here? We're discussing Palin's mishandling of the sports complex, Alaska's unique status as an energy producing state, and you come in with the same unrelated ranting and raving about McCain you put in almost every thread here. We've already moved on to a serious discussion here and it is not McCain. How about either legitimately adding to a thoughtful discussion with us or posting your stuff in a thread where it belongs?

Without running to find out what a left-leaning publication tells you to say, do you have any thoughts on the sports complex, royalties or windfall profit tax in Alaska issues?

[telcoman]

Sorry Steve.

I was in the wrong thread

Must have been a senior moment?

The press is looking closely at everything Palin was ever involved in not only the sports complex. Why is anyone surprised that Alaska has received more pork than any other state. Is it any wonder the Republicans are keeping her away from the press?The more the American people find out of all her wrongdoing she is going to become a huge liability and get dumped.

[szh]

Why is anyone surprised that Alaska has received more pork than any other state.

Proof of this statement, please?

If not, it is an example of the extreme statements that make many of us find the other pieces of your posts to be equally false then.

Z

[smockers83]

I see that the state of Alaska just gave each citizen $2060 as their share of the profits of Alaskan oil. Now, that's fine, but that's my money too. What is wrong with the great state of Alaska lowering the price of their (our) oil and saving all Americas money. So Sarah's great state is helping gouge us at the pump.

LOL. May I ask why you think you deserve royalties on minerals that came from a different state? Do you deserve part of the royalties from Montana or West Virginia for the coal mined? Do you deserve royalties from the iron ore mined in my state or Minnesota? Do you deserve royalties from gold and silver mines in Utah or where ever those mines are in the Rockies that aren't in California? Umm, no I do not think so, not one bit. The states own the rights to the minerals found within them, therefore the revenue derived from those minerals belong to the state and its people.

Silly Californians, you think you're entitled to a bunch of stuff. Just stick to your wineries and happy cows, but just so you know, the dairy land of America is WI and that just won't change. If you want oil royalties, tell Negative Nanci what's up and get the sand out of her box.

*edit* I see that your claim is because DC purchased AK. What about the Louisiana Purchase? Do you deserve royalties from all of those states, too? That would be like half of the union. Sorry, I don't think so.
Modified by smockers83 at 7:58 PM 9/6/2008

[smockers83]

Proof of this statement, please?

If not, it is an example of the extreme statements that make many of us find the other pieces of your posts to be equally false then.

Z

I think he's referring to the fact that someone pointed out that AK gets the most money from DC on a per capita basis. But you also have to keep in mind that it is one of the least populated states per square mile and its the biggest state in the union by land size. That means a lot of money for infrastructure and a bunch of other things.

[szh]

LOL. May I ask why you think you deserve royalties on minerals that came from a different state? Do you deserve part of the royalties from Montana or West Virginia for the coal mined? Do you deserve royalties from the iron ore mined in my state or Minnesota? Do you deserve royalties from gold and silver mines in Utah or where ever those mines are in the Rockies that aren't in California? Umm, no I do not think so, not one bit. The states own the rights to the minerals found within them, therefore the revenue derived from those minerals belong to the state and its people.

Silly Californians, you think you're entitled to a bunch of stuff. Just stick to your wineries and happy cows, but just so you know, the dairy land of America is WI and that just won't change. If you want oil royalties, tell Negative Nanci what's up and get the sand out of her box.

People forget that California is the leading Socialist state in the Union. Despite the efforts of Arnold.

Why, of course, we demand that you other states must pay for our loser state government policies!

Z

[rn79870]

Simply put. The taxpayers bought the land that became Alaska, not the residents of Alaska. You're missing the point. The oil profits go to the state and the state should be reimbursing the feds for the costs and the use of federal properties. It's a windfall to the Alaskan citizens, all of which have 0.00 invested in it.

You don't need to point out examples of private enterprise because they really aren't relevant. right back at ya with the

[rn79870]

People forget that California is the leading Socialist state in the Union. Despite the efforts of Arnold.

Z

It's a Republic Z. In fact it's constitution is probably about as clear on that fact as any in the country.

Why, of course, we demand that you other states must pay for our loser state government policies!

Maybe you really are a democrat...

Anyway, back to the topic of how greatly Palin mishandled the sports complex deal. Gross negligence of the highest degree and you want her in Washington?

[szh]

It's a Republic Z. In fact it's constitution is probably about as clear on that fact as any in the country.

Republic in name only.

It is actually the worlds seventh largest (by economy) Socialist state!

Z

[rn79870]

Republic in name only.

It is actually the worlds seventh largest (by economy) Socialist state!

Z

Yeah, I saw that in the National Enquirer too.

Anyway, how does this relate to Palin's disastrous handling of the sports complex deal?

[szh]

Yeah, I saw that in the National Enquirer too.

You did? Wow! For a change, that rumour-rag gets it right!

Really, you need to get your political facts from another better source.

Anyway, how does this relate to Palin's disastrous handling of the sports complex deal?

It doesn't. So, let's bring it back on track.

Z

[rn79870]

You did? Wow! For a change, that rumour-rag gets it right!

Really, you need to get your political facts from another better source.

Touche

It doesn't. So, let's bring it back on track.

Z

Yes.

[srellim234]

smockers- And now, for a very mature comment,, "Na-na-na-na-na, na!" I beat you to the point. read my 1:15 post about royalties and other states including the Louisiana Purchase. Beat you to it!

Anyway, I'm really wondering when the Dems are going to bring this up for the first time against Palin. No matter when they bring it up you can bet that Palin will have a well-coached answer by then. It won't be a surprise to spring it on her at the debate but I'm sure with a huge audience to watch her Biden will bring it up. It speaks directly to her executive experience.

[smockers83]

Anyway, how does this relate to Palin's disastrous handling of the sports complex deal?

I dunno, you tell us. You were the one to bring it up.

Simply put. The taxpayers bought the land that became Alaska, not the residents of Alaska. You're missing the point. The oil profits go to the state and the state should be reimbursing the feds for the costs and the use of federal properties. It's a windfall to the Alaskan citizens, all of which have 0.00 invested in it.

You don't need to point out examples of private enterprise because they really aren't relevant. right back at ya with the

Private enterprise? Are you trying to tell me that BP and Royal Dutch Shell are owned by Alaska? Doing some extensive quick research, I find nothing about the State of Alaska owning an oil company.

The federal government has probably already made its investment back on Alaska as there are many other forms of revenues owed to them such as gas taxes. Trying to extract money from one state's mineral revenues would create mayhem and probably goes against the Constitution.