Coming soon: 12-screen downtown movie theater
Some bloggers on this site are "astounded" or "amazed" that I write articles according to my perspective. They feel I do not provide balance, something the Daily Democrat does(?). The link below will take you to a Democrat article called "Coming soon: 12-screen downtown movie theater" written by Geoff Johnson. For starters, first you can see Johnson's request for information to provide such balance... but I left Ron Caceres' statement intact so Woodland Journal readers can see what was left out of the article:
On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:57 PM, Geoff Johnson wrote:
Ron,
You're likely aware that there have been some developments with Paul Petrovich's theater proposal. Naturally, we're doing a story on the subject, and I was hoping you or someone affiliated with Friends of the State Theater would be able to comment.
If you could please call or e-mail me in the next hour or two, I feel we would have more balanced, more informative story for tomorrow's edition.
Thank you for your time and patience.
Geoff Johnson
Staff Writer
gjohnson@dailydemocrat.com
Hi Geoff,
I just got your email. I am familiar with the new development with Paul Petrovich's proposal. My goal is and has been to save and enhance the State Theatre with our proposed project. I responded to the City's RFP for a downtown multiplex and have worked hard to bring the best operator and best project I could to Woodland. I hope the redevelopment agency will continue with the RFP, pick a developer and move forward with a project. We are not asking for anything other than a chance to work with the City on the next step, since there is no financial obligation by the City in allowing us to proceed. We will still need to go through the approval process. The RDA should honor the RFP as it was set up to facilitate redevelopment projects and eliminate blight. Our project accomplishes both of those goals.
Ron Caceres
Coming soon: 12-screen downtown movie theater
A Main Street multiplex running against the State Theatre for Woodland redevelopment funds has taken itself out of the race but not out of the city.
David Corkill of Cinema West confirmed Wednesday his company will purchase land at Third and Main streets and use it to develop a 12-screen digital multiplex without using city funds.
The multiplex is scaled down from an earlier proposal by developer Paul Petrovich to build not only the theater but also an accompanying plaza.
Read the rest before the Democrat takes it down.
Posts
14 comments:
Balance? Please note this misrepresentation of the multiplex RFP process:
"A Main Street multiplex running against the State Theatre for Woodland redevelopment funds has taken itself out of the race but not out of the city."
Two developers responded to the request by the city/agency agency to build a downtown multiplex. The multiplex was deemed a "priority" project for the agency and thus the RFP was issued. The RFP was not an application or a race for redevelopment funds - the city/agency was asking for help and two parties replied. It is unknown how much the RDA will participate, financially or otherwise, since they have intentionally stalled on Stage I of the process as outlined by the agency.
Dino you make some good points on some of your stories.
When it comes to this story you have continually misled people by false information that you claim to have ie such as Chase wanting to move to the contaminated lot next the one they originally were in escrow on. They were never going to move there that property next to it is contaminated and it is a matter of record.
Next you attack Art Pimentel for needing to recuse himself from any vote on the theaters citing that he got money from Petrovich.
Based upon that logic then all of the council members would have to do that same. They also recieved money from the people in the group that is behind the friends of the state. Yes it's true just call the city and request that information it's there.
Then there is the email that you sent to chase bank spokeperson. I truly hope that you realize that your claim of having 1000 plus friends of the state is pure hype there is not I have looked at that list and many do not even live in Woodland. I have friends that live in New York and while they might support the state they do not live here so what voting rights do they have? None that I can think of.
The City RDA must honor the RFP with or without Petrovich. The State theater proposal by Caceres needs to be evaluated on its own merits and the RDA/City Council needs to render a decision.
10:04
On September 14, 2009, Chase made an offer on the old Main Street Motors site. On February 26, 2010, Chase took a tour of the Farm Credit building across the street. On April 19, 2010, there was a follow up email confirming discussion between Chase and the realtor about the Union 76 site. Now show me your "matter of records" that disproves Chase was considering other sites.
Yes. Pimentel should recuse himself because of the disproportionate amount of contributions he received from Petrovich who used two employees and four LLCs of different names to make those contributions. I have all the records of contributions.
How is an email hype? It's a legitimate question because I understand the issue and consequences related to actions and inactions of it. Plus, Eileen never answered the question... so it was never part of any story. So what's the hype about?
Oh... and really? Facebook users live oustide of Woodland? Wow. Woodlanders and people who grew up here and have relatives here but live elsewhere support the State Theatre Renovation and Expansion. So what? It's not an election. Who supported Petrovich? Aside from Pimentel, Deven, Davies and Shallit, that is? One who sent a letter to the Democrat, maybe?
Here is hype: “As we have since 1924, we’re working with the town to serve our customers and the community.” This is the generic statement provided by Chase with the intent to publicize. Where was Chase located in 1924?
You have a small-town and skewed fixation on impertinent details of the whole picture. You need to step back and look how the city is screwing the community.
Hey Dino,
Not that I expect you to, but where is your response to 10:04's accusation of FOS's contributions to the council?
You know what's funny...I think both projects should go on!
8:03
I addressed it.
Next you attack Art Pimentel for needing to recuse himself from any vote on the theaters citing that he got money from Petrovich.
Based upon that logic then all of the council members would have to do that same. They also recieved money from the people in the group that is behind the friends of the state. Yes it's true just call the city and request that information it's there.
Dino...not addressed. Care to?
Can't you read? I already addressed it.
Guess I can't read either. I saw you sidestep with a vague campaign-style dance around the question, but I didn't see you address anything. Unless you're moving the goalpost again, and the word "disproportionate" marks the new spot.
First of all, this comment is stupid: "Next you attack Art Pimentel for needing to recuse himself from any vote on the theaters citing that he got money from Petrovich. Based upon that logic then all of the council members would have to do that same." Talk about campaign-speak... I didn't say that and that is not my logic.
And in typical troll fashion, troll asks the readers to go find the information. Why not provide it yourself to make whatever case it is you're trying to make?
Simple donations from Petrovich are one thing, the sum total under other fictitious names is another... plus an additional $3K from another property owner at Third and Main.
Here is a December article about contributions to Pimentel (and others, including other council members and "FOSs"):
Downtown multiplex process scrutinized: Ties to Pimentel campaign
http://woodlandrecord.com/downtown-multiplex-process-scrutinized-ties-to-pimentel-campaign-p1076-1.htm
And here is what troll was referring to:
RFP basics elude RDA foursome
http://woodlandrecord.com/rfp-basics-elude-rda-foursome-p1698-1.htm
Two peas in a pod are not worth two in the bush
Or should it be one "P" in another "P's" pocket? It is no secret that councilman Pimentel received at least $3,900 from Petrovich and his employees for his 2008 election campaign. It is curious that Petrovich made four different contributions under different LLCs in amounts of $500 each. Pimentel also received at least another $2,925 in campaign contributions from the owner of the Odd Fellows building (also conveniently located at Third and Main), $3,500 from the Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange and at least another $4,100 from other developers. During the October 5 meeting Petrovich suggested city staff and council take all the time they need to make a selection. Later, Pimentel repeated Petrovich's comment - "take as much time as you need" - but ultimately sided with his mentor Skip Davies to suggest the 60-day delay.
Unlike the four other council members during the October 5 meeting, Pimentel had no questions for Petrovich about his proposal. Coincidentally, Petrovich has also petitioned the city to annex 154 acres for a Gateway Center Phase Two project on Road 102. Without beating around the bush, Pimentel needs to recuse himself from this multiplex matter - and the matter of the annexation.
Did FOS contributions to Piminetel come in as an assortment of employee names and four different LLCs? Did other council member receive contributions in the same manner? Did the others receive contributions in the same amounts(~$4K, ~$7K if you include the owner of the Odd Fellows Building at Third and Main, over $10K if you include Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange)?
If you guys want to do a disservice to your buddy Art, then so be it. I can keep this issue in the headlines or on this blog as long as you want. There is still the Gateway II annexation coming along. That will be even more fun.
Stogies? Drinks? DC?
Hey 10:04... where's the beef?
I thought so.
Dino: What does a city councilmen make on a yearly basis? I understand that its less then $200. amonth if thats true why would someone raise that much money? In 4 years hes only makes 9600. dollars doesnt make much sense?
$200 times four years is $800.
The campaign contributions are for the election, not a salary. The question for you is, why would developers pay one candidate so much more than the others? Could it be related to getting projects done?
Must be pay back for projects
Post a Comment