[Vision2020] Trinity Fest Concerns re City Council

[J Ford]

Linda....sorry, but when one person in particular wanted to speak about the 
TF 2005, you distinctly told her she may be able to talk at the 12 June 
meeting as you'd allow public input then...but even at THAT meeting you did 
not invite nor accept any such comments.

And when the CITY throws a gathering, that is one thing.  But a group that 
is opposed to by the Citizens of this city throws a gathering, with alcohol, 
that is totally a different story.  Gabe even said he has yet to even talk 
to the people in the CBD and several in the past have said they are not 
willing to be a part of their event; heck, he can't even get people to 
respond to his phone calls.  Even you have said you do not want it to appear 
as if the City were supporting this group.  So why would the rest of us, 
especially since a significant number of our population have been told they 
should be stoned or put off on an island and left?  Would YOU support such a 
group?

I appreciate your attempt to clarify, but in my opinion, it fell short.

J  :]




>From: "Linda Pall" <lpall at moscow.com>
>To: "J Ford" <privatejf32 at hotmail.com>, <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Trinity Fest Concerns re City Council
>Date: Fri, 23 Jun 2006 15:04:36 -0700
>
>Dear Visionaries,
>
>As chair of the Administrative Committee and the only "no" vote to the
>proposal, I am offering just a brief bit of background and one council
>member's response to the questions posed.
>
>Permission to use city facilities is usually delegated to staff unless a
>specific ordinance or policy dictates otherwise. The serving of alcohol in
>Moscow parks is one of those uses the Council, in the past, determined
>should be by resolution on strictly a case by case basis, with any
>resolution allowing the use of alcohol NOT acting in any way as a precedent
>authorizing future use. The only city facility where the use of alcohol is
>permitted with a catering permit is the Great Room of the 1912 Center. If
>you or I want to have a function in any Moscow Park and serve beer and 
>wine,
>we must submit an application to the Council.
>
>  Now to the questions:
>"Question 10:  Why is it that this issue is not opened to a public hearing
>so that those with LEGITIMATE concerns can be heard before you allow this
>type of event to be given a green light?"
>
>Short answer: The City does not have a 'public hearing' but the issue has
>been discussed in open, advertised, public meetings, with public comment on
>the topic welcome: three Administrative Committee meetings and one City
>Council meeting.
>
>Read more about it: The application to sell beer and wine is heard by the
>Administrative Committee of the Council. Note that this is NOT the
>application to use the park or the arrangements for park use. That matter 
>is
>delegated to staff and the Parks and Recreation Department administers the
>scope, concerns and arrangements for the event outside the serving of beer
>and wine.
>
>The Administrative Committee meeting is open to the public and matters
>related to the sale and consumption of beer and wine (whether it should be
>done, where, how, etc.) to be part of the Resolution are fair game for
>council members, staff and citizens. The Administrative Committee can make 
>a
>recommendation or simply forward the proposal to the full Council for
>decision at a Council meeting. The Council meeting is a public event and 
>the
>Mayor can request public comment at that time. A 'public hearing' is
>technically an event that is formally noticed because of a legal 
>requirement
>to do so (federal, state or local law), connected to a quasi-judicial
>proceeding. A public meeting allows the Mayor to open the proceedings to
>public comment, which was why it was on the advertised public agenda on 
>June
>19. The issues addressed concerning the serving of alcohol could have been
>brought up by any interested citizen on June 19; the questions about the
>event and its management are dealt with by Parks and Recreation staff but
>even those were included in a discussion Monday night which extended beyond
>the agenda item.
>
>One other matter: the City does not pay for additional police presence at
>these events. After a misunderstanding with another event, the Council
>clarified the requirements of security and delegated that to the Police
>Chief to be satisfied that the security issues for any alcohol consupmtion
>are adequately addressed in his or her professional opinion, including the
>option of providing private security arrangements.
>
>"Question 11:  Why not put out a resolution that any beer/wine request for
>ANY City Park be open to public comment?"
>
>The City already does this (see above). There is no 'carte blanche' 
>granting
>of permission. Each application is considered individually and no
>application is issued as a right of the event promoter.
>
>One of the more problematic issues in the August 8 application is the
>Friendship Square location and the proximity of the playground. Almost 30
>years ago, I organized a statewide issues conference called "Idaforum" for
>the Idaho Democratic Party in Moscow, first in 1977 and again in 1979. They
>were both highly successful and included each time a downtown 'midsummer
>night's eve' component with Friendship Square entertainment and 
>refreshments
>but no alcohol (except if you went into one of the bars or restaurants). It
>was fun for the guests, it was good for downtown and it showed off our
>community as a bright, welcoming, fun place. Having events downtown and
>getting broad community involvement and support was a good idea then... and
>that was BEFORE our sidewalk cafes, downtown trees on Main Street and our
>first downtown revitalization. It's still a good idea!
>
>Enjoy the summer, Visionaries.
>
>All the best,
>
>Linda Pall
>Moscow City Council
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "J Ford" <privatejf32 at hotmail.com>
>To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
>Sent: Thursday, June 22, 2006 11:59 PM
>Subject: [Vision2020] Trinity Fest Concerns
>
>
> > Last year, on 4 Aug 2005, at 4:09pm, Gabe Rench, the "security expert" 
>for
> > the Trinity Fest, released a Press Release describing the evening's 
>doin's
> > at the Trinity Fest 2005's "community event."  In it, he specifically
>stated
> > "There will also be a beer and wine garden roped off for those who would
> > like to buy from the local venders."
> > (http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2005-August/019175.html)
> >
> > That claim was challenged by both Mrs. Huskey and myself; at 4:16pm on 4
>Aug
> > 2005, Gabe stated: "We were supposed to have all our permits in order 
>for
> > the Garden, but I miss communicated with our vender and so we couldn't
>apply
> > in time for the Tuesday night event. Sorry for those who are 
>disappointed
> > about the beer and wine garden. Hope to see yall there! Cheers!"
> >
> > Within 5 minutes, Gabe states there is a wine/beer garden - but then 
>that
> > there is not.
> >
> > Gabe was also apparently involved with hiring/supervising the "security"
>for
> > Trinity Fest 2005, yet according to his statement to the City Council on
>19
> > June 2006, he was not aware of any issues that had come up during that
> > event.  However, if you listen to what he says, it gets confusing yet
> > again..."I was aware some complaints that were brought to the table just 
>a
> > couple of weeks ago."  He goes on to state "I never heard of any
>complaints
> > last year so I don't know how valid those complaints are."
> >
> > Question 1:  Was he aware of the complaints last year (as he 
>specifically
> > stated on Monday) or was he not?
> >
> > Question 2:  Are they not valid simply because he may not have been 
>aware
>of
> > them?  He says several time in his statement that he does not feel they
>(the
> > complaints) are valid because he did not know about them until "they 
>were
> > brought to the table a couple of weeks ago."
> >
> > He further states that he is going to "beef up" the security this year
>"just
> > because".  The term "beefing up" tends to denote a type of increase that
> > would make it impossible for people to miss the security which denotes
>there
> > was a problem LAST year which denotes or at least *implies* knowledge 
>(as
>he
> > specifically states.)
> >
> > Again, he says "I assume you want us to have 2 Moscow PD officers on
> > Credenda Agenda's account."
> >
> > Question 3:  WHAT account?  What does that mean?
> >
> > Question 4:  Why in this world would you "assume" the City Council wants 
>2
> > MPD?  Assumptions are based on knowledge, to some extent, and so I am
> > wondering just what his "assume"ing is based upon.
> >
> > Gabe also says "We're beefing up security to help Basillios and The 
>Garden
> > get more access and the tenants in the Moscow Hotel get access to their
> > residences."  BUT, a bit later he AGAIN states he does not feel the
> > complaints about lack of access were valid because he did not know about
> > them.  "Obviously last year was our first year and there's gonna be
>problems
> > with your first year and we're willing to work with that and make it
> > better."  Again, does this not denote knowledge of a problem that
>repeatedly
> > was being denied as being valid?
> >
> > He will also be "beefing the security" to avoid any problems of people
>using
> > the Moscow Hotel steps as a place to sit during the evening.
> >
> > Question 5:  Did anyone ask Moscow Hotel if they want *his* security
>guards
> > "permanently" stationed on their steps?  Since Gabe is denying there was 
>a
> > problem last year in regards to the access issue, and he had security
>guards
> > there LAST year, what makes it any better this year, to set the 
>situation
>up
> > the same way?
> >
> > Gabe is also responsible for *scheduling* of vendors for this event;
> > however, he has lined up Patty's but not totally secured ("a 
>Mediterranean
> > vendor [who] served food - I think they're from Lewiston"; he hasn't
> > actually talked to them yet this year) nor even talked to a third vendor 
>-
> > but there will be a third one...he hopes.  BTW, this event is scheduled
>for
> > 8 Aug 2006...short notice for any vendor to come up with an evening's
>worth
> > of food for 700(+) people.
> >
> > The Garden and Basillio's have, according to Gabe's statement, refused 
>to
> > talk to him or even return his phone calls about this event.  Last year 
>he
> > "did get several rejections from several different companies."
> >
> > CLUE: Maybe this event shouldn't be held in the CBD so to avoid any
>problems
> > like those that DID occur last year!!!  Mayhap the downtown businesses
>don't
> > WANT to have this kind of thing blocking their business for 5 hours,
> > especially since he has yet to talk to them about it *this* year.
> >
> > Another concern is the fact that wherever they set up the beer/wine
>garden,
> > this will be within a very short distance of the playground area where
> > children will be playing and hanging out.  It's a small area...and the
> > beer/wine garden will be all but sitting in the laps of these children.
> >
> > Question 6:  Just how many "security guards" will be stationed around 
>the
> > play area to guard the children from interacting with people who 
>have/will
> > be drinking?
> >
> > Question 7:  Just what kind of training or experience will these 
>"security
> > guards" have that would enable them to spot a person, much less take 
>care
>of
> > a person, that has partaken a bit too much of what the beer/wind garden
>will
> > be offering?
> >
> > Question 8:  How many drinks will any one person or persons be allowed 
>to
> > buy during the evening and who is going to say "enough"?
> >
> > Question 9:  Is there any reason this event could not have been held in
>the
> > East Side Park, where the beer/wind garden could be placed at a safer
> > distance from the children's play area?
> >
> > One or two questions I have for the City:
> >
> > Question 10:  Why is it that this issue is not opened to a public 
>hearing
>so
> > that those with LEGITIMATE concerns can be heard before you allow this
>type
> > of event to be given a green light?
> >
> > Neither C/A, CC, nor even NSA (sponsors/event holders) pays taxes and 
>yet
> > the City will be providing MPD as well as public street area for an 
>event
> > that does NOT benefit anyone but those three entities directly or
> > indirectly.
> >
> > Gabe told the Admin Committee that the new CC-congregant-owned business 
>in
> > the NSA building will be opened by the date of the event and that THEY
>will
> > be providing the food - at a cost to the event attendees, of course.
> >
> > Question 11:  Why not put out a resolution that any beer/wine request 
>for
> > ANY City Park be open to public comment?
> >
> > It seems to me that the added traffic issues, the noise issues and the
> > possible DWI issues an event like this is likely to create dictates the
> > public's interests and concerns should be heard by the City Council 
>before
> > it just grants an event like this "carte blanche."
> >
> >
> > J  :]
> >
> > P.S.  Ok fellas - let's have the sports talk
> > begin........................NOW!
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Don't just search. Find. Check out the new MSN Search!
> > http://search.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200636ave/direct/01/
> >
> > =====================================================
> >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> >                http://www.fsr.net
> >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > ====================================================
> >
> >
> > __________ NOD32 1.1617 (20060623) Information __________
> >
> > This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> > http://www.eset.com
> >
> >
>

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! 
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/