According to members of council, the citizens of Port Clinton will be compensated less than $500,000 a year for the park and waterfront. We will only get that much if the water park does as well as Puller's projections suggest. The park's target occupancy is 68 percent year round. If occupancy drops to 61 percent, the city will earn only $290,000. At 52 percent occupancy, well within the realm of possibility, the city gets virtually NO money at all.
According to the book "Buying of the Presidency 1996" by Charles Lewis and the web site "http://thekomisarscoop.com, Ken Puller has a checkered financial past with bankrupted projects and tens of millions in defaulted HUD loans. Council is trusting Puller with our most valued property for a waterpark which will be smaller than other parks, have fewer amenities, and would half its visitors to park off site and be shuttled to the facilities. Even if fully successful, the Puller project does not provide money to fix our roads and infrastructure or revitalize our downtown. Weren't these the main reasons council wanted to develop the park?
The city will need millions of dollars in loans to upgrade the park for development. If the Puller project is not fully successful, Port Clinton will get stuck with the bill.
To date no one on council has proven in any open meeting why the water park is a better development than other options.
It is acceptable to oppose a bad development and support a zoning change in a future. It is the job of city government and the council to bring you projects you can support by proving them to be in your best interest.
Vote against zoning in November.
Port Clinton City Council