Port Will Not Pursue PenPly for Money Owed
The Port of Port Angeles will not actively pursue Peninsula Plywood for the $1.6 million that the company owes the Port.
A Summary Judgment was issued by Clallam County Superior Court against Peninsula Plywood for breaching agreements concerning licensing, leasing and equipment rental on land owned by the Port. Port Attorney Dave Neupert said PenPly “does not appear to have assets available to apply toward that judgment.”
A Summary Judgment was issued by Clallam County Superior Court against Peninsula Plywood for breaching agreements concerning licensing, leasing and equipment rental on land owned by the Port. Port Attorney Dave Neupert said PenPly “does not appear to have assets available to apply toward that judgment.”
posted by Tom Harper at 1:21 AM
41 Comments:
Yep, just flush that money down the toilet.
Typical Port of Port Angeles, they go after those that are NOT in the "good ole boys club" and they don't go after those that ARE in the "good old boys club".
Whatever happened to insurance bonds?
Aw. c'mon. The millions of dollars of public money wasn't wasted. It produced some "family wage jobs" for --- how long? A little over a year?
Better to have given that money in equal chunks to the hundred or so workers and asked them to spend it locally. There'd still be quite a bit of it circulating out there still, I bet.
Not much point in wasting time going after something you're not going to get unless you want to waste more of the taxpayers money.
BBC - I hate to agree but you are right. It's sort of hit or miss around here though, with enforcement and collection. In an ideal world the debt could be divided by a thousand, sell it off in smaller chunks, to maybe 1,000 different debt collectors, and tell them who owes the money and give them phone numbers...LOL.
Whatever happened to insurance bonds?
11:51 AM, August 28, 2012
No kidding.
What kind of organization doesn't require insurance bonds for project proposals of any significance?
The Port and its' staff should be fired over this clearly obvious negligence of its' duty to the public trust.
Gotta love the daily teabag. Man dies impersonating bear in MT., that's breaking news on thier website. Major met. area, our literal "sister city" under seige by a hurricane - also disrupts travel all over the US in many ways, commerce (the ole Miss) and not a mention! Too many dems there? Should they all dress up in bear suits?
As I recall, the only member of the city council who was opposed to pouring money down this sinkhole was Max Mania. He's always been pretty right on with his views about what's gonna happen. So naturally the rest of the council are now trying to railroad him into some bullshit "ethics detention" over nothing. Anything to shut down the one honest, intelligent voice in city hall. Great.
"Anything to shut down the one honest, intelligent voice in city hall. Great."
And people wonder why Port Angeles never moves forward?
Mania opposes everything, which makes his opinion irrelevant and in no way objective.
Downie supports everything, which makes his opinion irrelevant and in no way objective.
Kidd supports everything, which makes her opinion irrelevant and in no way objective.
Or maybe, just maybe, it's not quite as simple as all that...
Anon 1:27PM, you are a simpleton
"Mania opposes everything, which makes his opinion irrelevant and in no way objective."
How is this statement supposed to be taken seriously?
I don't care whether it is applied to Max Mania, or anyone else.
Even if Mr. Mania did oppose everything, if he posed rational, factually supported arguments for his opposition, how could anyone say his opinions were either irrelevant or not objective?
Oh, sorry. I forgot that the Republican Convention is being held, and therefore we are all supposed to engage in stupid rhetoric.
11:45 PM, August 29, 2012
Oh, sorry. I forgot that the Republican Convention is being held, and therefore we are all supposed to engage in stupid rhetoric.
Nope, we should all vote for Obama and spend our way into oblivion? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Nope, we should all vote for Obama and spend our way into oblivion? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
6:08 AM, August 30, 2012
Oh, sorry. I forgot that the Republican Convention is being held, and therefore we are all supposed to engage in stupid rhetoric.
"Nope, we should all vote for Obama and spend our way into oblivion? Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice shame on me."
Oh, you mean like the Port of Port Angeles and Port Angeles City Council, made up predominantly of conservative Republicans, who spent and lost millions of taxpayer funds on HarborWorks and Pen Ply?
You mean these "fiscal conservatives" who made such wise deals such as Pen Ply, based upon their "business experience", and somehow forgot to require the insurance bonds normally required in commercial lease agreements?
You mean the "fiscal conservative" like Republican George Bush, who was able to spend so many billions of taxpayer funds during his days in office, that he took the country from a budget suplus, to the huge debts that Obama inherited?
Yeah, " fool me once.." This applies to the crap the Republicans keep telling the voters.
9:49 am
Obama may have inherited some debt, but he nearly doubled it and created no jobs, not to mention he has no plans to fix things. He's been the worst president in history, and i can see NO reason to give him 4 more years.
"Obama may have inherited some debt, but he nearly doubled it and created no jobs, not to mention he has no plans to fix things."
Obviously you believe anything the RNC and its' mouthpieces say, and cannot even remember the history/reality you yourself, along with the rest of the world, has experienced! Wow!
"Obama may have inherited some debt.." Ya THINK!!!
You (and the RNC)conveniently overlook the the numbers. The scale of the spending binge Republican George Bush went on that ate up the huge SURPLUS Democrat Bill Clinton left the country with.
You think Obama is so terrible for having to pay the bills George Bush left us all with? Add them up! You tell me how many billions George Bush spent and obligated us all to during his presidency. " .. some debt" does not even come close.
Obama is not perfect, but if you are going to bring up the "debt" topic, then you also have to be prepared to acknowledge he came into office with the historic economic challenges and debt the Bush administration created.
From historic surplus to historic debt, all in eight years under the Republican "leadership".
anon 10:50
Are you serious? George Bush increased the national debt in 8 years $2.5 trillion mostly fighting wars in Afghanistan and Irag, remember the guys who flew jets into USA properties?
In 4 years Obama has increased the national debt $6 trillion.
Oh by the way, when Clinton left office the national Debt was $7 trillion, al biet he did reduce it, good for him.
What's Obama waiting for???
Anon @11:18 and her/his follow-up posts did a real good job of hi-jack.
May cherie kidd, brooke nelson, robb jeff et al be the first to reap what they have sown.
anon 10:50 says:
"Are you serious? George Bush increased the national debt in 8 years $2.5 trillion mostly fighting wars in Afghanistan and Irag, remember the guys who flew jets into USA properties?"
Oh, we're going to return to this, which you avoided last time.
As I asked before, what exactly did leader Saddam Hussien of Iraq have to do with the Sept.11th attacks? What did Iraq do, connected to the Sept.11th attacks, that justifies the US spending billions waging years of war there? You bring this up, so you need to answer this. (Of course, I'm not holding my breath!)
But, back to the surplus/debt topic.
From Bloomberg Financial News:
"President Bill Clinton left office in 2001 with a federal budget surplus of $127 billion. President George Bush ran a deficit of $319 billion in 2005.
Since taking office, Bush pushed through tax cuts totaling $1.85 trillion and raised government spending 23 percent in his first four years in office to $2.29 trillion.
Discretionary spending under Bush rose from $649.3 billion in 2001 to $895 billion in 2004, CBO figures show.
After the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. invaded Afghanistan and later Iraq. Defense spending rose 48 percent to $454 billion in 2004, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.
After reaching a record in 2004, the deficit fell by $94 billion in the budget year that ended Sept. 30 as tax receipts soared.
``The president has disappointed many of his supporters by failing to rein in spending,'' Lucier said."
And, that article was from 2005. The famous financial meltdown of 2008, which happened during the Bush administrations' leadership, hadn't happened yet.
Bush completely wrecks the country in 8 years, (remember McCain suspending his campaign for the presidency to push the "bail-out" through Congress?), and you criticize Obama for not fixing it all in less than 4 years?
Are you serious?
Anon 11:41am
All a fraction of the $6 trillion Obama has spent in his first term.
Stop looking backwards,
Also, don't forget congress and NATO approved the liberation of Iraq. I don't agree that we should have funded it, but it was a small fraction of what Obama has spent.
Just because Bush sucked doesn't mean Obama doesn't as well. And it looks like Romney is set to repeat all of the mistakes Bush made. America, here's your handbasket...
"All a fraction of the $6 trillion Obama has spent in his first term.
Stop looking backwards,
Also, don't forget congress and NATO approved the liberation of Iraq. I don't agree that we should have funded it, but it was a small fraction of what Obama has spent.
7:12 AM, September 02, 2012"
So, you can't understand that Obama has had to spend money to cover the bills Bush obligated us to?
The debt was $10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office.
How do you figure those trillions were going to get paid down?
As to ".. don't forget congress and NATO approved the liberation of Iraq." It seems you forget the extent to which Bush and his administration worked to get that "coalition of the willing". Should I provide details of what the Bush Administration did to get those "approvals"?
" Stop looking backwards.." Hunh? What kind of childish nonsense is this? We should just stick our heads in the sand, forget what those who wish to positions of leadership and influence have done, and just hope for the best?
Anon 10:58
Haha, you think Obama spent 6 trillion to pay down Bush and all previous presidents 10 trillion, yet the debt is now 16 trillion? You need to go back to 2nd grade dumb ass
Anon 7:27 Sez : "Haha, you think Obama spent 6 trillion to pay down Bush and all previous presidents 10 trillion.."
Oh, excuse me, oh Bright One. Might I direct your Great Intelligence to the following:
The FACTS are that Bush inherited ".. a federal budget surplus of $127 billion." He left office after generating numerous "record" deficits, with "$10.626 trillion on the day Mr. Obama took office."
There were no ".. all previous presidents.." to generate that $10.6 trillion deficit. Just Republican George Bush.
Dumb ass..?!
And, how do you think that bill was going to get paid? Ya ordered that huge gun to blow those nasty terrorists away, and now you have to pay the bill. Right? Or, are you gonna stiff Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Haliburton?
These types love the rah-rah, but never seem to want to pay the bills it takes to play that game.
Anon 11:20
Clinton's $127 Billion Budget Surplus has nothing to do with the national debt other than he paid it down a little during his 8 year term. The national debt was still $7 trillion when Clinton left office and just under $10 trillion when Bush left. Now it's $16 trillion, get it? $16 trillion (now) - $10 trillion (when Obama took office)= $6 trillion (new debt).
FACT
http://zfacts.com/p/318.html
Interesting to see how the national debt always climbs under the Republican Administrations, historically!
Thanks, Anon 11:19
anon 10:42
That's why we need a business man or women.
the Republicans used to be known as financial conservatives, and Democrats added many social programs in their watch. Now there is NO DIFFERENCE. The difference between the Republicans/Democrats? They both drink from the same income streams. We keep fighting amongst ourselves like there is a difference. There isn't, not really, not in the bills being passed, not in the debt, not in the erosion of our civil rights, consumer protection, wages, and buying power. Vote out all incumbents, but who gives a damn about the President...that is a figurehead, and no matter who is in office, the corporate heads will pull the strings to make "our" president dance.
Economy is getting worse. That 16trillion debt will double with the coming depression. Hold onto your hats, it's going to be a wild ride.
I'm not following your logic.
Where were the business folks to stop the financial meltdown? Didn't the business folks at Enron happily screw the general public for their own profit?
And, isn't the Republican Party the party supported most by business, and that most represents business interests?
So, if that graph shows that the national debt has grown mostly during Republican administrations, and the Republicans represent business interests, why should we believe that we need "a business man or women" for national leadership positions?
Seems that history would warn us to the contrary.
@Anon 10:13
I do agree there is little difference. They all are a big waste of time.
lest not forget, Obama said if he could not improve the economy in 3 1/2 years he'd likely be a one term president.
So, we think Romney is a better choice of the two? Based upon what, exactly? Because Obama could not solve (literally) the worlds' economic problems in 3 1/2 years? You have heard of the economic problems in Greece, Spain, etc, right?
anon 11:41pm
those European countries are broke because over 50% of their people receive some kind of government welfare, they have taxed the other 50% some much that there is not enough money to go around and it's irreversible in any election.
this is exactly what the Obama administration is drive the USA towards and it spell disaster.
Now we know where all those sirens were going yesterday...NO WHERE. Thanks PDN for all the updates! Not!
So, today, no sirens. Nothing. Can you guys at least get the uninsured motorists off the streets? Turn off your Ipods(tm) coppers, you can tell who they are because they don't have mufflers.
This county is a haven for criminals, because those in government here are hell bent on making government seem ineffective. Destroy our local governments....only because they think that's what the big companies want.
The problem for the US is that it needs the other countries to buy it's goods and services. If they are broke, they can't buy from us. If we don't get money, there is no "recovery", no matter what is done within the borders of the US.
Why was the 2008 economic meltdown "global"? Because countries can control everything within their borders? The US financial corporations and all those business leaders fell victim to the European welfare states?
I notice the Asian countries are forecasting continuing declines in THEIR economies for the next couple of years.
Good luck to ANY poor schmuck that bothers to run for the US presidency. No matter what they promise, the big picture issues are far beyond anything they can have any influence on.
hold onto your hats. The economy is still going to crash, no matter whom gets in office. We're in for a rough ride, no matter what. Why? Because it's a cycle. Can't stop economic cycles any more than you can stop weather and wind. The government could have mitigated the problems, but they took off all controls on financial institutions, and those guys went hog wild. We're taxing the small and middle businesses to death, and way, way WAY over regulating them (because big corporations want that. They drafted the bills). Our economy can't bounce back without little businesses, multitudes of them, hiring a couple of people here and there. We're screwed. Face it.
Post a Comment
<< Home