Letter to the Editors

[Chief]

Here's what he sent, we'll see what they publish. Not only uninformed as usual but late too boot; I wonder if he copied Jerry Oliver...


December 27th, 2007

Maybe in the coming Year, Vancouver’s Tax and Spend Politicians can explain why recent Real Estate transactions appear to accomplished in the “Proverbial Smoke Filled Back Room”?

Case in point:

According to Local newspaper accounts, (published during the week of December 18, 2007), the Port of Vancouver is purchasing 218 acres of Columbia River Contaminated Property from Alcoa/Evergreen with 48 million of our property Tax Dollars. That amounts to a whopping $220,183 per acre.

Meanwhile, the Port of Portland , purchased 700 acres of Columbia River Alcoa/Reynolds Contaminated Property for $17.25 million of Oregon Property Tax Dollars. That amounts to $24, 642 per acre.

Why did the our Port pay 10 times more per acre than the Port of Portland for similar industrial property? Especially since they said they could not afford the purchase if their outrageous 132% property tax increase failed.

To add insult to injury, Port of Vancouver Tax Payers are not protected with a “Legal Shield of Liability” that releases the Port of Portland taxpayers from Future Liability for past contamination.

The only liability protection we got from our port, protecting us from past contamination was a statement saying “Liability Risk Are Minimal”.

We deserve an explanation.

L. M. Patella
CDR USN (ret)
2714 NE 42nd Circle
Vancouver, WA 98663
Tel: 360 750 1186

lmpatella@comcast.net

[Chief]

Some of my sources are sounding off about this particular piece of agitprop....

<a href="http://www.clarkblog.org/PORT/Differences between Alcoa & Reynolds (1).doc">Differences between Alcoa/Evergreen property recently purchased by the Port of Vancouver and the Reynolds Aluminum property recently purchased by the Port of Portland:</a>

[Chief]

In response to an earlier e-mail, I also got this from a reliable source at the Port of Vancouver. Apparently the Port received a copy of Patellla's "Local Maling List" and was working on a response.

1. The Port of Vancouver originally started negotiations with Alcoa and Evergreen to acquire land for rail...to allow us to revitalize our whole rail system, accept unit trains (100-110 cars and about 7,500 to 8,000 feet long) into the port. This is essential not only for existing customers to grow but for new customers. Also, it allowed for effective and efficient use of the whole rail system including facilitating the construction of the Vancouver Bypass project that WSDOT will be doing beginning in 2008. I should also point out that if we didn't extend our rail at least through Alcoa, we would not have needed to do the rail and the Boise Cascade property could not be developed.

2. The cost of commercial/industrial property (fair market value) is what we paid for the land. This was confirmed by independent appraisals.

3. This property will be water, rail and road served and is quite unique from the Portland property.

4. There is also an existing dock...and a new dock would be extremely hard to do these days considering the ESA and cost issues. The dock makes the property multi faceted. As Arch notes, this provides an opportunity for increased revenue.

5. Our cost projections based upon anticipated use provide a positive return on investment and real family wage jobs, with benefits, for the region. As I recall, the Port of Portland is planning to sell the Portland property to FedEx (or similar company) which will not provide many family wage jobs and put a lot of truck traffic into the community. Our extension is focused on rail...though there will also be increased vehicular traffic.

6. There may be other differences in the value of the property...we are checking.

7. As to the "shield" I don't know about the Oregon laws, but I can tell you that we have worked this throught with the Department of Ecology who are well aware of our purchase and support it. I also understand that the Portland property is polluted and while there is some agreement with Oregon DEQ, I believe that it involves the Port of Portland taking on part of the clean up and in particular a "pump and treat" process I believe related to ground water. The Port of Vancouver is assuming no clean up liability other than monitoring.

[Chief]

For the record, I sent Commissioner-elect Oliver an e-mail message earlier today, that had Patella's message attached. I suggested that Mr. Oliver might want to personally answer Larry Patella's questions, since Patellla was his spokesman during the campaign. I told Commissioner-elect oliver that I would eagerly await his reply, but I will not hold my brieath until it arrives...

I did hear back from a number of other concerned parties about this latest Patella rant though, but not Jerry Oliver or Larry Patella. I'm not surprized about that, but it is troubling that Patella is continuing to make those kinds of baseless allegations about the Port of Vancovuer when he clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. I would also not be surprized to see the columbian publish that letter to the editor, as soon as the 30 day clock runs out from the last letter of his they published.

In any case, Patella is demanding answers to the wrong questions. He would already know what the real story about these issues was, if he would simply attend a Port of Vancouver meeting and try to educate himself, before he goes writing letters to the editor of the columbian and demanding that the paper answer his inflammatroy and musinformed questions. The sad fact is that Patella is not interested in the truth, just his own very narrow view of anything.

On the ohter hand, there are plenty of Patella's ConStemperaries out there who will read that letter, nod wisely, and whisper among their friends about what a wise old mage Larry Patella is...

God help us...

::)

[Waterbuffalo]

SO now he switches sides from whining about the City of Vancouver to the Port of Vancouver, how convenient.

Guess we'll watch in late January when he starts prattle and sword raving about the CRCP once again.. Forgive me, but I think I forgot the can of Alzheimer's sitting in my closet some where if someone needs it.. :-P

[Chief]

Amazing how he turns this crap on and off like a lightswitch, no? This is why I document the Port of Vancouver the way I do.

Here he is, well after the fact, posing questions and demanding answers that he could have easily addressed in person at any number of regular meetings of the Port of Vancouver over the past year. If this is such an important subject to Kommander Kneecap, why has he been consistently AWOL at the meetings?? I have it on very good authority that Patella never contacted anyone at the Port of Vancouver to ask any of his questions before he dashed off this "letter" to the columbian.

You can see how quickly official information was assembled to refute what Patella is saying, don't you think that he could have had his questions answered directly, if only he had bothered to ask??

It's going to be a fun year in 2008, watching the education of Commissioner Jerry Oliver unfold...

[Waterbuffalo]

Either he's ready for the alzheimers unit OR his one and daily news source is our friend, the local newspaper. What a beautiful and symbiotic relationship would you not say? Look over the clarkblog.org records and don't you see how the two play off each other?

Like you said, he won't come to a meeting and face his accusants.. That's tooo hard. Honestly, don't think he has a backbone to stand up and do it?

Well I better get back to other threads and take a nap. You will understand from my email.

[Chief]

Guess what the columbian published this morning?? I know the columbian is aware of how full of crap Patella is on this one, because they were on this thread as soon as I posted it here.

No regard for the truth.

[Chief]

----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Koski
To: John Laird ; letters@columbian.com
Cc: Tom Koenninger ; Larry Patella ; larry martin
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2008 7:35 AM
Subject: A reckless and casual regard for the truth


Dear Editor;

In his 1/4/08 letter, "Risks aren’t minimal", Larry Patella makes a number of accusations and statements about the purchase of the Alcoa/Evergreen properties at the Port of Vancouver, and attempts to draw a comparison to a property purchase by the Port of Portland out in Troutdale at different Alcoa property.

The differences between the two properties are stark; the Port of Portland property that Patella is referencing has no waterfront access, no rail access, poor access to surface transportation, to name just a few. Patella’s use of the adjective "contaminated" is inflammatory and misleading, because it implies nothing has or is being done about the well documented problems currently being addressed at the Vancouver Alcoa site.

Had Larry Patella bothered to attend the regular meeting of the Port of Vancouver on December 11, 2007, he could have taken advantage of one of the five opportunities the Public was provided to ask any questions he had, and received the answers he desired about this property purchase. Sadly, Mr. Patella was not in attendance at that meeting.

As soon as Mr. Patella e-mailed his letter out, I e-mailed him back the answers to the allegations he made, and I am disappointed that Larry Patella did not have the personal integrity to withdraw his letter as soon as he found out he was mistaken.

I applaud Larry Patella’s frequent exercise of his First Amendment right to free speech, but I shudder at his reckless and casual regard for the truth.

Bob Koski
Vancouver, WA 98683

[Waterbuffalo]

Darn you beat me to it... :-)

[Chief]

Don't let me stop you! Fire at will, Gridley!! The more people who sound off on this nonsense, the better.

What fries my ass though, is they columbian knew he was rebutted on this, and not just by me either. The Port of Vancouver responded to him as well, and the columbian knows that too.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v645/SeniorChieftain/yk01g.gif

[Waterbuffalo]

Guess you might say I don't respond in kind to idiocy..

[Chief]

And which idociy would you be referring? The idiot who wrote a deliberately misleading letter, or the idiot who decided to publish it, know ing that he had been rebutted a week ago??

On another note: does nobody at the columbian fact check letters to the Editor?? I can see some serious liability issues for them if that is all the better they can do.

[Waterbuffalo]

On the subject of idiocy Chief, I'll let the eye of the beholden speak for thyself.

As far fact checking, where do you think Op-Ed comes from? Its all opinion and education between one set of readers to another. There is no fact checking Chief, if there was 75 percent or better of the letters wouldn't be printed. Then you would hear all the screams about 1st Amendment and Free Speech and people whining about how their letters are be blackballed.

Honestly, one should always take any article or Op-Ed piece with a grain of salt. Don't you?

[Chief]

Ordinarily I'd agree, but we are talking about the most frequently printed letter writer the columbian has. Patella has a track record, they knew this letter was bogus, and printed it anyway.

Op-Ed stands for Opinion-Editorial btw, and typically would be in the 600 word range. This is a letter to the editor and is only 200 words. Not just semantics, but an important distinction.

In addition, whenever you submit a letter, you must provide a full address and phone number. It seems to me that if the columbian has that info, yhen they also have the ability to make sure that the letter writers are correct, and call them on the phone if need be to give someone a chance to revise their remarks. The columbian is not obligated to publish anything from anyone. Nobody has a "right" to be heard, and the columbian has no responsibility to protect your first amendment rights. they pick and choose what they print, and edit whatever you submit.

One would think that the columbian would be more invested in the truth, but once again they disproved that premise...

[Waterbuffalo]

"Nobody has a "right" to be heard, and the columbian has no responsibility to protect your first amendment rights. they pick and choose what they print, and edit whatever you submit."

What people have the right to is the "right of free expression." But like you said there is not many people who take the responsibility that comes with it.

I love the above quote though..

[Chief]

I would urge everyone to watch the Port of Vancouver's regular meeting from today (January 8, 2008) because Executive Director Larry Paulson rebuts every single one of Larry Patell'as outrageous statements, exaggerations, and outright lies; all without ever mentioning him by name. (No sense giving him any more attention than he already gets).

And by the way, I had a longshoreman friend of mine come up to me after the regular meeting at the Port today, and told me that he thought my letter "..delivered Patella the literary bitch-slap of the year."

;D

[Waterbuffalo]

hehe..

Hey Chief, I just learned there is a bone in the leg called the Patella? http://www.ehealthmd.com/library/acltears/ACL_whatis.html

If you look where the kneecap is (its called a Kneecap) so I wondered why you called Kommander Kneecaps.. What a wonderful coincidence his knees jump to the Columbian tune.. (knee jerk reaction.)

[Chief]

;D

[Waterbuffalo]

Since you came up with Kommander Kneecap and I was watching television and learned of that thing.. I began to wonder......

[Waterbuffalo]

<BUMPS...>

Any new news from Kornel Kneecaps on the Cascadian Park War front?

[Chief]

I thought that this controversy has died down finally, but I was mistaken. I have found a new supporter of Larry Patella, who seems to believe that disagreeing with Larry Patella is in and of itself an attack on his person. That person is none other than Fairgrounds NA President, and Friends of Clark County Executive Director, Bridget Schwartz.

I have advised Bridget Schwartz before that I do not intend to carry on an extended outside dialog with anyone about what I say here at Clarkblog.org. Since she repeatedly refuses to log in here and challenge my facts, and insists upon berating me about it via my personal e-mail, it leaves it up to me to take this conversation where it belongs, right here.

Again Bridget, challenge me on my facts, but disagreement with Larry Patella is NOT a personal attack. Review any of the things that Patella has had to say over the past ten years, and you will see who is the Master Character Assassin in town.

I still find it curious Bridgett, that the first comment I ever here from you about Clarkblog is a defense of Larry Patella. You may need to widen your informational horizons quite a bit...

Cheers!


----- Original Message -----
> From: Bob Koski [link: mailto:bkoski@worldaccessnet.com]
> To: Larry Patella [link: mailto:lmpatella@comcast.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 8:05 AM
> Subject: Larry Patella does not know what he is talking about, yet again.
>
>
> http://www.clarkblog.org/vBulletin/showthread.php?t=1135&page=3
>
> Once again, Larry Patella demonstrates that he is ignorant of the facts
> currently under consideration by the Columbia Crossing Task Force, and how
> could he not be?? He has never attended a single function sponsored by the
> CRCP or the Task Force, or any other organization including his own
> Neighborhood Association.
>
> First, as those of us who pay attention to these matters k


On 1/24/2008 9:01:49 PM, Bridget Schwarz (bridget@bridge-i-t.com) wrote:
> Hi Bob -
>
> Civil discourse is based on respect for
> another's viewpoint. In practice, that means it is fair game to attack another individual's
> ideas, but not the person (although that is usually a lot more fun).
>
> From my perspective, a personal attack such as you indulge in below leads
> to this conclusion: If you have a weak case you must attack the person,
> not their idea.
>
> In short, you undermine your own case. Regards,
>
> Bridget


----- Original Message -----
From: Bob Koski
To: Bridget Schwarz
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 6:45 PM
Subject: Re: Larry Patella does not know what he is talking about, yet again.


Hi Bridget;

I wonder if you read any of the things Larry Patella had to say about Arch Miller, the IDD Levy, or every other local elected official over the past 10 years like I have? He only responds to what the columbian tells him and that is the extent of his community involvement. Frankly I find your defense of him curious, but you're certainly entitled to your opinions.

He needs to recieve as well as he delivers and I think I am making the exact point I set out to make with my message. I included you for informational purposes, and to let you know that there is at least one person who will respond to Larry Patella's deliberate mis-statements about important public issues, and outright accusations against public officials. For all I know, you're on his "Local Mailing List" and read his stuff on a regular basis already. If so, a dissenting opinion is good for your character.

If you care to dispute my facts, I'll entertain your arguments at my website if you would care to carry this duscussion on any further. Thanks for the note.

Warmest Regards;

Bob Koski
www.clarkblog.org


----- Original Message -----
From: Bridget Schwarz
To: Bob Koski
Sent: Sunday, January 27, 2008 9:33 AM
Subject: Re: Larry Patella does not know what he is talking about, yet again.


Hi Bob -

My e-mail to you does not provide a single shred of evidence that I defend or support Larry Patella's positions or statements. I only commented on your tactics.

1) FYI: The number one way for people to make me mad is to put words in my mouth, and/or tell me what I think, which you have done in this instance.

2) Your response to my e-mail tells me that for some reason you consider scorched earth tactics to be effective and defensible. "He did it first" does not justify another's behavior.

Those are 2 good reasons where, again, you undermine your case. Why?

Bridget

[Waterbuffalo]

I think you made my point very effectively to the reasons why I don't publicly, come out and comment on drivel-iality.

Have had my own concerns about their out-of-context use of my comments without facts behind such facts, like the use of Gramor as a floating flotilla.

They seem to carbon copy ideas but don't seem to have the foggiest concept that there is a reason for such concerns and needs to be fleshed out in a "scientific/hypothesis" method to make sure that what my and others concerns are valid. Also to take into consideration before projects go forward or mitigation happens to make sure there is no deaths because of its was publicly expedient.

I honestly would love to have some discussion on the subject in E-mail or here about my comments that were taken out-of-context and carbon copied for political gain instead of brought out in the right forum and discussed openly in a vetted way.

Chief, I think you and I both get virilly angry about the above subject and subjectives, because of the way in which its handled instead with honesty and forethought and lack of carelessness that is being thrown to the details and their use.

[Chief]

Chief, I think you and I both get virilly angry about the above subject and subjectives, because of the way in which its handled instead with honesty and forethought and lack of carelessness that is being thrown to the details and their use.


I get very angry about the scurulous blanket charges from Patella and his minions against every elected official in sight, with absolutely no backup or justification.

I see nothing wrong with my tactics. Frankly it takes slapping some people up beside the head, just to get their attention some times. We ain't playing beanbag here either. If Patella wants to sound off in public like he does, and especially when he is as full of crap on an issue like he was on this one, I'm not going to sit idly by, (like some Neighborhood Association Presidents that I could name, but won't...) and let him get away with it.

I keep getting periodic visits from one of the Clark County republican women; not often, but regular; that always segue eventually to "I'm sorry that you and Larry are fighting...". As I have said repeatedly, we are not fighting. I am just the first person to ever stand up in Public and challange Patella on the outright lies he tries to get away with. If you follow his writings closely, (and I do), you will notice that anyone who disagrees with him in any way is labeled "...one of my detractors..." Don't take my word for it either. Go to his website and read back through his archives and try to follow the constant paranoid rant he carries on about everyone who does something he disagrees with in some way. there isn't an elected official that ever did anything that Larry Patella has approved of, unless you count the times that Jeanne Stewart and Jeanne Lipton simply voted "NO" on something. That's not a hit on the ladies in question, but a "NO" vote is the only thing I've ever heard him approve of.

And before anyone gets technical, Patella opposed the IDDL (a resounding "NO" vote) and Patella's support of the Jerry Oliver Campaign mainly consisted of diatribes against Arch Miller as opposed to for Jerry Oliver...

So it goes. Regardless, I am sticking to my tactics on Larry Patella, because they seem to finally be making an impression...

[Waterbuffalo]

I'll leave you to your tit-for-tat with Larry on subliminal and factual matters while I am trying to find more data on various local projects like the Gramor place and City of Vancouver projects I'm working on.

Hope that subliminal comments actually do finally get across but not going to hold my breathe too long...