Friday, May 6, 2011

Letter To The Editor

Dear Editor,

I would like to clarify a few things for the anonymous poster who is a constant fountain of negativity.

Proposed New PD Building:
      Assessed value of the proposed new PD building:  $425,000.00 (from MD DAT website)
    Everyone knows that assessed values are considerably lower than actual market values and that commercial property has not declined as much in value as has residential property.
      This building last sold for $560,000.00 in 2009 (from MD DAT website)
    The proposed purchase price is $532,500.00, not $700,000.00 or $750,000.00 as posted by  “Anonymous the negative”.  We are proposing to borrow the additional money via a line of credit to facilitate remodeling that will be needed to make the building a functional police station.
    The building is currently fully insulated and the insulation is in good condition.  The previous proprietor took very good care of the building and overall it is in excellent condition.  We know this because council members, the city manager, the police chief and the current and former mayor examined this building extensively, prior to starting our discussion regarding the acquisition of the property late last fall.  During remodeling, additional improvements will be made to enhance energy efficiency.  Has “anonymous the negative” ever inspected the building?
    There is about one-half acre of additional parking in the compound behind the building.
Most of the above information was either available in the public records or was made public at the last council meeting.  As I mentioned in a previous post, there were no negative comments at that meeting.  Furthermore, every citizen that I have spoken with regarding this issue thinks it is a good idea and that it was about time we got the PD out of their substandard facility on Second St.

Cameras:
I know this is off the original thread of the conversation but I checked on this issue with Mr. Blake, when it was first raised last year.   Several cameras have been out of service at different times since installation, but only for a few days at a time.  One and only one camera was out of service for about a month due to issues with the contractor.  Mr. Blake finally advised the contractor that if they could not get any and all malfunctioning cameras back online within 48 hours, then we would find another contractor who could.  Since that time (which was last year) we have not had any further problems with extended outages.

Cameras are not turned off except when they are being serviced by the contractor.  It should also be pointed out that the cameras have been instrumental in solving several crimes and also saved the city from a lawsuit when a citizen erroneously reported that their car had been in a collision with a city vehicle.  A review of the camera data revealed that the accident was caused by a vehicle that was not owned by the city.

Just as a follow-up on this, I am going to check with the Chief to find out what the reliability percentage is for our cameras and how often they are serviced.

In the future, to save your readers time and to save space on your blog, I will not respond to posts that start out with opening lines such as “Have you heard…..” or “It has been reported that….”.  If readers wish to cite sources of information or offer proof, I will look into their concern, but I am not going to waste time on rumors, half-truths and innuendo.

Thank you for your consideration in these matters.
Sincerely,
Rob Clarke
Councilman, Dist. 5

13 comments:

  1. Anonymous1:25:00 PM

    Have you heard it has been reported that Mr. Clarke is very good at responding to the issues posed by the citizens. :)

    Thanks for your time, even if it was to take on a naysayer. Your posts are appreciated!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Anonymous4:20:00 PM

    There isn't anything nor anyone that is going to convince me, that this wasn't the best thing for the city to do.
    I believe the city got a great building at a very reasonable price.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous5:06:00 PM

    It appears as though the city is going to be able to purchase the building for less than the seller was able to back in 09.
    Oh my and here I thought the seller was going to make a kings ransom off of the property because some city official's relative has/have or had worked there or had dinner with the owner or told them God Bless You once after sneezing in Walmart!
    To Anon the Negative-Did you really walk around counting parking spaces? Try not being so cynical. I'm sure Councilman Clarke isn't going to go on the record to state something he hasn't checked into himself. I am also sure if he does state something that turns out to be incorrect he will be the first one to correct himself.
    I've had dealing with Councilman Clarke not in his capacity as councilman but with his job at the DNR and I can't say enough about him. I found him to be knowledgable and proficient. He does him homework. It was upsetting to me to see someone doubting his word in such a harsh way especially since he had gone above his duty and had taken the time to explain the reasoning behind this purchase.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thank you everyone for the kind words of support. How refreshing to read these comments this evening.

    Oh yeah, to Anon. 1:25, very cute, LOL.

    Rob

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous8:46:00 PM

    Thank You Councilman Clarke for keeping us informed.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous11:47:00 PM

    Councilman Clarke,

    Let me help with with sources-$700,000.00 was posted in Delmarvanow article written by Mr. Kerbin.

    As for cameras, these were actually reported on at several meetings and questioned by residents which Council rarely attended.

    As for calling people 'negative', don't shoot people down for asking questions. It is not appealing. Don't become one of those who call everyone 'Burkes' if they simply are asking questions.

    Gosh what does that say if leaders can't handle questions.

    Maybe we should be asking more.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Anonymous1:13:00 AM

    Please make note that Councilman Clarke, in his Letter To the Editor, has cleared the matter of
    purchase price for the new police station. In fact he has very nicely cleared any concerns and answered
    all questions concerning any of the issues you again mention in your comment. I suggest you reread what he has written.

    And please take note that quite a few are enjoying the fact that word concerning Pocomoke business is getting out to the people. You seem to have a problem with that. What yu are doing is not appealing.

    I don't know what else you could grumble about.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous9:59:00 AM

    11:47 Re-read Bill Kerbin's article. It says $700,000.00 is the amount of the loan, not the purchase price. If you are going to cite a source at least do it correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous10:09:00 AM

    Taking it one step further 9:59, Bill Kerbin's article states the loan is not only for the purchase of the building but also for the interior renovations. It may even end up costing more, but if the city can get this accomplished somewhere around the 1mil mark, most residents should be satisfied.
    I believe someone said it cost Fruitland 2mil for their new police department.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anonymous1:07:00 PM

    To add to 10:09's response.. Rob even says it, "We are proposing to borrow the additional money via a line of credit to facilitate remodeling that will be needed to make the building a functional police station."

    Can we bring back comment moderation? Please?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous9:23:00 PM

    No proposal given to the pocomoke folks?

    Kudos to Clarke for answering questions.

    What a wonderful thing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous12:34:00 AM

    Am we still permitted to ask questions here?

    How come Clarke is having to do this?

    Why hasn't the Mayor spoken?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Anonymous12:39:00 AM

    If it is true, what you quote Blake as saying about cameras, did why didn't the Chief and MLS know this?

    They reported for months some weren't working.

    So who is telling the truth?

    ReplyDelete

All comments are the sole responsibility of the poster