FingerLakes1.com Forums
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >
Topic Options
#906135 --- 10/28/08 10:21 AM Building 12 on the Lakefront
hereagain Offline
Member

Registered: 05/16/08
Posts: 65
Loc: NY
I just read nostrings and saw this quote "While it is absolutely clear that the community has reject Building 12".

Is this the way everybody in Geneva really feels??

Top
FingerLakes1.com
#906140 --- 10/28/08 10:30 AM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: hereagain]
metsno1 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/21/03
Posts: 738
Loc: Geneva
No, it's clearly not the way the everybody feels. There have been very solid points made on both sides of the argument.

But if you attended all of the input sessions, as I did, you'd recognize that it was very clearly the majority opinion.

I do think, however, that a smaller majority (but a majority nonetheless) of people would be willing to consider a smaller, revamped version of building 12-but not one that included residential space. That's just my sense from the meetings.

Top
#906146 --- 10/28/08 10:37 AM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: metsno1]
TheHeavyHitter Offline
Member

Registered: 08/24/06
Posts: 209
Loc: Down on the corner
How about a strip club?? That would really increase the tax revenue, how do you think Jackie would feel about that?!?!

Top
#906227 --- 10/28/08 12:01 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: TheHeavyHitter]
Taxpayer14456 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 08/23/06
Posts: 8109
Loc: Geneva
LOL!
_________________________
Maybe we should chug on over to mamby pamby land...

Top
#906228 --- 10/28/08 12:01 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: TheHeavyHitter]
jojotaxpayer Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/04/08
Posts: 2500
Loc: Ontario County
Strip club, Yeah!

Top
#906286 --- 10/28/08 12:50 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: jojotaxpayer]
TheHeavyHitter Offline
Member

Registered: 08/24/06
Posts: 209
Loc: Down on the corner
The Yays have it.

Top
#906369 --- 10/28/08 02:34 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: TheHeavyHitter]
Qwill Pen Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 05/17/08
Posts: 821
Loc: New York
It was very clear to me at the meetings I attended that there was a majority of people who did not feel Geneva should sell its valuable lakefront property to developers and take away the great views. Most people were in favor of development and utilization of the property, perhaps in ways like gardens, sculpture areas, etc., just not selling it for condos and/or office space. Those who did seem to favor selling off this asset were mainly business owner people.

I do not believe Geneva should ever sell this property. And to put housing there would be a shame, with all the pollution (noise, sight and physical) that such things as condos bring. They are taxed different until tax law than other residential property and would not make the tax base increase the way developers would like us to believe. I think these Bergmann Associates developers are suspect as to motive and they should never have been hired to begin with.

Top
#906379 --- 10/28/08 02:39 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: metsno1]
Genevan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 1914
Loc: Geneva
a smaller majority (but a majority nonetheless)

[majority < majority = minority]

Did you mean a majority of the minority?

Top
#906518 --- 10/28/08 04:55 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: Genevan]
metsno1 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/21/03
Posts: 738
Loc: Geneva
Originally Posted By: Genevan
a smaller majority (but a majority nonetheless)

[majority < majority = minority]

Did you mean a majority of the minority?


Sorry, but your logic is incorrect.

I'll illustrate (and I'll just use fictional numbers to make the point clear as mud).

If there were 50 people who voiced their opinions, approximately 35 of them voiced an opinion against building 12 as it was presented. However, approximately 30 of those people also suggested that they might be willing to consider a smaller structure.

30 < 35 = majority (still) (Get it? 30 is still a majority out of 50).

Top
#906531 --- 10/28/08 05:22 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: metsno1]
Genevan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 1914
Loc: Geneva
I would agree, the perceived majority is not necessarily expressing an all or nothing approach.

Top
#906676 --- 10/28/08 07:32 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: Qwill Pen]
DJ c Offline
Member

Registered: 12/10/07
Posts: 196
Loc: Here and There
Who are the majority that don't want the land to be sold and developed because of the views. What views are you actually talking about. The view obstructed by the trees or the view that you can only see when you are a passenger in a car going 45mph. Give me a break. The views won't be obstructed when you get off your lazy butt and walk, bike, jog or rollerblade by the lake. The same people who don't want their views obstructed are the same IDIOTS who want to save the gas station. This city has many vantage points for views of Seneca Lake, the obstructed view issue is a very, very weak CON for development. I would fully support the idea of a strip club. There wouldn't be any obstructed views there.

Top
#906726 --- 10/28/08 07:54 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: DJ c]
metsno1 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/21/03
Posts: 738
Loc: Geneva
You can question whether or not the people speaking up at public forums constitute a majority all you want. But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of the people (or as you refer to them, idiots) who are expressing themselves in places other than this anonymous forum seem to be coming out against large scale development in that particular location. It's the only real objective evidence we have of how the general public feels.

Maybe you're correct that the true majority is in favor of development and doesn't care about obstructed views.

Come up with some evidence to counter what we already have.

Or just organize really effectively and make sure that it's the majority opinion expressed at the next input session.

That should be easy, right?


Top
#906744 --- 10/28/08 08:02 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: metsno1]
mackey Offline
Member

Registered: 08/25/08
Posts: 137
Loc: geneva
Guess what, they will be talking about this 25 years from now. Nothing will never be done.

Top
#907012 --- 10/29/08 08:56 AM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: mackey]
bluezone Offline
Diamond Member

Registered: 12/19/04
Posts: 32545
Loc: USA
Infill the lake area between the pier and leading towards the shore near the 5/20 bridge leading to hamilton street. Construct building 12 there as it will not obstruct the lake view.
_________________________
"OUR COUNTRY IS IN MOURNING, A SOLDIER DIED TODAY."

Top
#907040 --- 10/29/08 09:15 AM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: bluezone]
Genevan Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 04/20/08
Posts: 1914
Loc: Geneva
Right, if positioned directly below the 5/20 deck it could solve several problems at once. It would lend structural support to the deck and defer future maintenance saving tax dollars. A sky off-ramp could be built in that could direct traffic right off the bridge and into a parking garage facing the hill. It would join the town to the water and solve the pedestrian hazard because folks could go to the water by walking under the bridge and through the big Mcbox. We could call it the "bridge to somewhere." Seriously, what ever happened to the Hobart Marina plan...that was innovative...

Top
#907073 --- 10/29/08 10:22 AM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: Genevan]
metsno1 Offline
Senior Member

Registered: 11/21/03
Posts: 738
Loc: Geneva
Originally Posted By: Genevan
Right, if positioned directly below the 5/20 deck it could solve several problems at once. It would lend structural support to the deck and defer future maintenance saving tax dollars. A sky off-ramp could be built in that could direct traffic right off the bridge and into a parking garage facing the hill. It would join the town to the water and solve the pedestrian hazard because folks could go to the water by walking under the bridge and through the big Mcbox. We could call it the "bridge to somewhere." Seriously, what ever happened to the Hobart Marina plan...that was innovative...


While I don't think that marina plan was studied in detail, my understanding is that the estimated cost was enormous-supposedly dwarfing the current proposal in terms of dollars.

But I agree that it was innovative, and pretty cool if you had a chance to look at Stan's drawings.

Top
#907220 --- 10/29/08 01:32 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: metsno1]
Miatasportscar Offline
Member

Registered: 12/04/05
Posts: 52
Loc: Geneva, NY
There is something about "natural beauty" that can't have a price put on it. Leave the lake front alone, it isn't worth all the money in the world to spoil it's "natural beauty". As for building "12", it is insane to build it where it is proposed to be built. Put condo's out on some farm property somewhere, leave the lake front alone. I want to see it each day when I walk my five miles along the seawall, and I want to see it from any angle from my car window. I want to see every square inch of the natural beauty of this marvelous, rare piece of land. Leave it alone, build your building "12" somewhere else far, far away.


Edited by FL1 Mod 2 (10/29/08 03:37 PM)

Top
#907234 --- 10/29/08 02:07 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: Miatasportscar]
hummm Offline
Member

Registered: 10/05/07
Posts: 235
Loc: new york
I couldn't agree more! Well said! What a rare natural beauty this undeveloped lakefront is for us to visit and enjoy. Do as little as possible to it and certainly don't put up that huge building 12. Enhance the wildness of the lake to attract even more wildlife--including tourists! \:\)

Top
#907242 --- 10/29/08 02:24 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: hummm]
TheHeavyHitter Offline
Member

Registered: 08/24/06
Posts: 209
Loc: Down on the corner
Let's save the gas station too!

Top
#907247 --- 10/29/08 02:36 PM Re: Building 12 on the Lakefront [Re: hereagain]
Wally Offline
Junior Member

Registered: 03/15/07
Posts: 19
Loc: Ontario County
Don't worry, we aren't all nuts. There are a lot of people who have true vision and realize what putting a building on that site would do for Geneva. We become a true lakefront city. The proposed building will be utilized by the public and tourists alike. Visit any waterfront city where they have utilized their asset and you will find a very successful city. Unfortunately we have a small vocal minority here that have never traveled and seen this (or simply don't understand it). Until we can get tourists to come stay here and spend their vacation week with us, nothing will change, and people are not going to use their family vacations to come here and look at the lake from Castle Street (oh, by the way, that is how it is now and how's that working out for us?). People will come to stay because there are things here to DO here, and until we have a tourist trade that changes each week and goes out looking for things to do, places like the The Comedy Shop, McCool's and other high quality visitor based businesses are not going to survive. I am beginning to think that the whiners really don't want anyone else to come to Geneva. Why the other night I heard that one person actually said they didn't want the new proposed hotel for Elizabeth Blackwell St. because it would block their WHOLE view of the lake... from up on MAIN ST. Now that's progressive thinking for you! Let's not do anything so they can look out their windows. Good idea (keep em' coming folks). This city needs to increase it's property and sales tax bases, and anyone who can't see that is either short sited, or plain dumb. Let's face it, they got the committee to give them 95% of the lakefront left open, and now it is time for them to give something back... for God's sake stop whinning about the last 5%! We know that is your favorite thing to do, and some of you are starting to take it to a true art form, but don't worry, you still have the gas station to play with. Oh, by the way, how much more money do you want the city to spend on it?

Top
Page 1 of 4 1 2 3 4 >