Oak Ridge Park Sports Complex Arena

The Union County Improvement Authority at their August 3, 2016 meeting unanimously (is there any other way) passed Resolution 73-2016 which awarded a professional services contract to Netta Architects for $1,237,000 to draft plans to build this at Oak Ridge Park:

Oak Ridge Plans

Advertisements

7 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Warren Austin on August 12, 2016 at 3:18 pm

    Great! What’s next???? I can’t wait to move to PA

    Reply

  2. Posted by ReadsLikeAMafiaBook on August 12, 2016 at 4:53 pm

    Just what taxpayers are looking for to reduce their tax burden, more parks. What are the freeholders looking for? More campaign contributions? It’s a SICK fucking mind set with these freeholders. Rainbows, parks, golf and nothing else that affects regular taxpayers.

    Reply

  3. I wonder who wanted this. Why was it a bad idea having this as a golf course? Can’t wait to see their next tax bill. Oh, by the way, then there is maintenence on it too. I have no problem with anything that is self sustaining but this has never been their business model on the backs of us tax payers.

    I’ve got a better idea; how about fixing the old Terry Lou site that has been vacant for years and now seems to grow roots (literally) with community plantings, while the lot is basically useless.

    Reply

  4. Posted by Susan Sallamack on August 16, 2016 at 10:39 am

    The Union County Improvement Authority(UCIA) has the authority to issue bonds, and provides a steady diet of work for law firms, bond finance firms, and engineering and consulting firms, all of which make contributions to the Freeholders’ campaigns. The only way to pay off the contributors is to keep making up and authorize new projects. If you spend money on park maintenance, you only get contributions from the outsourced maintenance companies – small potatoes. These BIG EXPENSIVE UNWANTED projects will continue across the county while the financing for it is bonded, since there is a state-wide cap on property taxes. The next item we will be discussing will be the bids from the outside vendors to operate the facilities. Watch for the prices that will be charged for use. You will be paying for this facility through the bond payments, and will be paying to use it. How much fun is that?

    Reply

  5. Posted by Barbara Robinson on August 25, 2016 at 1:34 pm

    I would prefer they spend the money on putting in airrators in the green resivour. Much needed to keep the water moving.

    Reply

  6. Posted by Heather Mount on August 25, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Can’t we just have green space? Why all the development? Completely unnecessary!

    Reply

  7. Posted by Jeff Freeman on August 25, 2016 at 5:27 pm

    I am opposed to this project, but my primary concern is not with public expenditures PER SE, but with the way our tax dollars go to politically connected contractors for projects that are not merely unneeded, but DESTRUCTIVE of existing amenities. Irreplaceable parks go begging for maintenance money, while out-of-touch politicians rush to pave over yet another acre of our vanishing paradise. FOR SHAME!

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: