Puller poor choice

Everything that is claimed will be negotiated to be done with the Puller Group Development originally was in Stonehenge's proposal.
Sandusky Register Staff
May 24, 2010

 

Everything that is claimed will be negotiated to be done with the Puller Group Development originally was in Stonehenge's proposal. The amphitheater, boardwalk connecting Madison Street to the development, open park space, ect. If that is what is desired for the development, why not choose the actual developer who originally proposed exactly such a development?

Instead, a developer with very questionable financials and capabilities to execute such a development was chosen. Why? The "time-share" condominiums in the Puller Proposal rely on their pre-sale for the equity needed to complete their proposed development. The residential condominiums portion of the Stonehenge Proposal does not. Stonehenge already has the financial capability for completion of the mixed-use development. How can statements of what will be developed be accurately made when they were not originally in the Puller proposal? Can we honestly expect these new "add-ons" to Puller's development to actually materialize when Puller has much weaker and questionable financials and Stonehenge does not?

It's claimed that 400 jobs will be created, some managerial. From 1983-87 I worked for Fortune Hotels, Inc., in St. Petersburg, Fla.., who owned Tradewinds (a 12.5 acre resort), Sandpiper Resorts, and Beachcomber Hotel, in a managerial position as supervisor of reservations for all three properties. That salary "topped-out" at $4.75 per hour. Let's jump ahead 20 years later. That salary would approximately be $9 per hour. Is that honestly a living wage? No.

Certain members of city council and administration owe it to our community to make this a winning situation for us all and future generations of Port Clinton -- not make it about "winning" for their personal satisfaction.

Randall G. Lipstraw

Port Clinton