Buffalo Rising Online

Can we file a lawsuit against people who file lawsuits?

Exactly the reason why I will never move back to Buffalo... So tired of the lack of development I will never move back. Hope you're all happy.

Guidelines prohibit parking ramps and “large-scale big box retail spaces that discourage street level activity and interaction.” ~ The Snooze

Since this is an offically designated redevelopment area, it must have a master plan for funding, and if the development doesn't fit into each parcel's stated use, it most likely will have to be amended.

I think its sad that when we have this opportunity for a holistic approach to developing the waterfront, we instead choose three parking ramps and a 120,000sf store, its like 1960s redevelopment but with an historic skin on the building. I can't wait to see if the design board actually forces Bass Pro to use Masonry construction as the MP instructs.

I was very disappointed to read this in the Buffalo News this morning. From a historical perspective, we have the re-watered slip, the foundations from past buildings, new buildings designed to fit in with eras past and plans for an Erie Canal museum. How much of a recreation do you need? The majority of the elements in the "master plan" were unfunded and ended up being replaced by green space. So you are suing because the green space is being used for something more feasible?

My enthusiasm for waterfront development rises every time I hear Brian Higgins speak, but I throw my hands up in the air and wave the white flag when I read an article like this.

To those who continue to stand in the way of waterfront development because it's "not what you want", I hope you continue to enjoy the waterfront as it is today because that is what you will be looking at 20 years from now. I hope that is something you can be proud of and tell your grandchildren about.

I really wish the people behind the lawsuits would get a life to the point where they wouldn't the time to pursue such nonsense as this.

I hope you are happy.

tjc...there are no compromises from the preservationist/obstructionist perspective. It is their way or nothing. This is nothing more than a powerplay from people who have too much free time on their hands.

Annoying, sure, end of the line for this development? I doubt it. They have so much political weight behind this, it is going to happen either way with or without public consent.

Today's story is a classic Buffalo News two-step...Esmonde states his case in his column and then his newsroom buddies come in behind with an "objective" news story, thereby legitimizing the opposition. Who are these anonymous "business leaders" and is it possible they may have a vested interest in opposing the plan? How on earth can the News defend the use of anonymous sources to bolster its claim that there is significant opposition? Anyone unwilling to state their views publicly should not be taken seriously unless, of course, their opinions mirror those of The News. And Mark Sommer's pejorative and typical reference to Bass Pro as a "tackle and hunting store" would be like saying Home Depot is a hardware and paint shop. The elected officials who were part of the planning process for this project and who all had nothing but glowing comments about it last week now need to stand tall and provide leadership and drown out The News and the anonymous "business leaders."

tjc246 - Our story is so significant that we built a skyway right through it. Now that's the true story right there.

If we continue to tie up every issue in court, Monday Morning Quarterbacks, Buffalo will be nothing more than a doormat to Canada.

tjc...you prove my point when you say "well you just don't get it" aka I know what should be done with the waterfront and you don't. Just because Benderson is primarily a suburban developer does not mean that they can't develop these parcels in a way that would make everyone happy, but feel free to continue with "suburban site in a urban setting" drivel.

Good luck with the lawsuit.

What a shame. We finally have movement and some real dollars going into area...the missing piece of the puzzle....finally!! Then the lawsuits..almost reckless considering the history of investment in our waterfront...did you ever think of solving the problem as opposed to outright challenge. Rather than draw the line in the sand...maybe be happy we have something proposed for area and work with it??

This is ridiculous. Hopefully a judge w/ a brain gets this case and throws that crap out the window. There will never be a plan that everyone likes, lets all compromise and build something! The proposed plan has a store coming that attracts tons of people and in addition it has history mixed in with it. That’s a crap load better than barren land and a building that’s been empty for 11 years.

And to reiterate what someone said on another article (buffalofalling?) lets start gutting the aud and selling the memorabilia inside. I’d definitely pay $100 for a seat and I’m sure many people would be willing to pay a lot more. That could raise a good chunk of change for a start.

Speaking of Bass Pro and historic sites...

The Railyards Specific Plan (Plan) provides for the development a new mixed use district in the heart of Sacramento. The 238 acres site is located just north of the Sacramento's central business district and east of the Sacramento River. It is recognized as the largest urban infill site in this region and presents Sacramento with a significant opportunity to accommodate future growth utilizing sustainable and smart growth principles. The site is historically significant in that it was the western terminus of the 1869 Transcontinental Railroad and was the largest fabrication and maintenance facility west of the Mississippi.

This is from the city of Sacramento's website and Bass Pro signed a letter of intent to be the first anchor tennant in this development. C'mon people, our story and our place in history can be told with Bass Pro in the mix. And let's be real, if a 100% historic canal development would be a boon to tourism and economic development then Lockport would be all the rage and they have more canal experiences to offer even if we restored everything.

This is the first nail in the coffin for the waterfront. It will be a perpetual dirt construction site, the chain link fences are so attractive along the water! Screw Tim Tielman and all the other lawsuit filing asshats. You sound like a bunch of spoiled kids who throw tantrums when you don't get your way. Only you take your frivolous lawsuits to the courts instead of taking your ball and going home. What a shame. I hope Tim Tielman and the rest of you never leave Buffalo, you should be required to stay here until you die, condemned to live in the desolate wasteland of post-industry that you worked so hard to create.

I'd LOVE to see some excitement happening Downtown. Noone will come downtown for a boring PARK or mass of PARKING RAMPS.....The Bass Pro Store design looks fine to me. It's the massive Parking Ramps surrounding it that will take away any chance for street life. Are these guys for real saying that these parking structures are needed so close to revitalize this area? Hmmmm, obvisiously these guys have NEVER Been to Chicago, NYC, Toronto or even CLEVELAND to see it takes EXCITEMENT to build an area NOT Parking Ramps. If you build enough attractions and retail/restaurants on the waterfront, PEOPLE WILL COME... and guess what, if they can't find an upfront parking space, they WILL Park farther into the heart of downtown and WALK to the destination....That is good urban planning. Maby Quinn and his boys should stay out of urban development and stick with something else.... What happend to the plan of hotels, lofts, office mix with first floor activity for these blocks? That was a much better idea than massive parking ramps, and more logical.

RIGHT ON BFLROX!!! So true and to the point regarding Lockport.....Why can't we have excitment downtown...this is a CITY....We may actually draw more tourists here if we offered something EXCITING , rather than the boring parkland that these old farts want MORE OF. And one thing you all have to be aware of....If you want the hustle and bustle back downtown. Small boutiques is not going to cut it. BIG NAMED STORES LIKE BASS WILL BE YOUR ANCHOR TO LURE IN THE SMALL SHOPS YOU ALL SO WANT AND NEED!!!!......A destination store, whether it's up to your standards or not is what lures other businesses to an area, the proof is out there and has been told many times. So what if we end up with a so called "Disney Theme" downtown, I'd come downtown more often to see that. I wont come down now with nothing to do. Our downtown is a dead zone (IT'S FACT) no retail, empty streets, no security on the streets, the only life you see right now are loony bins and thugs....BRING ON THE DISNEY THEME!

no fan of lawyers or "preservationists" but don't blame them for this one. is it a good thing that lawyers and "preservationists" did not obstruct the building of the HSBC building, the convention center, or the subway? all i know is that a store is a store; how many stand alone large stores stay open for 20 years? why are we paying them to open if it's such a good idea? if they close in 10 years that's $25 M for 10 years? do the people who make up the waterfront develoment group (i/e. gioia & the others) really intend to hang out at the new waterfront and shop at Bass Pro? why should i trust or believe them when they are of the same ilk as those responsible for recent bone-head moves: i.e., the new hockey arena squeezed into a corner of downtown or the proposed location for the "new" convention center? Remember, the "development" experts not too long ago (in the early 80's) said that no one would go to a public park on the waterfront and that private housing (rivermist, etc.) and Shangai Reds would be the best thing. were they right?

If done right, and Bass Pro does close (gawd forbid) and this area is "HOTT", then you wouldn't have a problem getting a NEW Retailer inside to take it's place. That is how we should be thinking. RE-DEVELOPING this area to make it "HOTT", not developing it for one retailer.

Why all the hand wringing over parking ramps? A) they're necessary B) they aren't on the water and C) there will be either retail on the ramps' ground floor, or a ring of development on three sides. Hardly a bad thing.

See: http://download.gannett.edgesuite.net/wgrz/news/CanalSideparkingplan.jpg

Tim Tielman is a piece of garbage. Also, I will never spend another cent on anything Righteous Babe after seeing Scot Fisher so vehemently state that this project is an insult to the people. Scot Fisher- Buffalo's newest obstructionist idiot, and just when I thought that his company was going to be an actual asset to the city.

platt4

Thanks for pointing out what so many need to read and understand.

If everyone would take the time to learn the facts then all this disinformation would (should) evaporate. The parking garages will include ground level retail spaces so interaction and interest from sidewalk to inside and vice versa is encouraged.

Any urban planner / architect worth a dime can design a bright and interesting parking ramp that doesn't even look like a ramp--and BRO has posted same in the past. So give up the opposition to ramps. We want non-City residents and out-of-towners to come down to Canal Side, and it doesn't make sense for most to get out of their cars to jump on Metro, etc. Parking is needed and is required just as it is provided at Baltimore's Inner Harbor. See: http://baltimore.about.com/od/transportation/ht/howtopark.htm

Oh, and 'asshat' Timmy T, don't fail to notice all those buildings so close to the water. Gee, I see the horror destined for Buffalo if we allow the same at Canal Side: all those jobs and activity and excitement...it's so counter-productive to maintaining our Western Terminus ("terminal" looking?) waterfront.

Not to drag this off-topic, but I can think of plenty of lawsuits that never happened but should have. For example:

+ Suit to halt UB's expansion in Amherst and redirect it to the waterfront + Suit to halt the conversion of Humboldt Parkway into an expressway + Suit to halt the demolition of the Larkin Building + Suit to punish the parties who enabled the demolition of the Harbor Inn + Suit to force the City to maintain its properties to the same standards that residents have to adhere to

Need I go on?

Mister Chips - Way to Monday Morning Quarterback.. if you were the least bit informed you would know that UB moved to Amherst because the people of Buffalo didn't want it in the city. Same with the Kennsington Expressway, the people believed that it would bring business and people downtown, that it would stop the flight from the urban core; and it did for awhile. Some businesses remained in downtown because of the 33, without it, they would have left the city a long time ago.

Keep filing your frivolous lawsuits, it keeps people like me employed!

What a shame. I hope Tim Tielman and the rest of you never leave Buffalo, you should be required to stay here until you die, condemned to live in the desolate wasteland of post-industry that you worked so hard to create.

Sinking fast - I don't agree with the first half of your post, but I love this quote.

It is ashame that once again, a lawsuit by the conservation terrorist who is as well a self proclaimed architectural and urban planning expert, is playing hostage to progress on Buffalo's waterfront. So the open space has been shifted towards the commercial slip. Open space in and of itself is not the solution to creating a viable and active urban environment. There has to be the retail, museum, and mixed use venues to draw people. This has been studied for years. It was clear we were going after a Bass Pro for years, now finally an agreement has been achieved and we have to listen to ones personal opinion who I think would rather see no progress at all. Come on obstructionist! Give it up already!

Scot Fisher should just STFU! We all know that he believes that boarding up and ruining properties via neglect constitutes development in his book. Just look at the spectacular job that he is doing on renovating his properties on Genesee St and Main St. He is a good example of what not to do with a property. Then again, his connections with the city government ensure that he isn't cited for anything major and that he is allowed to perpetuate the architectural abuse of his properties. Someone would need to die in one of his buildings before the city will act on the flagrant building code violations.

Scot, if you read this, keep your nose out of the waterfront until you clean up your own mess!

Keller - Well stated! Buffalo is worse than many third world nations. At least the third world countries know that they have problems and are working to do something about them.

If someone wants to jump to Scot Fisher's defense because of "the Church", then go ahead, but that wasn't his idea and it wasn't his funding. The project was finished late and well over budget. Sorry Scot, you failed again.

the center of buffalo-niagara is shifting to the north, to amherst and southern niagara county. Maybe the city of Buffalo should just be allowed to diminish gracefully. the new economic and political ceter is already asserting itself. These jurisdictions could care less what these special interest groups say.

SerenityNow,

If you look at the parking plan, it is obvious, even at this very early stage, that parking is nested behind the street-facing elements of retail and other activities. See: http://download.gannett.edgesuite.net/wgrz/news/CanalSideparkingplan.jpg

Also see this rendering that clearly indicates “Mixed Use” and “retail” etc. within each parking area: I doubt retail is going to be on the top floor, so let’s safely assume it will be on the ground floor. http://download.gannett.edgesuite.net/wgrz/news/CanalSideSitePlan.pdf

Within the WGRZ audio/video announcement we can see and hear Joel Giambra ask for--and receive--approval from Charles Rosenow, ECHDC chairman, to have a 'preservation' expert sit on the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). The charge of the committee is to ensure the entire project district retains the look and feel of the 1880s. Obviously that cannot be 100 percent replicated, so we should assume the "flavor" of the same period will be injected as needed. Either way, we should look to the ARC to protect the authenticity of the district. This is not a plan of one group at the expense of another—it is a plan for all. The concerns of well-intentioned preservationists should be heard and negotiated in as practical. Obstructionists and untenable positions should not be allowed--so back away from the table.

The same ARC must see and approve all Bass Pro, Benderson (and ECHDC) designs, schematics. See the pre-Development Agreement PDF page 6, point 3; and page 8, point 7.

The 'Project Site' specifically states that developments on the Central Wharf site must 'seek to recreate' the 1880s designs, so the Wharf is protected against parking intrusions. PDF page 6, point 1

As a further example of what the intent is, the pre-Dev. Agr., page 9, point "c", states that Benderson's developments on the Aud block integrate fully with the EDHDC parking structure.

I hope the above eases your (others) big concerns about this not-yet-even-fully designed project. All the fine details are yet to come. We should give the designers an opportunity to do their work before we criticize thin air. At the least, we should all expect some public sessions to allow citizens’ feedback. It would also be good for Quinn and crew to come out now and do a better PR job selling the project so incorrect and distorted information doesn’t permeate our lives.

Public advocacy lawsuits are often the only tool the average Jane and average Joe have in shaping projects like the Erie Canal Harbor. What's wrong with a tool that gave the citizens of Buffalo a rewatered Commercial Slip, a replica bowstring bridge, and a recreated Canal District street network? That same "lawsuit" delayed Benderson Blunder #1 in the late 1990s (which would have destroyed historic streets and the terminus of the Erie Canal) and opened a federally-mandated NEPA process and public review period that gave us an internationally award-winning Erie Canal Harbor Master Plan, which Larry Quinn is now wantonly discarding.

There would be no delays, no lawsuits, no community rancor if plutocrats like Larry Quinn weren't attempting to undo a community consensus vision that took ten years of public hearings and millions of state dollars to implement. We were about to move forward on the next stages of that plan before His Incompetence decided how brilliant it would be to have his big box store built on one of the most historic sites in the city. If a delay occurs, it's all on Larry Quinn.

Hey West Coast, Buffalo has a lawsuit "tradition"? I can think of only five in the past few years.

Peace Bridge: stopped an unattractive twin span and disastrous plaza proposal and forced an EIS as the law requires, permitting the public to participate in the planning process.

Canal District: forced a revised EIS that takes into account the district's status as a federally-protected cultural landscape and newly discovered archaeological remains, saved the Erie Canal terminus, established a NEPA-required public process that gave the community a visionary consensus plan for Erie Canal Harbor.

Main/Virginia: Revoked an unnecessary emergency demolition permit on a fire-damaged historic building, salvaged the economic opportunity now already captured to redevelop the block as a mixed-use/residential development.

Casino: still ongoing, may prevent the construction of an Indian-owned casino in Buffalo.

Burchfield Penney: effort to require a SEQR review that would have allowed the public to participate in planning on the National Landmark Richardson and Olmsted collaboration on Forest Avenue, suit dismissed

If only public advocates could have sued under NEPA when the university expansion was being geared to Amherst instead of downtown, or highways were being slapped across our waterfront and through our parks, or urban renewal was eviscerating large portions of our downtown and neighborhoods.

And really, West Coast, there aren't any lawsuits in Sacramento?

Keller, they're at the foot of Main Street, recently completed. The Commercial Slip, the historic terminus of the Erie Canal, was unearthed, restored and rewatered. It is where Governor DeWitt Clinton ceremoniously poured a bucket of Atlantic Ocean water into Lake Erie to christen the opening of the Erie Canal. In the previous plan, it would have been destroyed and a "fake" canal constructed nearby to signify that, once upon a time, there was a historic canal somewhere nearby.

The replica bowstring bridge across the Commercial Slip was recently put in place, nearly exact in dimensions and construction type as the bridge that crossed the Commercial Slip from Prime Street over a hundred years ago.

The historic Commercial, Prime, Lloyd and Hanover streets will be reconstructed in their original cobblestone later this year, resurrecting the street network of the world renowned Canal District of the old Buffalo harbor.

I'm no hippie, just an urban planner with a penchant for this great city.

Chrish - A public outcry and lawsuit ensure that UB would be built in Amherst instead of expanded into the city. Your over-glorified lawsuits are a way for the minority to bully the silent majority. You have a dream of what you want in Buffalo, and that dream consists of reliving 1910 all over again. I would love to know the cities and towns that you have planned, and your overall vision for this "Great City". It sounds to me like you are a frustrated asshat who chose a profession that isn't suited for you.

I think that Chrish (L) is on to something here. I don't agree with the height of the Bashar Issa's proposed tower and the negative impact that it will have on surrounding buildings. I believe that he should have rebuilt the building that was torn down in the spot to retain historical accuracy. I am opposed to the renovation of the AM&As building, it should be restored as a retail department store as it was originally intended. I would also like to file a lawsuit against the developers in the cobblestone district; they are building new, single-use suburban style office buildings instead of keeping with the historical theme of that part of the city. The new micro-parks do not reflect the original plan for the waterfront, so we need to stop those now. Lawsuits should be filed against all projects to ensure that all opinions are heard.

I JUST WANT TO RE POST SOMETHING THAT WAS WRITTEN BY URBAN BODY. VERY IMPORTANT TO READ. ANSWERS MANY QUESTIONS. Thank you urbanbody.

UrbanBody 1 ratings12345 Today, 19:06SerenityNow, If you look at the parking plan, it is obvious, even at this very early stage, that parking is nested behind the street-facing elements of retail and other activities. See: http://download.gannett.edgesuite.net/wgrz/news/CanalSideparkingplan.jpg Also see this rendering that clearly indicates “Mixed Use” and “retail” etc. within each parking area: I doubt retail is going to be on the top floor, so let’s safely assume it will be on the ground floor. http://download.gannett.edgesuite.net/wgrz/news/CanalSideSitePlan.pdf Within the WGRZ audio/video announcement we can see and hear Joel Giambra ask for--and receive--approval from Charles Rosenow, ECHDC chairman, to have a 'preservation' expert sit on the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). The charge of the committee is to ensure the entire project district retains the look and feel of the 1880s. Obviously that cannot be 100 percent replicated, so we should assume the "flavor" of the same period will be injected as needed. Either way, we should look to the ARC to protect the authenticity of the district. This is not a plan of one group at the expense of another—it is a plan for all. The concerns of well-intentioned preservationists should be heard and negotiated in as practical. Obstructionists and untenable positions should not be allowed--so back away from the table. The same ARC must see and approve all Bass Pro, Benderson (and ECHDC) designs, schematics. See the pre-Development Agreement PDF page 6, point 3; and page 8, point 7. The 'Project Site' specifically states that developments on the Central Wharf site must 'seek to recreate' the 1880s designs, so the Wharf is protected against parking intrusions. PDF page 6, point 1 As a further example of what the intent is, the pre-Dev. Agr., page 9, point "c", states that Benderson's developments on the Aud block integrate fully with the EDHDC parking structure. I hope the above eases your (others) big concerns about this not-yet-even-fully designed project. All the fine details are yet to come. We should give the designers an opportunity to do their work before we criticize thin air. At the least, we should all expect some public sessions to allow citizens’ feedback. It would also be good for Quinn and crew to come out now and do a better PR job selling the project so incorrect and distorted information doesn’t permeate our lives.

I don't know... I can't help but think that this project will be killed just like the rest of them.... I'm not a pessismist I just simply live here, couple of things:

1. I support the fact that bass pro is directly on the waterfront, its a unique store, that is a historical reproduction. 2. I cannot defend the loss of a couple of acres of greenspace when we're building 65 miles of it from dt waterfront to Lake Ontario. 3. So so on the parking, I like the link to the baltimore parking info. bout their 12,000 spaces availble and all... and I'm also well aware of the fact that parking is necessary to establishments like bass pro and any retail corrodor. We'll always need parking ramps b/c we'll never have anything else available.. ( i.e. - trains, subways.. etc) 4. Why are we demolishing the aud and rebuilding a parking ramp in its place, did i not see an article bout keeping the aud as a ramp i nstead of demolishing it? Don't know if I can support 1800 more parking spaces that close to the waterfront. 5. I can't help but wonder if this is our chance for our own Eaton Center ( Toronto). Demolish the aud... dig a big hole, 2000 underground parking spaces.... retail first -3rd levels... office on top... open air entrances to the street, subway access.... we can think bigger than just 1800 spot parking ramps 6. If PARKING IS A MUST... then I like the fact of having a big cluster than parking ramps all over the place.. people can still park here and walk to other destinations.. if this goes through i'd propose clamping down on other pakring ramps in the city and forcing people to park in this district... make them walkk 5.

Sir Bob, touché. The loss of the Elmwood Hotel proposal is certainly mourned. Who knew a 150-year-old deed restriction would have such weight in modern law?

Who cares what Scot Fisher says or thinks? What has he ever done to improve Buffalo other than to renovate a church and do a good business deal for himself and his company? What a self-important blowhard! But the Buffalo News has lionized him and his boss to the point where we're supposed to care what they think. I, for one, couldn't care less what Scot Fisher thinks about the waterfront or anything else. This whole discussion borders on the unbelievable. Absolutely nothing has happened on the waterfront for 100 years and finally we have a plan, the players and the money and out of the sewer come the obstructionists and their Alice-in-Wonderland versions of what the waterfront should look like. Why don't we be true to history and recreate what was really there: whorehouses and ginmills!

We've all missed the most upsetting part of this post.

West Coast Perspective (an out of towner) (happy to have him) has dissed our buffalo bills. how dare he. screw the parking ramps....no out of towners comes to my city and and puts down my buffalo bills. i will be filling a lawsuit.

;)

This'll all be nice when we don't have people in the city to shop at this retail anyway. This entire scheme is predicated on people coming down and spending money at retail centers to resurrect the city's economic climate. Unfortunitly even in cities such as Philly that have tourism and downtown retail, population continues to fall. Our politicians are great at these "silver bullet" projects than reducing patronage, lowering taxes and encouraging incoming producing businesses, while retail for the most part creates no new revenue for the community.

Also, so when did having contrarian opinions make a person an asshat, hippie or other derogatory name? There has been no waterfront redevelopment or economic growth because Buffalo is an old industrial city, with polluted waterways, inept politicians, high taxes and no economic stimulus. For those so anti-hippi...why hasn't business taken care of the waterfront. Isn't it a little hippie for you to encourage a PUBLIC entity to facilitate the development with PUBLIC funding?

I'm amused that a dumpy aging lawyer in a suit & tie and a bad hairpiece, with nary a piercing, tattoo, or dreadlock, can get called a "hippie." You just made his day.

Those dreaded "hippies" couldn't buy anything on the land being discussed here if they wanted to because we, the people, care of the NFTA and other public entities, already own it.

If there is anyone who has made concrete contributions to the revitalization of Buffalo, it is Tim Tielman and the Preservation Coalition, who helped save "worthless" downtown buildings that are now being converted into cool downtown lofts. They helped establish the Joseph Ellicott and Hamlin Park historic districts. They saved all sorts of buildings that are occupied, rehabilitated, on the tax rolls, and no one would dream of demolishing them today.

If we DID complete this transformation and did bring LOTS of people back downtown. Are we going to see SECURITY????? I am about to transfer my job out to the burbs after working downtown for 6 months...Reason? I DON'T FEEL SAFE DOWNTOWN IN THE DAYTIME....Why? NO COPS....Why do I have to walk down shabby Main Street, be harrased by bums and walk around/walk across the street to avoid rowdy kids and CRAZY PEOPLE screaming at themselfs??? and I NEVER SEE OFFICERS AROUND and NOW you have more SHADY people hanging out at the new Parole Office (former Courtyard Mall)....I am from Brooklyn, BUT Downtown Buffalo reminds me of NYC during the 1980'S Before Rudy CLEANED IT UP, Back when NYC was the most dangerous city in the country. (Now the Safest Big City)...I mean, I feel like I'm in a freakin' TWILIGHT ZONE when ever I'm downtown, A TIME-WARP (is it the 1980's or early 1990's?) WHERE ARE THE NORMAL PEOPLE???? Seems the only life you see there now are FREAKS, BUMS and CRAZY'S.

Before you try to bring people back downtown. CLEAN IT UP FIRST!

In my opinion, the opposition to this project stems from two motivations. The first is an aversion to free enterprise. The second, and closly related to the first, is a dislike for the for the store going in. The desire for urbaninity on the waterfront is being tainted by a store that is decidedly un-urban, namely a hunting and fishing store.

You know, I visited a Bass Pro store in Auburn to see what all the hype was about. Sure, it's a big hunting, fishing, and sporting good store. Was there tons of development around it that likely wouldntt have been there without it? Nope, there were industrial shops all around, closed on the Saturday that I went to visit.

Of course, I'm not adamantly opposed to Bass Pro. I don't think it's some magical solution to everyone's problems and would move parking to another location (with appropriate safety for walking to the shops, yada yada yada).