[Peace-discuss] Re: [Discuss] Fwd: some real facts on the proposed clock tower

[Barbara kessel]

I totally agree and I am glad that you will be there tonight. Several others
are coming to speak about the jails, the mental health services in the
county and lack of space and services for the homeless in our county - all
of which stand to increase pressure for services in a coming "recession."
Barbara K

On Jan 24, 2008 3:57 PM, Danielle Chynoweth <chyn at ojctech.com> wrote:

> *My* source of information about clock tower renovations and their price
> is the News Gazette.  I do not see the article online - only a fraction are
> posted - so I will have to dig up the article from home.
>
> I don't understand the connection between the email sent by Pius/Jenny and
> any decision not to question the funding priorities of this project.
>
> The email confirms that millions of public monies are going into
> renovations - and I don't yet see the justification, or the reason this is
> being prioritized over the crisis in the Public Defenders office or other
> priorities.
>
> I wrote a letter to all county board members about this and intend to
> attend tonight's meeting.
>
> - Danielle
>
>
> From: Belden Fields <a-fields at uiuc.edu>
> >
> > Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 10:00:23 -0600
> > To: AWARE peace <peace at lists.chambana.net>, ucimc.print.final at gmail.com
> > Cc: SFcore at mail.chambana.net
> > Subject: [Peace] some real facts on th proposed clock tower
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Folks,
> >
> > Because we had been given some incorrect information on the cost and
> > the stipulations for expenditures for the clock tower, I am sending
> > this info I just got from my representative on the county board,
> > Jenny Putman.  Given what I know now, I am less inclined to ask for
> > diversion of these funds for purposes other than legal ones.  People
> > who were going to speak for more public defenders, free nurse
> > consultations for inmates, etc. can march ahead with that if they
> > wish.  But I can't ask for this money to be diverted to the nursing
> > home.
> >
> > Please spread these facts as widely as possible.
> >
> > We should also try to find out how the $7.2 million figure got spread
> > around.  If Jenny is right, and I have no reason to believe that she
> > is not since she serves on the facilities committee, that was a huge
> > exaggeration.  I'm not looking for scapegoats,  but we need to find
> > out how this happened so that we don't mobilize people around false
> > info. in the future.  I apologize to all those to whom I cited that
> > figure.
> >
> > Belden
> >
> >
> >
> > Begin forwarded message:
> >
> > From: Jenny Putman <jenny-p at sbcglobal.net >
> > Date: January 24, 2008 6:21:30 AM CST
> > To: Belden Fields <a-fields at uiuc.edu>
> > Subject: [ Fwd: Upcoming County Board Mtg. Jan. 24]]
> >
> >
> > Hi Belden,
> >
> > This memo from Pius should give you additional background on the
> > courthouse project.
> >
> > More soon,
> > jenny
> > 398-2060 (Work #, where I have no Ext, but can be paged)
> >
> >
> >
> > From: "Pius Weibel" < cweibel at co.champaign.il.us>
> > Date: January 22, 2008 3:06:45 PM CST
> > To: "Jenny Putman" <jenny-p at sbcglobal.net>, "Thomas Betz" <
> > tbetz_legalguy at yahoo.com >, "Ralph Langenheim" <rlangenh at hotmail.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Fwd: Fwd: Upcoming County Board Mtg. Jan. 24]
> >
> >
> > Jenny  and everyone,
> > In response on my part to reading
> > "The vote will decide whether to approve an estimated $7.2 million
> > dollar expenditure from our taxes to restore the clock tower at the
> > Champaign County Courthouse.",
> > I went back and looked at the numbers.
> >
> >
> > Here is the breakdown, with some rounding of numbers:
> > Courthouse rehab:  2.92 mil
> > Tower rehab:       2.68 mil
> > Tower extension:   1.21 mil  private funds
> > Total:                6.81 mil
> >
> >
> > If the concern is about restoration about the clock tower using public
> > funds, the amount is 2.68 mil.  The Board did vote on a more expensive
> > version for the clock tower which was estimated to be about 800K more then
> > the Option 4, which we selected.   Assuming that we want to want to rehab
> > the courthouse exterior, the argument should be about spending the extra
> > 800K or so.  I voted for it because it I believe that this version would
> > last longer than any of the other options before the next round of rehab
> > takes place.
> >
> >
> > Pius
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Discuss mailing list
> > Discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
> >
> > http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-communitycourtwatch.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Support Urbana Parks - Vote Yes in February 5th Primary!
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.communitycourtwatch.org
>
> http://lists.communitycourtwatch.org/listinfo.cgi/discuss-communitycourtwatch.org
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080124/579ebf22/attachment.htm