I have been asked to meet with the Zagaroli's to discuss their side of the story related to the structure being built on Union Square. This meeting will take place early next week. They feel that Pseudonymous doesn't have all of the facts. It was conveyed to me that Zagaroli Construction is not the general contractor, Pete and Charlie Zagaroli were only the creative entity that made the design presentation to the city. There are many other details about the structure that they will expound on to help better understand what will be the final outcome. They feel that Pseudonymous and other bloggers should not jump to conclusions before knowing the facts and they want the public to fully understand this project.
The Zagaroli's do deserve to be heard and I am going to let them make their case in an objective manner. I have always said that what the Hound's objective is, when it comes to the issues that effect our community, is to get all sides of the story and let the public make an informed decision.
I do have questions to ask related to this and they won't be softballs, but I don't think any of us look at the Zagaroli's as bad guys in this issue. As has been stated here time and time again, it isn't about the project, it is about the process.
I am going into this discussion open minded. Maybe Pete and Charlie can give us some ideas about Union Square and Downtown that we haven't even thought of.
|
| Join To Get Blog Update Notices |
| Visit the Hickory Hound Group |
Friday, March 30, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I am glad that there will be a response coming from the Zagaroli's and I look forward to their info on this project.
The issue to me is the Council, specifically, the way they choose what they will do and what they ignore. This type of action stinks because a) the ongoing fixation on downtown when there are blighted areas of the City that need attention, b) the lack of cost/benefit analysis , c)no attempt to engage the public on what projects should be done and when to do them d)no competitive bidding process and e) I personally don't like the aesthetics of this project and don't feel this design is a compliment to Union Square.
The Zagaroli's input is welcome and may indeed provide welcome context to this project. The decision to proceed and the responsibility however is the Council's.
I've never thought that the Zagarolis were the impetus behind the Big Top. They may well have approached those in the know with an idea that suddenly went from concept to viable project with the stroke of a gavel. While later strokes condemned Larry Pope for saying anything about the matter. You're right guys, the Zararolis aren't the enemy in this issue. They might have, perhaps took advantage of an opportunity, but could not have perpetuated this without an extensive backdoor lobbying campaign. Their insight could prove to be enlightening.
The Zagaroli's deserve to be heard? sounds like were already on the defense without really being at fault.Zagaroli construction was not awarded this contract. Pete and I were hired to present a design idea. Zagaroli Construction was dissolved earlier this year and the bankruptcy posted is not even for Petes company. Our family name has been used inaccurately to promote negativity regarding a much larger issue out of our control. I'd say that it is personal. The sails are computer engineered and fabricated PVC under great tension attached to large steel poles. Most wont understand or maybe care about the complexity behind the structure. Love it or hate it. This is our side of the story. I did decline an interview by thom shell in regards to these posts and the process in which we got here.
thanks!
Charlie Zagaroli
Charlie,
I believe that people understand things that are explained to them, even when they are complex. That is imperative, when one engages in a public process. That helps win people over and get people on board. I appreciate you addressing the blog.
The people who have followed this blog understand this is not about the project, but about the process.
Now, I know I and others have called it a tent, canopy, awning... That may not fit with the way that others want to market it, but in the end it can be defined as such, even if it is using NASA type materials. I am sure that our descriptions are considered personal attacks by those who do not like our descriptions, but it is just a way to get a point across.
The real issue is the mysterious process that surrounded this project and that is what we are trying to get to the bottom of. You may feel that the process is out of your control, but it is the contention of many of the people in this community that these sorts of processes are having a negative effect on the overall well being of this community's governance and economics.
Some may disagree, but dialogue and communication of ideas is what this nation was founded on and that is our goal here; we aren't trying to have a witch trial. We wish you no ill will.
And Charlie, Thank You for engaging the Blog.
Discourse on issues of public concern is certainly imperative to the alternatives of information flowing down in a tyrannical dictatorial fashion. There is certainly no compulsory need for Charlie Zagaroli or his brother to speak with the owner of this blog on any issue. By not doing so however, we are left to the facts as they are known and from there draw reasonable inferences. Those inferences have been the basis of much of the commentary that has appeared on this blog and elsewhere with regard to this project.
Thom is very correct with regard to the fact that no one has a problem per se with the materials being used, the engineering behind the structure, nor the loads or stresses that it is capable of bearing or sustaining in my view. The incensing behind this project is the manner in which it was brought forth, not the poles, sails, or physical materials of.
I find it interesting that Zagaroli and Company was hired as a consultant in essence (my words) to “present a design idea.” I’ve read every word written about this matter thus far and I don’t recall there ever being mention of a RFP (Request For Proposal) released by the City of Hickory for a Shelter/Canopy/Structure concept for Union Square. I realize that I might have skipped over and not be recalling such a fact, if it does exist. I don’t at this time however remember it ever being mentioned, postulated, or stated as fact. So I’m now curious who did the hiring, when, and what extent was this project supposed to encompass, all details that would have been associated with a RFP, if one in fact existed.
I guess this is just one more of those silly little facts that the common folk of Hickory aren’t meant to understand, supposed to understand, or in the purview of some, capable of understanding. It would have been nice to have had those kinds of things addressed. So I sit and write in blissful contempt and defiance of ignorance.
Don't be fooled-the Hound loves to sling mud. He should as any honest and above board person,check out the stories before posting. Some don't even know they are slandered on this site. No reason to respond for real dialogue since there is only one opinion and that is Thoms. He is desperate for attention.
All blogs have detractors such as the one above. My purpose is not to sling mud. My purpose is to talk about the issues in this community.
I checked out the story and it's relevance and so I posted it. We still don't have all of the pieces about this process, but the relevant questions are:
1) Who initiated the discussion about this project?
2) When was the initial discussion initiated?
3) What was the dialogue with City administration? with City Council?
4) When the meeting occurred on the evening of December 20, 2011,
did the "developers" have any idea the presentation was going to become a done deal project by the end of the meeting?
Which leads to the biggest question. @Why wasn't this an open process?
-- Now, if any of those questions can be defined as slinging mud, then I guess we common folk are just supposed to never ask anything or try to think about how anything operates/occurs in our community.
People say why don't you ask the people involved. That is pretty hard to do when the people involved don't want to answer your questions.
In Hickory, Critical Thinking is a Crime.
.. and please point out where I have communicated anything slanderous (libelous) on this site.
Please give me direct references, because I certainly feel it is not true. I check my sources before I let anything move through this pipeline.
PLEASE GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!what is farmers market goingto do to our overall economy....i always went to these events regarless of the fact that 90%(just guessing)never farmed a plot on catawba county soil. $28000.00 could keep viable jobs here. those old tents were great.i have never read anything slanderous in this blog...
The city went with the Zag's because they are local just as the grading is done by Neil Grading. The 280k came from the parking deck fund and as for using it do develop and attract businesses you have to start with a strong center city. And Thom does sling mud. Monday morning quarterbacking is always easy to do as you have the benefit of hindsight, not so much when you are a leader trying to chart a path for what is best for this community.
So there is no one else locally who can pitch proposals and likewise no one else that does grading. And the bulk of the money spent went to… who was it again? Who made and where were the poles and the PVC sails developed and made? New Zealand was it? What “Monday morning quarterbacking” would that be? What hindsight would have been referenced?
It doesn’t take hindsight or mudslinging to see that the process of governance that made the decision is fractured and manipulated for the benefit of the few at the expense of the many. It doesn’t take a CPA or government finance officer to see that the use of money dedicated to one fund and being continually accessed to fund a myriad of small venture projects is at the least misleading and runs counter to the spirit and intent of the Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act, North Carolina General Statues, Chapter 159 et seq. with regard to how public money is used, the public debate that is supposed to ensue regarding the use of those funds, and above board transparency that is supposed to be the cornerstone of good and trustworthy government. However the use of a line item labeled for a specific purpose and containing funding for that purpose being used for anything and everything but does epitomize the reason that entire body of law was written and passed by the General Assembly in the first place.
Insofar as leadership is concerned, perhaps that is where the hindsight you speak of should be focused; the realization of what it is you’ve elected to public office. With regard to charting a course, first of all, you have to have some semblance of where you’re going and thus plan on how you’re going to get from point A to point B. As it is, the compass is spinning wildly and all the sails are out with the bow pointed in to the wind.
But you miss or perhaps more correctly ignore the point. It’s not the structure itself that is at issue per se. It was the process used to arrive at the decision. Now, perhaps in your mind, that is attributable to being a leader. First of all, when you aren’t spending your money, it’s a bit easier to be speculative with complete ambivalence to the end result. Second of all, when you’re elected, you must endeavor to always, Always, ALWAYS be a good steward of the public’s money and protect the public trust. Now, you can coat the messenger with mud all you please, cloud the issue, and do your best to re-direct the debate to something irrelevant and more to your liking, it doesn’t change the process that has brought this debacle to fruition.
If the democratic process had been followed and the same decision arrived at, that would have certainly removed the impetus of the dissent. Then it would have been a matter of aesthetics. You would either like it or not, upon the whim of personal taste.
Well at least we are getting somewhere. Let's see we have someone who calls me a Monday morning quarterback and mudslinger admitting that the "Parking Deck Fund" is being used for a purpose other than building a parking deck. So in essence, even if this person is saying that redirecting such funds towards other projects is okay, they are admitting that it is a slush fund.
And my response to the Monday Morning Quarterback thing is that I could care less what these people have done in the past. I only look to the past to obtain evidence. That evidence helps me see where we are at and where we are headed. The saying goes "In today walks tomorrow." I am looking at the future folks. I am looking at where empirical evidence shows us to be headed. I site examples and attempt to put missing pieces of puzzles together. And we have people that call that Monday Morning Quarterbacking. I'm talking about next Sunday folks. Learn from the last game to prepare for the next one. Put an end to the Good Ole Boy network so the rest of us stand a chance or watch Hickory wither, dry up and fade away.
As far as "Leadership" -- that's a good one. Great comedy. Whose following?
Post a Comment