UPDATED: 12:45 P.M. - BNSF Intermodal not on TIGER Grant List
Posted on Feb. 17th, 2010
Posted by Peter Solie GardnerEDGE
TIGER Grant Logo
The U.S. Department of Transportation has announced its list of TIGER Grant recipients and the BNSF Intermodal facility is not on that list.
Mayor Don Roberts of Edgerton said, "Clearly, we are disappointed with today's announcement. But, the U.S. Department of Transportation's decision to not fund the Tiger Grant, does not end the project. BNSF has said in the past that they will build the project with or without TIGER Funding and we have no reason to believe that that position has changed.
A full list of the TIGER Grant funding, including a $50 million dollar grant for transit funding in Kansas City can be found at the US Department of Transportation web site.
The City of Edgerton has released the following statement on TIGER Grant announcements. It states, "The City of Edgerton has confirmed that the Kansas Department of Transportation did not receive a federal TIGER grant for the BNSF Intermodal Project. In spite of this temporary setback, the City remains committed to the project and will continue to work with our partners at BNSF and the Allen Group of Kansas City towards the development of the BNSF Intermodal Facility and Logistics Park-KC."
Keep checking back to GardnerEDGE for further reaction to today's announcement.
UPDATE: BNSF Statement 12:41 pm 2/17/2010
Steve Forsburg, General Director for Public Affairs at BNSF Railway has issued the following statement concerning today's TIGER Grant announcements:
• BNSF greatly appreciates the consideration given to the public benefits that will be provided by this project and for the strong leadership demonstrated by all of the public officials, business and community leaders in the state of Kansas and the Kansas City region who supported the state’s application.
• We look forward to working with those same supporters in the future to help improve the region’s freight mobility, economy and environment through the eventual development of this important new intermodal facility.
• In early 2009, BNSF notified stakeholders that the KCIMF project would be deferred indefinitely until freight markets recover sufficiently to financially justify the construction of the facility.
• BNSF will continue to work with USDOT, KDOT and community leaders to evaluate whether alternative funding options are available that could return the construction timeline for the facility to a definitive schedule.
END of BNSF Statement.
Again, we encourage you to keep checking with GardnerEDGE for additional comments regarding today's TIGER Grant announcement.
School funding and abatementswrote on 2/19/2010 7:57 am
correction to "wrong again wrote on 2/18/2010 9:27 pm"
School revenues do not go up or down relative to assessed valuations going up or down. The operating budgets for schools are on a per child basis using formulas established by the State of Kansas.
Our property assessments could DOUBLE and our district would not get ONE more cent. This is why the school districts are suing the State. They have NO control over their local budget amounts, it is established at the State level. They have control over how it is spent but they cannot raise local taxes beyond the LOB which has been maxed out in our district for over a decade.
Same goes for the bond indebtedness. The District does not get more money to pay off bonds when property tax assessments go up. The bonds are sold and are on a schedule. The District cannot issue additional debt without voter approval.
In other words the level of abatement has little to no impact on the school district other than lowering or raising mill levies for the rest of us. If overall mill levies are too high the result might be unsuccessful bond elections. In districts where assessed valuations are high per student the local tax payers may enjoy lower mill levies but the local school board doesn't have any more money to spend than what the State gives them.
pop a topwrote on 2/19/2010 6:32 am
JDEL
You have popped too many tops!!
jdelphikiwrote on 2/18/2010 9:55 pm
If our esteemed numbers expert here would stop recounting the recounts of the recounts, he or she might instead take the time to look at vote numbers for the 2006 election compared to the number of people who voted for Peters and Shepherd respectively.
Here's a link to an article that discusses the number of votes and the outcome of the 2006 election:
2903 "No" votes - people who wanted the annexation to go forward.
1108 "Yes" votes - to block annexation
By the way, here's a link to the original ballot question, as posed by the anti-Intermodal forces who forced the election:
http://www.gardnerkansas.gov/intermodal_ballot/
By contrast, the April 2009 election netted the following number of votes:
MARY PETERS 1000 25.81%
DAN THOMPSON 880 22.71%
DENNIS PUGH 690 17.81%
ERIC SCHULTZ 656 16.93%
STEVE SHUTE 546 14.09%
DENNIS HOWARD 102 2.63%
Write-in Votes 1 0.03%
If you want to add ALL the Take Back Gardner votes for City Council slots, adding together Peters', Thompson's, and Howard's votes, you get 1982 votes. Total. Still only 68% of the number of people who voted to allow annexation to go forward.
But rolling all those votes together and pretending that they're the same as the 2006 annexation votes is inaccurate as well. I voted for Dan Thompson because of the lot of the TBG candidates, he was the one who didn't froth at the mouth. He said he just wanted change. I also voted "No" in 2006, so that annexation would go forward. As did a lot of people.
The 2009 Council election was not supposed to be a redo of the annexation vote. The voters thought they'd been pretty clear on that. They voted for change and transparency in government. Peters, Shepherd, and Thompson undid 2903 votes and went against more voters than those that elected all three of them combined.
We shouldn't have to keep repeating these basic numbers for the Take Back Gardner faithful, but as I mentioned before, they seem to be confused by the basic math.
So let's see if I can make it simple:
Gardner citizens who voted in 2006 to allow annexation to go forward: 2903
Gardner citizens who voted in 2009 to block annexation: 3
For the record, 2903 is bigger than 1108, but it's CERTAINLY bigger than 3.
Not Buying Itwrote on 2/18/2010 9:20 pm
Take Back Gardner and their supporters have no idea why people voted in favor of annexation because they didn't ask, and they don't care.
They were too busy working on their strategy to further their agenda to be bothered with what the majority of our citizens thought.
Can anybody give me a good reason why somebody would have voted to allow the City Council to annex that land unless they wanted it annexed?
That vote was a clear mandate of the people that Peters and Shepherd don't care about.
pop a topwrote on 2/18/2010 8:29 pm
I don't know if I ever want this party to end!!
Off to buy more tall boys!!
wrong againwrote on 2/18/2010 8:27 pm
wrong again. ask the school distict what the abatement is. It was 65% in gardner and 75% in
Edgerton. 35% or 25% is all thats going into our checkbooks. the 15% you refer to in abatements when it was in gardner was going directly to their infrastructure--hardly any beneifit to us, and still an abatement Dave. KL--a business 101 course would suit you well. We drive markets period. We always have the ablility through government to determine location. Why in the first place would we ever want our tax dollars to fund a project to this extent. The quality of these jobs aren't worth it. Socialists always have the government fund everything KL. So who's the socialist?
JDEL--you also will read what you want into the annexation vote. I agree 72% won the election, never have disputed that or any other ballot. That outcome didn't mean do it at all costs. I know you think so, but thats only a minority at best. Thats why the majority of the 72% side voted for Dan and Mary.
unbiased opinionwrote on 2/18/2010 8:18 pm
The majority voted to annex the intermodal site - period. There were no contingencies in the vote. People understood the ballots and what their vote signified. Quit modifying the facts to suit your cause.
The council majority voted against the wishes of the majority - to appease a political agenda they were a part of. The same political group that tried to strip our current mayor of what power the position has...
The actions of Shepherd and Peters are self serving in nature. They have not acted in the best interest of the city. They point the finger at everyone but themselves for the mess they have created. Yet earlier this year Mr. Shepherd questioned if the people of Gardner knew what was best for them - so he would ultimately decide for them.
You can't have things both ways. Mr. Shepherd and Ms. Peters need to stand behind their decisions, quit the blame game, and deal with the repercussions of their decisions when they are recalled.
jdelphikiwrote on 2/18/2010 7:46 pm
Confusion abounds.
First, we have "72%" who invents even new ways that blue isn't blue and 1 is not equal to 1. Or that 72% is not equal to 72%.
Let's be clear on this, folks, so that the history revisionists, in their confusion, don't muddle the simple facts any more than they already have:
1. The annexation vote in 2006 was brought to a vote by the ANTI-Intermodal forces, who composed the ballot question presented before the voters.
2. Even assuming that the wrangled logic of the tangled triple-negative ballot question confused voters and even IF those voters had cared enough to got to the polls, but not enough to figure out the difference between their Yes or No votes, the margin of that confusion would no make up the 44% difference between the people who voted to allow annexation to go forward, compared to the 28% who voted against.
3. Finally, isn't it odd that the very people who are NOW telling us that voters are being disenfranchised by the recall election; the same people who are complaining that the non-binding sign-in book for last years election doesn't match the official results; the same people who say that the recall would overturn the outcome of last year's elections -- those same people are mimicking the muddled logic that "72%" is presenting here?
Which is their way of saying that the 2006 ballot results don't matter, the upcoming recall ballot results don't matter, BUT 2009's vote does?
Seems like the Take Back Gardner folks are interested only in the outcome of elections where they can grab enough power to usurp city government. For any other election, the voters don't appear count to them.
What KL?wrote on 2/18/2010 6:59 pm
"In case you haven't figured it out, the market drives what business settles in what location, not governments."
Then why do you want our government to fund it?
That makes you a socialist.
Sad news from Kansaswrote on 2/18/2010 6:52 pm
The wizard of Oz is 70 years old. If Dorothy were to encounter people with no brains, no hearts and no courage - she wouldn't be in Oz - she would be in GARDNER, KS.
Correction on abatementwrote on 2/18/2010 6:25 pm
The warehouses were only granted a 50% abatement which is competitive with what Olathe and New Century are offering.
The additional % labeled as "abatement" to the developer was directed towards City infrastructure.
Same deal with Edgerton. The warehouses will be paying 50%. The additional abatement % will be going towards infrastructure in the City of Edgerton.
72%wrote on 2/18/2010 5:38 pm
you will never get KL. 72% didn't vote to annex at all costs. They said annex if the council thought it was good for the city. As long as your hung up on this point you will never have a candidate that is capable of winning an election. If the ballot had of said ,Do you want to annex with a 65 to 85% abatement attached its very likely it would have gone the other way. Mary and Dan were voted in partly because they were against abatements this size. Not that they were against abatements at all. Quite the contrary.
Get a candidate, work for them, get them elected--it won't happen if they are willing to give away that much of the gold.
The children are playing today, tomorrow wrote on 2/18/2010 1:58 pm
and will be here in the future.
KL wrote on 2/18/2010 1:44 pm
Yes it would be nice, but the anti intermodal/anti gardner crew did not stop when 72% of the voters said annex. They kept up the rhetoric, trying to get anti intermodal people elected who would vote against the people or like Dan Thompson just do what they are told.
Those people won't be happy until they have turned Gardner into a town that nobody wants to live or start a business in.
@wrote on 2/18/2010 1:25 pm
It will sure be nice when it is March 3rd no matter what the results are.
Red Signwrote on 2/18/2010 12:14 pm
Dear Funny,
Lesson No. 2 is that voter intimidation is a felony.
"Citizens have a right to support a candidate of their choice without fear of retribution. That would be voter intimidation."
- Ron Thornburgh, Kansas Secretary of State
terancewrote on 2/18/2010 12:03 pm
You don't really have to reap what you sow. You can just let it grow there and die next winter. I'm pretty good at sowing all kind of seeds and reaping the stuff I want.
terancewrote on 2/18/2010 11:51 am
I'm glad that eye sore next to Casey's finally got razed. Several more can go and new stuff can go up and this town won't look so trashy.
green/red I'm just thinking the green signs are in front of places of what look like retired people, that'll probably not be around when this is all done. The younger people with a future here seem to have the red signs.
Funny how people worry so about their dirtwrote on 2/18/2010 11:43 am
being spread anywhere..........you reap what you sow - Lesson No. 1 that you should have learned by the time you were 5.
@wrote on 2/18/2010 11:25 am
I'm sure Judith, Dennis, and Larry have a list of everyone with a red sign in their yard. Probably running back ground checks and Googling everyone as we sit here, trying to dig up dirt to spread around town.
terancewrote on 2/18/2010 11:07 am
Has anyone noticed a correlation of how the properties look with the green signs in the yard verses the red signs?
@ Pwrote on 2/18/2010 11:03 am
It isn't that they are costing jobs, I don't believe anyone has been laid off yet in the city. I know employees haven't gotten raises for two years and won't for at least another year. I know people have left the city because the city can't / won't increase or match salaries to keep who they have now. Yet, Shepherd and Peters say they have a lot to cut cut cut still. Makes me wonder how the people in city hall feel about their plans, I'm guessing they are very excited for more cuts.
Pwrote on 2/18/2010 10:29 am
@KL THE GREEN COLOR IS LIKE THE GREEN THOSE TWO CONTNUE
TO COST THE CITY, NOT COUNTING ENDLESS JOBS.
Ah, the "innocents"...................wrote on 2/18/2010 9:37 am
they seem to multiply in Gardner and never want to be held accountable for their words, actions and voting record - Drovetta and his Beasley lynch mob are perfect examples.
jdelphikiwrote on 2/18/2010 9:35 am
As an example of what KL is talking about, consider that Olathe was planning on putting a warehouse district off of 175th Street, east of Hedge Lane (which puts it out of Gardner's boundaries). The reason? Gardner's interstate, air, and rail access. And of course, the Intermodal.
There's not a darned thing we can do to stop it, but all that truck traffic will be coming THROUGH Gardner to get to I-35.
Gardner's location (and tendency of chasing business away) works against us when it comes to the types of businesses that are interested in building here.
Overland Park was fortunate enough to be expanding, as a city, during a time when the explosion of white collar jobs coincided wtih the nascent dot.com explosion. Now, many of it's glitzy pseudo-high-rises are fighting vacancies as the economy, along with the dot.com bust, has taken a chunk of the white collar job market.
While it would be nice for Gardner to have a Corporate Woods decide to build itself here, I don't see many of those types of office parks being built ANYWHERE. ANY community would have to give away ungodly incentives to get them to come here instead of some other city. We're not likely to convince other cities of our aversion to giving away incentives, so we'd be even LESS likely to land this imaginary Corporate Woods-like park that isn't being built now and would have a hard time finding tenants, anyway.
In the meantime, BNSF is still planning on building an Intermodal hub in Edgerton, Olathe is still talking about building a warehouse district on our borders, Coleman has already built its warehouse on the edge of the boundary between New Century and Gardner. On top of that, Gardner STILL sits on a major trunk rail line that feeds a huge chunk of this part of the country, we're sitting on a major north-south interstate and near a major east-west interstate (along with a US highway). We're right next to an industrial park that has a king-sized runway AND a rail spur already connected to the rail trunk line.
KL is right when he says that businesses look at these aspects of Gardner and see transportation and shipping. And we have only to look at the Edgerton Intermodal, the planned Olathe warehouse district, or the New Century Air Center to understand that even if Gardner wants to pretend we're something else, other cities will happily build these kinds of businesses around us, whether we want them or not.
@ KLwrote on 2/18/2010 9:05 am
Good luck getting that through Fotovich and Co. head's. For some reason they just can't figure it out. Love the nice green signs around town. "Support John and Mary", they forgot to add, "and their deception."
KL wrote on 2/18/2010 8:33 am
@not too old
Guess what, the developable land around the commuity will become distribution centers with or without Gardner's permission. It is reprehensible what Shepherd, Peters and Thompson did by not making sure that the City of Gardner had some say in what was going on.
In case you haven't figured it out, the market drives what business settles in what location, not governments.
Good Newswrote on 2/18/2010 7:31 am
This is great news. If this can be delayed for a couple of years and we have a council with some common sense maybe we can get BNSF back to the table. This could be a great opportunity for Gardner.
not to oldwrote on 2/18/2010 7:06 am
Gardner 1 are you saying that younger voters want this type project or say a nuclear powerplant. Gardner's image in the business community is just fine. Don't panic, time and growth will take place and hopefully future councils will have the vision to bring better quality projects than this to our area. Our future won't be built off $9-$10 per hour jobs. Expect more you may get more. We have failed by just wanting something and getting the leftovers. Lets strive for something better than being the warehouse district for Kansas City.
re: Gardner1wrote on 2/18/2010 5:18 am
There has been an image cast over the business community negative of Gardner that will take years to overcome.
This project will not be coming back to the City of Gardner. There is too much political instability for developers of these large developments. Our community is politically divided and it is going to take some time before any faction can gain solid control over the City Council and receive strong community support.
It appears this issue has gotten some of the younger families to realize that they must pay more attention to what is going on. They are the future of Gardner and have the votes to control our destiny if they will just get out and vote.
These issues swing one way when we have large voter turnout elections with a lot of young voters and swing the other way in off season low voter turnouts which is primarily older voters.
jdelphikiwrote on 2/17/2010 10:34 pm
@pop a top
It's been pretty much like I thought it'd be. I wouldn't exactly call it entertaining, but it's expected, I guess.
JDraperwrote on 2/17/2010 9:32 pm
It would be an unparalleled privilege to have a nuclear generating station near Gardner. I suspect, however, that we would have our fair share of ignoramuses shouting "China Syndrome" and "Chernobyl". Progress has never been met well by those who possess small minds.
pop a topwrote on 2/17/2010 8:35 pm
I don't know about you JDEL but I'm still poppin tops and enjoying the evening!!
Top Tiger Grant Recipient another Intermodal Progewrote on 2/17/2010 8:31 pm
"The Crescent Corridor Intermodal Freight Rail Project, an estimated $224 million project for the Norfolk Southern route from the Gulf Coast to the Mid-Atlantic, will receive $105 million. The grant will support the construction of intermodal facilities in Memphis and Birmingham and will help the two economically strapped cities and provide new freight capacity for the area.
"TIGER grants will tackle the kind of major transportation projects that have been difficult to build under other funding programs," U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said while announcing the awards. "This will help us meet the 21st century challenges of improving the environment, making our communities more livable and enhancing safety, all while creating jobs and growing the economy."
I think what this means is that it will be years before this gets back on track and financed. I also thinks this puts Gardner back in the mix as Edgerton won't sign anything without assurances this will be built.
If it does get back to Gardner, hopefully new leadership will do a better job than Lehman and Drovetta and Shepherd to get a better deal.
unbiased opinionwrote on 2/17/2010 4:27 pm
In regards to Shepherd and Peters - all I can say is they did it to themselves.
And yes, we do have the village idiot here in town commenting on the lynch mobs...
Jack you would have to go far to be worsewrote on 2/17/2010 4:18 pm
than the village idiots in this locale with respect to your spelling. And I agree with you the corporations/developers/special interests and the rotten to the core polticians take the people on a ride every day of the year and that is year after year after year. People might want to actually think before they go to the polls rather than listen to the propaganda and rhetoric that the likes of Drovetta and the Beasley lynch mob put out there.
unbiased opinionwrote on 2/17/2010 4:07 pm
Hey Jack Spalding - If you want anyone to listen to you, you need to learn to spell - "if your a taxpayer, your screwed either way." Your and you're are not the same word. Maybe you should learn the difference before commenting on stupidity...
Jack Spaldingwrote on 2/17/2010 3:54 pm
You guys are not the only ones that got left out of the pigs trough (TIGER). We on Guam also were denied. We need the money to upgrade our port facilities because the people in charge don't have a clue what they are doing. In the end, if your a taxpayer, your screwed either way. It sounds like the same people who run BNSF also run the port on Guam....and all along I thought stupidity was genetic.
jdelphikiwrote on 2/17/2010 3:48 pm
Hiya, white flag!
Look at the comments here while the news is good for the anti-Intermodal set. They're worse than when the news is bad.
I don't reckon this'll die down anytime soon. People just like to argue too much.
All the more reason I'm not as active out here lately. Imagine what things would be like if I were in full snark mode.
Wowwrote on 2/17/2010 3:42 pm
Comments sinking to a new low today.
white flagwrote on 2/17/2010 3:33 pm
Hey JDEL---While we are between battles why don't you sit down and crack one open yourself. At least enjoy the next few years that this won't be on the front burner. If you ever get the guts to fight your welcome to join the other side.
Small minds need not apply...wrote on 2/17/2010 3:21 pm
@maybe - show us all how a knee jerk reaction works, why don't you be the first to move out! Oop's maybe you won't be able to sell due to the landfill that you call home. Careful who you call trash except of course unless your looking in the mirror. Bet you wouldnt have the guts to call someone that to their face. Small minds.
Unbiased opinionwrote on 2/17/2010 3:12 pm
I think the news of the tiger funds is good news in this economic climate. Hopefully these limited funds will go to other projects that are needed at this time.
The economy is not what it was when the intermodal project was announced. Let things rebound and then build if it is needed at that time. Why build just for the sake of building?
When the business comes back and the railroad has once again outgrown its current facilities, it can build something that is really needed, not just build due to the availability of some funding.
Maybe Carol can get you the wrote on 2/17/2010 2:21 pm
landfill project in the interim which would go so well with the intermodal. There will be some type of trash every way you look including people. Get your house sold in the next few years and get out while you can.
jdelphikiwrote on 2/17/2010 2:12 pm
*snerk*
Gardner Nukes!
That'd be a fun project to argue about, huh Terrance?
terancewrote on 2/17/2010 2:08 pm
I guess most of us pro annex people would be happy if intermodel didn't come to Gardner? I'd be fine with it. I still don't think it justifies the attempted coup on Gardner Government. I still believe the two/three should be recalled for their actions. If they did build, it would still be better for us to have annexed them, right?
I'd be much happier with some other type of business moving into that spot. Maybe an atomic power plant would be cool.
Good for KCwrote on 2/17/2010 1:25 pm
Looks like these deserving people got the money
http://www.kmbc.com/news/22589942/detail.html
OVERVALUEDwrote on 2/17/2010 12:43 pm
@ Borrowed Time -
I would love to buy a 5 yr old home, but I can't afford because it is VERY OVERVALUED. After all, that's how the city and county get any money since we have no businesses to help offset our property taxes!!!
Borrowed Timewrote on 2/17/2010 12:21 pm
Hopefully this will help set them back just long enough for people to forget about the intermodal long enough for me to get the heck out of Gardner. Anyone want to buy a 5yr old house?
Sing to mewrote on 2/17/2010 11:59 am
Buffet has a lot more money than Linda Meisinger so my money would be on Warren.
That's right, Buffet won't be stopped wrote on 2/17/2010 11:42 am
in making his money if you allow him to use yours. That is what big biz, developers and special interests have been doing for years now and why you have seen the financial collapse of last year and continuing now and why millions of people are standing in the unemployment lines and why you might soon be there. That's why Kansas doesn't have any money for the needs of the people because they have given one sweet deal after another to big biz which causes such a loss of tax revenue. The fat cats are getting bigger and bigger bonuses like Matt Rose will get when Warren takes over and when he sticks it to you to pay for all of the intermodal infrastructure costs from now until kingdom come. No one should be laughing about the financial raping of the people due to rotten politicians and the corporations who now run our country. No, no one should be having joy for more than a moment because right now the rotten politicians are already going to Plan B to screw you.
jdelphikiwrote on 2/17/2010 11:41 am
Nice to know there are so many gracious people out there among the anti-Intermodal crowd. Ironically, it sounds like the Intermodal will be built anyway, so I'm not sure all the celebratory trash-talking will be very long-lived.
As for my own opinion on the the project missing out on the Tiger grant -- it happens. Seems like BNSF can't win in the eyes of their critics around here, though: if they get the Tiger grant, they're sucking the life out of the taxpayers; when they DON'T get the Tiger funds and AVOID sucking the life from the taxpayers, BNSF STILL gets criticized, even though all that taxpayer money is being given away to OTHER companies and projects. The message seems to be that it's okay for Tiger fund money to be thrown away...just not in our area.
Whatever.
The Intermodal is still coming, as it's always been. If I'd thought that blocking Tiger funds would stop it entirely, I would be whooping and hollering with the rest of the giddy folks here. I don't see the project being stopped because of it, so it's hard to get terribly worked up about the whole deal.
But I understand that the anti-Intermodal crowd has been in desperate need for some kind of "victory", so I guess: here's to them...and to dignfied behavior.
Bring whatever you wantwrote on 2/17/2010 11:39 am
As long as they pay 100% of their taxes and can make a living.
Oh wait, that's not how "business" works here.
Ironicwrote on 2/17/2010 11:36 am
I still find it ironic that all of these Environmental protectors are so against intermodal sites. They take huge amounts of truck traffic off the road. I think they just like a good excuse to complain about something. Now we get to hear them complain just that much longer...
Really?wrote on 2/17/2010 11:21 am
Just because they did not get the TIGER FUNDS does not mean that is going to stop Buffet from getting what he wants. Do not kid youself and start all the laughing too soon. I do not care either way whether they build or not but it is amusing reading some of the uneducated posts, all the assumptions by those who "think" they know all, that is, they think their opinion is always the right one. To that I laugh. Don't think for a minute that anyone on either city council OWES you a comment. The offical comment has been made. Don't assume that the "bandits" will be coming back to Gardner (why on earth would they? Not a logical statement) and don't assume that TAG will close the office. Now is the time to grow Gardner and Edgerton, maybe a few more Gigantic-Marts will do the trick, great for loca businesses, or maybe a race track...hahaha, oh yea, no hotels etc, that wont work, so where are all the big thinkers now??? Who are we to pick on now??
Over/Underwrote on 2/17/2010 11:15 am
How long do you think it'll be before BNSF and/or The Allen Group issue a statement that this is disappointing, but it doesn't change the fact that they intend to build the Edgerton Intermodal?
My guess is before the close of business today.
Crack'n one openwrote on 2/17/2010 11:14 am
Already did...
Peter, let's do lunch sometime...
Where is thewrote on 2/17/2010 11:08 am
Gardner trucking consortium aka Beasley lynch mob - looking for comments from Beasley, Taylor, Clark, jdelphiki, Drovetta, Hale, Winters, Brownlee, Kiegerl, Pickert, Dillner and Roberts, Gardner city administration, etc., etc. Where will you all go now to suck the money from the people?????????????? How soon will the bandits be in coming back to Gardner since they didn't get these funds??????? You know they will be back and the stench is always in the air now.
cry crywrote on 2/17/2010 11:05 am
Thats where they should be unloaded.
Throw out the 404. Throw out the contracts.
Throw out the Allen group. ( their office will likely close in a few days)
cry? I think those folks will be cracking one open.
How are those intermodal agreements coming, David?wrote on 2/17/2010 11:02 am
Do you think you can get them signed sometime in the next 2 years?
Actually, some are hauling Kleenex boxeswrote on 2/17/2010 10:51 am
And guess where they are being unloaded? New Century and not at the intermodal site.
Worst Partwrote on 2/17/2010 10:37 am
The worst part about this grant falling through is it just gives Linda Meisinger, Judith Rogers, Pary Meters, Larry Fotovich, Claude Hobby, Dan Thompson, and John Shepherd, that much more time to complain and cry about this intermodal project. Can you imagine if they don't get it going for two years? Hopefully some of the trucks coming through Gardner are hauling kleenex box's, oh the snot and the tears that will come.
Looks like your TIGER bit you in the...wrote on 2/17/2010 10:28 am
Caboose
Well, for one moment in timewrote on 2/17/2010 10:17 am
the bloodsuckers didn't get the blood from the people. I like how Edgerton looks at BNSF and the Allen Group as their PARTNERS rather than partnering with their people to save them from the horror story. Just remember the bandits and the rotten politicians will be back stronger than ever to squeeze every dollar they can from the taxpayers for the astronomical infrastructure costs (billions), destroy your quality of life and pollute you to an early grave - will you allow it to happen again, and again and again??????????????
One For USwrote on 2/17/2010 10:04 am
Fantastic, why would we the people give money to a company who says they don’t need it.
TIGER Grant Logo 
E-mail >>>
Printable Page >>>
RSS >>>
Comments
Add Comment | Report inappropriate comments.Order By: Oldest First | Newest First
School funding and abatements wrote on 2/19/2010 7:57 am
correction to "wrong again wrote on 2/18/2010 9:27 pm"
School revenues do not go up or down relative to assessed valuations going up or down. The operating budgets for schools are on a per child basis using formulas established by the State of Kansas.
Our property assessments could DOUBLE and our district would not get ONE more cent. This is why the school districts are suing the State. They have NO control over their local budget amounts, it is established at the State level. They have control over how it is spent but they cannot raise local taxes beyond the LOB which has been maxed out in our district for over a decade.
Same goes for the bond indebtedness. The District does not get more money to pay off bonds when property tax assessments go up. The bonds are sold and are on a schedule. The District cannot issue additional debt without voter approval.
In other words the level of abatement has little to no impact on the school district other than lowering or raising mill levies for the rest of us. If overall mill levies are too high the result might be unsuccessful bond elections. In districts where assessed valuations are high per student the local tax payers may enjoy lower mill levies but the local school board doesn't have any more money to spend than what the State gives them.
pop a top wrote on 2/19/2010 6:32 am
JDEL
You have popped too many tops!!
jdelphiki wrote on 2/18/2010 9:55 pm
If our esteemed numbers expert here would stop recounting the recounts of the recounts, he or she might instead take the time to look at vote numbers for the 2006 election compared to the number of people who voted for Peters and Shepherd respectively.
Here's a link to an article that discusses the number of votes and the outcome of the 2006 election:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4179/is_20061109/ai_n16850039/
The article cites:
2903 "No" votes - people who wanted the annexation to go forward.
1108 "Yes" votes - to block annexation
By the way, here's a link to the original ballot question, as posed by the anti-Intermodal forces who forced the election:
http://www.gardnerkansas.gov/intermodal_ballot/
By contrast, the April 2009 election netted the following number of votes:
MARY PETERS 1000 25.81%
DAN THOMPSON 880 22.71%
DENNIS PUGH 690 17.81%
ERIC SCHULTZ 656 16.93%
STEVE SHUTE 546 14.09%
DENNIS HOWARD 102 2.63%
Write-in Votes 1 0.03%
(link: http://www.jocoelection.org/officialfinalresults409.htm)
If you want to add ALL the Take Back Gardner votes for City Council slots, adding together Peters', Thompson's, and Howard's votes, you get 1982 votes. Total. Still only 68% of the number of people who voted to allow annexation to go forward.
But rolling all those votes together and pretending that they're the same as the 2006 annexation votes is inaccurate as well. I voted for Dan Thompson because of the lot of the TBG candidates, he was the one who didn't froth at the mouth. He said he just wanted change. I also voted "No" in 2006, so that annexation would go forward. As did a lot of people.
The 2009 Council election was not supposed to be a redo of the annexation vote. The voters thought they'd been pretty clear on that. They voted for change and transparency in government. Peters, Shepherd, and Thompson undid 2903 votes and went against more voters than those that elected all three of them combined.
We shouldn't have to keep repeating these basic numbers for the Take Back Gardner faithful, but as I mentioned before, they seem to be confused by the basic math.
So let's see if I can make it simple:
Gardner citizens who voted in 2006 to allow annexation to go forward: 2903
Gardner citizens who voted in 2009 to block annexation: 3
For the record, 2903 is bigger than 1108, but it's CERTAINLY bigger than 3.
Not Buying It wrote on 2/18/2010 9:20 pm
Take Back Gardner and their supporters have no idea why people voted in favor of annexation because they didn't ask, and they don't care.
They were too busy working on their strategy to further their agenda to be bothered with what the majority of our citizens thought.
Can anybody give me a good reason why somebody would have voted to allow the City Council to annex that land unless they wanted it annexed?
That vote was a clear mandate of the people that Peters and Shepherd don't care about.
pop a top wrote on 2/18/2010 8:29 pm
I don't know if I ever want this party to end!!
Off to buy more tall boys!!
wrong again wrote on 2/18/2010 8:27 pm
wrong again. ask the school distict what the abatement is. It was 65% in gardner and 75% in
Edgerton. 35% or 25% is all thats going into our checkbooks. the 15% you refer to in abatements when it was in gardner was going directly to their infrastructure--hardly any beneifit to us, and still an abatement Dave. KL--a business 101 course would suit you well. We drive markets period. We always have the ablility through government to determine location. Why in the first place would we ever want our tax dollars to fund a project to this extent. The quality of these jobs aren't worth it. Socialists always have the government fund everything KL. So who's the socialist?
JDEL--you also will read what you want into the annexation vote. I agree 72% won the election, never have disputed that or any other ballot. That outcome didn't mean do it at all costs. I know you think so, but thats only a minority at best. Thats why the majority of the 72% side voted for Dan and Mary.
unbiased opinion wrote on 2/18/2010 8:18 pm
The majority voted to annex the intermodal site - period. There were no contingencies in the vote. People understood the ballots and what their vote signified. Quit modifying the facts to suit your cause.
The council majority voted against the wishes of the majority - to appease a political agenda they were a part of. The same political group that tried to strip our current mayor of what power the position has...
The actions of Shepherd and Peters are self serving in nature. They have not acted in the best interest of the city. They point the finger at everyone but themselves for the mess they have created. Yet earlier this year Mr. Shepherd questioned if the people of Gardner knew what was best for them - so he would ultimately decide for them.
You can't have things both ways. Mr. Shepherd and Ms. Peters need to stand behind their decisions, quit the blame game, and deal with the repercussions of their decisions when they are recalled.
jdelphiki wrote on 2/18/2010 7:46 pm
Confusion abounds.
First, we have "72%" who invents even new ways that blue isn't blue and 1 is not equal to 1. Or that 72% is not equal to 72%.
Let's be clear on this, folks, so that the history revisionists, in their confusion, don't muddle the simple facts any more than they already have:
1. The annexation vote in 2006 was brought to a vote by the ANTI-Intermodal forces, who composed the ballot question presented before the voters.
2. Even assuming that the wrangled logic of the tangled triple-negative ballot question confused voters and even IF those voters had cared enough to got to the polls, but not enough to figure out the difference between their Yes or No votes, the margin of that confusion would no make up the 44% difference between the people who voted to allow annexation to go forward, compared to the 28% who voted against.
3. Finally, isn't it odd that the very people who are NOW telling us that voters are being disenfranchised by the recall election; the same people who are complaining that the non-binding sign-in book for last years election doesn't match the official results; the same people who say that the recall would overturn the outcome of last year's elections -- those same people are mimicking the muddled logic that "72%" is presenting here?
Which is their way of saying that the 2006 ballot results don't matter, the upcoming recall ballot results don't matter, BUT 2009's vote does?
Seems like the Take Back Gardner folks are interested only in the outcome of elections where they can grab enough power to usurp city government. For any other election, the voters don't appear count to them.
What KL? wrote on 2/18/2010 6:59 pm
"In case you haven't figured it out, the market drives what business settles in what location, not governments."
Then why do you want our government to fund it?
That makes you a socialist.
Sad news from Kansas wrote on 2/18/2010 6:52 pm
The wizard of Oz is 70 years old. If Dorothy were to encounter people with no brains, no hearts and no courage - she wouldn't be in Oz - she would be in GARDNER, KS.
Correction on abatement wrote on 2/18/2010 6:25 pm
The warehouses were only granted a 50% abatement which is competitive with what Olathe and New Century are offering.
The additional % labeled as "abatement" to the developer was directed towards City infrastructure.
Same deal with Edgerton. The warehouses will be paying 50%. The additional abatement % will be going towards infrastructure in the City of Edgerton.
72% wrote on 2/18/2010 5:38 pm
you will never get KL. 72% didn't vote to annex at all costs. They said annex if the council thought it was good for the city. As long as your hung up on this point you will never have a candidate that is capable of winning an election. If the ballot had of said ,Do you want to annex with a 65 to 85% abatement attached its very likely it would have gone the other way. Mary and Dan were voted in partly because they were against abatements this size. Not that they were against abatements at all. Quite the contrary.
Get a candidate, work for them, get them elected--it won't happen if they are willing to give away that much of the gold.
The children are playing today, tomorrow wrote on 2/18/2010 1:58 pm
and will be here in the future.
KL wrote on 2/18/2010 1:44 pm
Yes it would be nice, but the anti intermodal/anti gardner crew did not stop when 72% of the voters said annex. They kept up the rhetoric, trying to get anti intermodal people elected who would vote against the people or like Dan Thompson just do what they are told.
Those people won't be happy until they have turned Gardner into a town that nobody wants to live or start a business in.
@ wrote on 2/18/2010 1:25 pm
It will sure be nice when it is March 3rd no matter what the results are.
Red Sign wrote on 2/18/2010 12:14 pm
Dear Funny,
Lesson No. 2 is that voter intimidation is a felony.
"Citizens have a right to support a candidate of their choice without fear of retribution. That would be voter intimidation."
- Ron Thornburgh, Kansas Secretary of State
terance wrote on 2/18/2010 12:03 pm
You don't really have to reap what you sow. You can just let it grow there and die next winter. I'm pretty good at sowing all kind of seeds and reaping the stuff I want.
terance wrote on 2/18/2010 11:51 am
I'm glad that eye sore next to Casey's finally got razed. Several more can go and new stuff can go up and this town won't look so trashy.
green/red I'm just thinking the green signs are in front of places of what look like retired people, that'll probably not be around when this is all done. The younger people with a future here seem to have the red signs.
Funny how people worry so about their dirt wrote on 2/18/2010 11:43 am
being spread anywhere..........you reap what you sow - Lesson No. 1 that you should have learned by the time you were 5.
@ wrote on 2/18/2010 11:25 am
I'm sure Judith, Dennis, and Larry have a list of everyone with a red sign in their yard. Probably running back ground checks and Googling everyone as we sit here, trying to dig up dirt to spread around town.
terance wrote on 2/18/2010 11:07 am
Has anyone noticed a correlation of how the properties look with the green signs in the yard verses the red signs?
@ P wrote on 2/18/2010 11:03 am
It isn't that they are costing jobs, I don't believe anyone has been laid off yet in the city. I know employees haven't gotten raises for two years and won't for at least another year. I know people have left the city because the city can't / won't increase or match salaries to keep who they have now. Yet, Shepherd and Peters say they have a lot to cut cut cut still. Makes me wonder how the people in city hall feel about their plans, I'm guessing they are very excited for more cuts.
P wrote on 2/18/2010 10:29 am
@KL THE GREEN COLOR IS LIKE THE GREEN THOSE TWO CONTNUE
TO COST THE CITY, NOT COUNTING ENDLESS JOBS.
Ah, the "innocents"................... wrote on 2/18/2010 9:37 am
they seem to multiply in Gardner and never want to be held accountable for their words, actions and voting record - Drovetta and his Beasley lynch mob are perfect examples.
jdelphiki wrote on 2/18/2010 9:35 am
As an example of what KL is talking about, consider that Olathe was planning on putting a warehouse district off of 175th Street, east of Hedge Lane (which puts it out of Gardner's boundaries). The reason? Gardner's interstate, air, and rail access. And of course, the Intermodal.
There's not a darned thing we can do to stop it, but all that truck traffic will be coming THROUGH Gardner to get to I-35.
Gardner's location (and tendency of chasing business away) works against us when it comes to the types of businesses that are interested in building here.
Overland Park was fortunate enough to be expanding, as a city, during a time when the explosion of white collar jobs coincided wtih the nascent dot.com explosion. Now, many of it's glitzy pseudo-high-rises are fighting vacancies as the economy, along with the dot.com bust, has taken a chunk of the white collar job market.
While it would be nice for Gardner to have a Corporate Woods decide to build itself here, I don't see many of those types of office parks being built ANYWHERE. ANY community would have to give away ungodly incentives to get them to come here instead of some other city. We're not likely to convince other cities of our aversion to giving away incentives, so we'd be even LESS likely to land this imaginary Corporate Woods-like park that isn't being built now and would have a hard time finding tenants, anyway.
In the meantime, BNSF is still planning on building an Intermodal hub in Edgerton, Olathe is still talking about building a warehouse district on our borders, Coleman has already built its warehouse on the edge of the boundary between New Century and Gardner. On top of that, Gardner STILL sits on a major trunk rail line that feeds a huge chunk of this part of the country, we're sitting on a major north-south interstate and near a major east-west interstate (along with a US highway). We're right next to an industrial park that has a king-sized runway AND a rail spur already connected to the rail trunk line.
KL is right when he says that businesses look at these aspects of Gardner and see transportation and shipping. And we have only to look at the Edgerton Intermodal, the planned Olathe warehouse district, or the New Century Air Center to understand that even if Gardner wants to pretend we're something else, other cities will happily build these kinds of businesses around us, whether we want them or not.
@ KL wrote on 2/18/2010 9:05 am
Good luck getting that through Fotovich and Co. head's. For some reason they just can't figure it out. Love the nice green signs around town. "Support John and Mary", they forgot to add, "and their deception."
KL wrote on 2/18/2010 8:33 am
@not too old
Guess what, the developable land around the commuity will become distribution centers with or without Gardner's permission. It is reprehensible what Shepherd, Peters and Thompson did by not making sure that the City of Gardner had some say in what was going on.
In case you haven't figured it out, the market drives what business settles in what location, not governments.
Good News wrote on 2/18/2010 7:31 am
This is great news. If this can be delayed for a couple of years and we have a council with some common sense maybe we can get BNSF back to the table. This could be a great opportunity for Gardner.
not to old wrote on 2/18/2010 7:06 am
Gardner 1 are you saying that younger voters want this type project or say a nuclear powerplant. Gardner's image in the business community is just fine. Don't panic, time and growth will take place and hopefully future councils will have the vision to bring better quality projects than this to our area. Our future won't be built off $9-$10 per hour jobs. Expect more you may get more. We have failed by just wanting something and getting the leftovers. Lets strive for something better than being the warehouse district for Kansas City.
re: Gardner1 wrote on 2/18/2010 5:18 am
There has been an image cast over the business community negative of Gardner that will take years to overcome.
This project will not be coming back to the City of Gardner. There is too much political instability for developers of these large developments. Our community is politically divided and it is going to take some time before any faction can gain solid control over the City Council and receive strong community support.
It appears this issue has gotten some of the younger families to realize that they must pay more attention to what is going on. They are the future of Gardner and have the votes to control our destiny if they will just get out and vote.
These issues swing one way when we have large voter turnout elections with a lot of young voters and swing the other way in off season low voter turnouts which is primarily older voters.
jdelphiki wrote on 2/17/2010 10:34 pm
@pop a top
It's been pretty much like I thought it'd be. I wouldn't exactly call it entertaining, but it's expected, I guess.
JDraper wrote on 2/17/2010 9:32 pm
It would be an unparalleled privilege to have a nuclear generating station near Gardner. I suspect, however, that we would have our fair share of ignoramuses shouting "China Syndrome" and "Chernobyl". Progress has never been met well by those who possess small minds.
pop a top wrote on 2/17/2010 8:35 pm
I don't know about you JDEL but I'm still poppin tops and enjoying the evening!!
Top Tiger Grant Recipient another Intermodal Proge wrote on 2/17/2010 8:31 pm
"The Crescent Corridor Intermodal Freight Rail Project, an estimated $224 million project for the Norfolk Southern route from the Gulf Coast to the Mid-Atlantic, will receive $105 million. The grant will support the construction of intermodal facilities in Memphis and Birmingham and will help the two economically strapped cities and provide new freight capacity for the area.
"TIGER grants will tackle the kind of major transportation projects that have been difficult to build under other funding programs," U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said while announcing the awards. "This will help us meet the 21st century challenges of improving the environment, making our communities more livable and enhancing safety, all while creating jobs and growing the economy."
Complete article: http://blog.al.com/huntsville-times-business/2010/02/crescent_corridor_freight_line.html
Gardner1 wrote on 2/17/2010 7:21 pm
I think what this means is that it will be years before this gets back on track and financed. I also thinks this puts Gardner back in the mix as Edgerton won't sign anything without assurances this will be built.
If it does get back to Gardner, hopefully new leadership will do a better job than Lehman and Drovetta and Shepherd to get a better deal.
unbiased opinion wrote on 2/17/2010 4:27 pm
In regards to Shepherd and Peters - all I can say is they did it to themselves.
And yes, we do have the village idiot here in town commenting on the lynch mobs...
Jack you would have to go far to be worse wrote on 2/17/2010 4:18 pm
than the village idiots in this locale with respect to your spelling. And I agree with you the corporations/developers/special interests and the rotten to the core polticians take the people on a ride every day of the year and that is year after year after year. People might want to actually think before they go to the polls rather than listen to the propaganda and rhetoric that the likes of Drovetta and the Beasley lynch mob put out there.
unbiased opinion wrote on 2/17/2010 4:07 pm
Hey Jack Spalding - If you want anyone to listen to you, you need to learn to spell - "if your a taxpayer, your screwed either way." Your and you're are not the same word. Maybe you should learn the difference before commenting on stupidity...
Jack Spalding wrote on 2/17/2010 3:54 pm
You guys are not the only ones that got left out of the pigs trough (TIGER). We on Guam also were denied. We need the money to upgrade our port facilities because the people in charge don't have a clue what they are doing. In the end, if your a taxpayer, your screwed either way. It sounds like the same people who run BNSF also run the port on Guam....and all along I thought stupidity was genetic.
jdelphiki wrote on 2/17/2010 3:48 pm
Hiya, white flag!
Look at the comments here while the news is good for the anti-Intermodal set. They're worse than when the news is bad.
I don't reckon this'll die down anytime soon. People just like to argue too much.
All the more reason I'm not as active out here lately. Imagine what things would be like if I were in full snark mode.
Wow wrote on 2/17/2010 3:42 pm
Comments sinking to a new low today.
white flag wrote on 2/17/2010 3:33 pm
Hey JDEL---While we are between battles why don't you sit down and crack one open yourself. At least enjoy the next few years that this won't be on the front burner. If you ever get the guts to fight your welcome to join the other side.
Small minds need not apply... wrote on 2/17/2010 3:21 pm
@maybe - show us all how a knee jerk reaction works, why don't you be the first to move out! Oop's maybe you won't be able to sell due to the landfill that you call home. Careful who you call trash except of course unless your looking in the mirror. Bet you wouldnt have the guts to call someone that to their face. Small minds.
Unbiased opinion wrote on 2/17/2010 3:12 pm
I think the news of the tiger funds is good news in this economic climate. Hopefully these limited funds will go to other projects that are needed at this time.
The economy is not what it was when the intermodal project was announced. Let things rebound and then build if it is needed at that time. Why build just for the sake of building?
When the business comes back and the railroad has once again outgrown its current facilities, it can build something that is really needed, not just build due to the availability of some funding.
Maybe Carol can get you the wrote on 2/17/2010 2:21 pm
landfill project in the interim which would go so well with the intermodal. There will be some type of trash every way you look including people. Get your house sold in the next few years and get out while you can.
jdelphiki wrote on 2/17/2010 2:12 pm
*snerk*
Gardner Nukes!
That'd be a fun project to argue about, huh Terrance?
terance wrote on 2/17/2010 2:08 pm
I guess most of us pro annex people would be happy if intermodel didn't come to Gardner? I'd be fine with it. I still don't think it justifies the attempted coup on Gardner Government. I still believe the two/three should be recalled for their actions. If they did build, it would still be better for us to have annexed them, right?
I'd be much happier with some other type of business moving into that spot. Maybe an atomic power plant would be cool.
Good for KC wrote on 2/17/2010 1:25 pm
Looks like these deserving people got the money
http://www.kmbc.com/news/22589942/detail.html
OVERVALUED wrote on 2/17/2010 12:43 pm
@ Borrowed Time -
I would love to buy a 5 yr old home, but I can't afford because it is VERY OVERVALUED. After all, that's how the city and county get any money since we have no businesses to help offset our property taxes!!!
Borrowed Time wrote on 2/17/2010 12:21 pm
Hopefully this will help set them back just long enough for people to forget about the intermodal long enough for me to get the heck out of Gardner. Anyone want to buy a 5yr old house?
Sing to me wrote on 2/17/2010 11:59 am
Buffet has a lot more money than Linda Meisinger so my money would be on Warren.
That's right, Buffet won't be stopped wrote on 2/17/2010 11:42 am
in making his money if you allow him to use yours. That is what big biz, developers and special interests have been doing for years now and why you have seen the financial collapse of last year and continuing now and why millions of people are standing in the unemployment lines and why you might soon be there. That's why Kansas doesn't have any money for the needs of the people because they have given one sweet deal after another to big biz which causes such a loss of tax revenue. The fat cats are getting bigger and bigger bonuses like Matt Rose will get when Warren takes over and when he sticks it to you to pay for all of the intermodal infrastructure costs from now until kingdom come. No one should be laughing about the financial raping of the people due to rotten politicians and the corporations who now run our country. No, no one should be having joy for more than a moment because right now the rotten politicians are already going to Plan B to screw you.
jdelphiki wrote on 2/17/2010 11:41 am
Nice to know there are so many gracious people out there among the anti-Intermodal crowd. Ironically, it sounds like the Intermodal will be built anyway, so I'm not sure all the celebratory trash-talking will be very long-lived.
As for my own opinion on the the project missing out on the Tiger grant -- it happens. Seems like BNSF can't win in the eyes of their critics around here, though: if they get the Tiger grant, they're sucking the life out of the taxpayers; when they DON'T get the Tiger funds and AVOID sucking the life from the taxpayers, BNSF STILL gets criticized, even though all that taxpayer money is being given away to OTHER companies and projects. The message seems to be that it's okay for Tiger fund money to be thrown away...just not in our area.
Whatever.
The Intermodal is still coming, as it's always been. If I'd thought that blocking Tiger funds would stop it entirely, I would be whooping and hollering with the rest of the giddy folks here. I don't see the project being stopped because of it, so it's hard to get terribly worked up about the whole deal.
But I understand that the anti-Intermodal crowd has been in desperate need for some kind of "victory", so I guess: here's to them...and to dignfied behavior.
Bring whatever you want wrote on 2/17/2010 11:39 am
As long as they pay 100% of their taxes and can make a living.
Oh wait, that's not how "business" works here.
Ironic wrote on 2/17/2010 11:36 am
I still find it ironic that all of these Environmental protectors are so against intermodal sites. They take huge amounts of truck traffic off the road. I think they just like a good excuse to complain about something. Now we get to hear them complain just that much longer...
Really? wrote on 2/17/2010 11:21 am
Just because they did not get the TIGER FUNDS does not mean that is going to stop Buffet from getting what he wants. Do not kid youself and start all the laughing too soon. I do not care either way whether they build or not but it is amusing reading some of the uneducated posts, all the assumptions by those who "think" they know all, that is, they think their opinion is always the right one. To that I laugh. Don't think for a minute that anyone on either city council OWES you a comment. The offical comment has been made. Don't assume that the "bandits" will be coming back to Gardner (why on earth would they? Not a logical statement) and don't assume that TAG will close the office. Now is the time to grow Gardner and Edgerton, maybe a few more Gigantic-Marts will do the trick, great for loca businesses, or maybe a race track...hahaha, oh yea, no hotels etc, that wont work, so where are all the big thinkers now??? Who are we to pick on now??
Over/Under wrote on 2/17/2010 11:15 am
How long do you think it'll be before BNSF and/or The Allen Group issue a statement that this is disappointing, but it doesn't change the fact that they intend to build the Edgerton Intermodal?
My guess is before the close of business today.
Crack'n one open wrote on 2/17/2010 11:14 am
Already did...
Peter, let's do lunch sometime...
Where is the wrote on 2/17/2010 11:08 am
Gardner trucking consortium aka Beasley lynch mob - looking for comments from Beasley, Taylor, Clark, jdelphiki, Drovetta, Hale, Winters, Brownlee, Kiegerl, Pickert, Dillner and Roberts, Gardner city administration, etc., etc. Where will you all go now to suck the money from the people?????????????? How soon will the bandits be in coming back to Gardner since they didn't get these funds??????? You know they will be back and the stench is always in the air now.
cry cry wrote on 2/17/2010 11:05 am
Thats where they should be unloaded.
Throw out the 404. Throw out the contracts.
Throw out the Allen group. ( their office will likely close in a few days)
cry? I think those folks will be cracking one open.
How are those intermodal agreements coming, David? wrote on 2/17/2010 11:02 am
Do you think you can get them signed sometime in the next 2 years?
Actually, some are hauling Kleenex boxes wrote on 2/17/2010 10:51 am
And guess where they are being unloaded? New Century and not at the intermodal site.
Worst Part wrote on 2/17/2010 10:37 am
The worst part about this grant falling through is it just gives Linda Meisinger, Judith Rogers, Pary Meters, Larry Fotovich, Claude Hobby, Dan Thompson, and John Shepherd, that much more time to complain and cry about this intermodal project. Can you imagine if they don't get it going for two years? Hopefully some of the trucks coming through Gardner are hauling kleenex box's, oh the snot and the tears that will come.
Looks like your TIGER bit you in the... wrote on 2/17/2010 10:28 am
Caboose
Well, for one moment in time wrote on 2/17/2010 10:17 am
the bloodsuckers didn't get the blood from the people. I like how Edgerton looks at BNSF and the Allen Group as their PARTNERS rather than partnering with their people to save them from the horror story. Just remember the bandits and the rotten politicians will be back stronger than ever to squeeze every dollar they can from the taxpayers for the astronomical infrastructure costs (billions), destroy your quality of life and pollute you to an early grave - will you allow it to happen again, and again and again??????????????
One For US wrote on 2/17/2010 10:04 am
Fantastic, why would we the people give money to a company who says they don’t need it.
Disregard my last wrote on 2/17/2010 10:02 am
It should have just read "HA."
HA wrote on 2/17/2010 10:02 am
*Z37
HA wrote on 2/17/2010 10:01 am
HA wrote on 2/17/2010 10:00 am
BOO HOO wrote on 2/17/2010 9:56 am
No, I meant HA HA
Concerned wrote on 2/17/2010 9:49 am
What does this mean, in layman's terms?
Report inappropriate comments.