Sunday, September 6, 2009
"Vengeance is mine," sayeth the mayor?
A reliable source informs me that St. Marys Mayor Rowland Eskridge recently called a special meeting of the St. Marys Finance Committee (Deloughy, Trader, Johnson). The mayor urged the committee to immediately withdraw all city-owned certificates of deposit from the Satilla Bank - interest penalties be damned. In the furtherance of that request, Mayor Eskridge, who was present at the called meeting, informed the committee that the Camden County Board of Education had earlier that day withdrawn all of its funds from Satilla for fear that the feds would freeze all funds and they would not be able to make payroll. To the mayors obvious displeasure, the committee refused to act precipitously without further investigation into the matter. Investigation by my informant not only revealed that the school board had taken no such action, but that Satilla Bank is in the process of filing a law suit to recoup a $250,000 loan to Mayor Eskridge (or his business) which has gone into default because of the downturn in real estate. The mayor owns and operates a real estate appraisal practice. An attempted abuse of his office to wage a personal vendetta? I report: you decide.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
43 comments:
Jay I heard about this.....
But I was also told the School Board WOULD be pulling their money out due to fear of the Feds taking over Satilla. Not sure who is right, but I do believe anyone that has money there should withdraw because I hear the Feds are coming and you will not be able to retrieve your funds once they do.
The Board members are trying to keep a lid on this as long as they can. DeLoughy and Trader will do whats in the best interest of Charlie Smith/Gary Willis/Satilla Bank. I hope the taxpayers of St. Marys don't suffer another financial blow due to people playing politics.
No, it is clear to me that by not doing what the mayor wanted, Deloughy, Trader, and Johnson did what was in the interest of the taxpayers of the City of St. Marys
(assuming that the city has no more than $250,000 on deposit at Satilla). Should the bank actually fail (it hasn't), all depositors will be protected byt he FDIC for amounts on deposit up to $250,000.
There was no need fpor the city to incurr huge interest penalties for early withdrawal.
Could you tell us who - by name - told you tha the BOE would be pulling their money out? Remember, the mayor told the committee that they already had that day. That turned out not to be true.
How do you personally know what the board of Satilla is doing?
There is no need to start a run on a bank which is FDIC insured, unless for some reason you want to cause financial harm to the bank's investors.
Thats why I said "I heard."
Someone told me about this and it sounded similiar to what you were saying, so I repeated to you the version I heard. IF the bank is indeed in jeopardy and the City/BOE have more than the protected amount in the bank it could pose a problem.
I guess this all depends on how close to the line one wants to play. But should there be a gamble of the magnitude with taxpayers money.
For deposits of $250,000 or less in an FDIC insured bank, there is no risk. I'm sure that the governments of this county have their funds well spread around for that very reason - not to mention the fairness thing.
I don't know if its true that the BOE has it payroll account with this bank.
Lets just say they do.
IF this bank is indeed in jeopardy. Do you think they should leave that account with this bank if the amount is in excess of 250,000.
What would you recommend?
Jay,
Is "Satilla Bank is in the process of filing a law suit to recoup a $250,000 loan to Mayor Eskridge (or his business) which has gone into default because of the downturn in real estate" another way of saying that the mortgage loan on Mr. Eskridge's business property on Osborne Road is under forecloseure?
RE: BOE payroll account: I would hope that their chief fiscal officer is on top of that. I would be very surprised if the BOE kept any funds (i.e., CD's) in any one bank in excess of $250,000. I would assume that sufficinet funds are transferred into the payroll account (at one bank) every payday to cover checks.
I would not take any funds under $250,000 out of Satilla. Why stomp them when they're down. They've made mistakes but they've also made executive changes and are working on their deficiencies. And no, I don't own any stock in the bank.
RE: Mayor's debt: That could very well be. I also understand that he has "lost" his office and is now working out of his home.
RE: Mayor's debt: That could very well be. I also understand that he has "lost" his office and is now working out of his home.
So describing the foreclosure as
a suit to recover a $250,000 loan could be viewed as a journalistic play on words designed to cast Mr. Eskridge in the worst possible light when, in fact, he is just another business owner who went under due to the financial crisis. That being the case, the argument that he is acting vengefully fades significantly. But it is possible; the jury is still out.
Well, yuo could see it that way, especially if you like the mayor, are a political supporter, and hate my guts. However, the truth of the matter is that I stated it just exactly the way my source told it to me. If it is technically a "foreclosure" vice a suit, so be it.
As to the vengeance motive: whether or not to call the loan was a decision which had to be taken by someone in the bank. Whether or not to tell the financne committee a falsehood regarding the BOE having withdrawn all of their funds that very day was clearly a decision taken by the mayor.
As I wrote: "I report: you decide."
Jay,
I notice that you think that it is OK to state "I stated it just exactly the way my source told it to me." and to base your reporting unquestioningly on that source. However you condemn Mr. Eskridge, who was reportedly relying on information passed second-hand to him, by stating, "Whether or not to tell the financne committee a falsehood regarding the BOE having withdrawn all of their funds that very day was clearly a decision taken by the mayor."
I do not support the mayor, I neither agree or disagree with him in all matters, and I do not hate your guts. I simply think that you are one of the most interesting people on the local blogs to debate issues with. Don't let it go to your head.
My source has been a totally reliable source on many, many occassions for 15 + years.
Re: "going to my head," oh, why not?!
Throw this into the mix and cogitate upon it. It turns out that when the mayor, Councilman Deloughy,and the city manager had that meeting with the Sea Island attorney - the one that the mayor recorded - the mayor was the ONLY one in the room who knew the conversation was being recorded. He had a micro-recorder hidden, presumably in his inside suit pocket. You will recall that he later sprung select excerpts of it on his opponents - the supporters of closing the airport - during a city council meeting.
Are we seeing a pattern here?
Would you rather have "the supporters of closing the airport" continue with these backroom shennigans?
Seems to me from all that has been written on this thread Eskridge just maybe the thrown in the side of the group trying to give St. Marys to Sea Island.
He just maybe a keeper, is what I have gathered thus far.
At first, it made no sense to me either.
In the second paragraph, replace "thrown" with "thorn."
Jay,
OK, lets toss it into the mix. But lets get the facts straight. First, I don't really know if the mayor was the only one who knew he was recording the meeting or not. It was my understanding that all knew, but I won't stake anything on it, either way. But, it was 3 public officials conducting city business and therefore it should be public knowledge unless it involved attorney-client privilege. I am very glad it was recorded. That meant that all interested parties could know exactly what was said on our behalf. This is a concept that evidently runs counter to what some of our officials see as accepted practice.
I do know for a fact that the mayor did not "spring select excerpts of it on his opponents".
He gave the tape to the city clerk with orders to transcribe it verbatim so that there could be no doubt of what was said. He then made the entire transcript available. In fact, Mr. Feller published it in its entirety on his blog. He, I assume, got it the same way I did. I simply called the city clerk and requested it.
To the best of my knowledge, a copy was sent to each council member.
I give Mayor Eskridge credit for, in this instance, operating in the light of full public disclosure. I wish the rest of the city council would follow suit.
Mr. Shanahan values his job too much to comment, but ask Deloughy (who is not my source, but was there).
Jay,
Let's see; we can't question Mr. Shanahan, Mr. Delou8ghy is not your source, and since you are accusing Mr. Eskridge, I presume that you didn't get the information from him. The only other person at that meeting was Mr. Gilbert representing Sea Island.
I can't draw any conclusions or make any accusations based on only these few facts. As you said in your first post, I'll just present the information; everyone can draw their own conclusion.
So, ask Mr. Gilbert. Or ask Deloughy - his not being my source does not mean his lips are sealed. Better yet, re-read the transcript with an eye towards assesing from the statements made by the participants who did and did not know they were being recorded.
Jay,
And your point is----?
As I said, I don't really care if they knew they were being recorded or not. I am just plain fed up with clandestine, secret meetings and public officials who refuse to tell us what exactly what they are doing in our name.
So, what exactly is your position on the airport?
"Politics" position would be: I know the question was'nt directed to me.
If it's St. Marys airport and they would like for it to continue to be St. Marys airport, keep it in St. Marys.
If they have decided they no longer want a airport. CLOSED the current airport down, then sell the land to a developer, to create jobs and tax revenue in St. Marys.
Rowland has a good understanding of St. Marys, the residents and problems that we face. The very fact that he is also a victim of this economic down turn gives him a sense of what many are going through. He has had to battle special interest groups and those sitting on the council who have been pawns for such groups. What we need is a coucil composed of representatives of the voters and not agents of special interest groups. I look forward to being able to vote and support Rowland and to get into office a resposible group of representatives. I do not understand Jay's fascination with Hase. He certainly sees something many others do not.
I agree that the airport should bee closed, whether we (i.e., Camdenians) have an airport we can call out own or not.
Imagine, if you wil, that the airport property was an old dairy farm no longer in use and lying fallow. The sole surviving heir has jut died and willed that same property now occupied by the airport to the city.
Now, there come before city council two competing ideas for what to do with it.
One is to sell it for $10,000,000
to a private developer who has already drawn up plans to build a combination of 500 slightly above median priced homes and a retail and professional area, all with ample green space. The estimated retail value of the project, at todays prices, is $2 Billion dollars with estimated annual tax reveneus of nearly $27 million.
Moreover, it will generate construction jobs followed by ongoing jobs in the retail and professional businesses. We'll call that "Option A".
Option B is that the federal goverment will come in and build us an airport - at no cost - which will allow some 2 dozen private hobbyists to keep their small pleasure planes homebased a little closer to their homes than the several other already available general aviation airports nearby. There will be a few months of work paving runways and throwing up hangars. Thereafter, maybe half a dozen jobs, tops. Oh, and by the way, there will be absolutely no tax revenues from the property whatsoever as compared to $27 million for Option A. In fact, it will actually cost the city money to maintian it.
If the two options were put to a referendum, honestly, which would you vote for?
A guy standing on the street corner with a sign reading "Will work for food" also no doubt has some grasp of the consequences of the economic downturn, but his victimhood does not necesssarily commend him to me as mayoral material more than the next guy.
I have no particualr "fascination:" with Deborah Hase. She happens to be the only memeber of council I know personally. She and husband Ken have been friends for years. I think where I may differ from some of you is that I'm not a misogynist and I'm not intimidated by intelligent, assertive women.
I expanded on Hase and her being a Realtor because of "the four," she is the only one whose legitimate pecuniary pursuit - real estate sales - is known to me.
I'm still waitng on someone to explain to me how she or any of the four are being enriched - or stand to be enriched - by the closing of the airport and the sale of the property to a developer? Asssuming none of them are dishonest or stupid enought to accept an outright cash bribe,how will they go about it. What about their civilain, non-elected occupations would facilitate the untraceable transfer of wealth to them in exchange for their votes?
Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that any one of the electyed officials took the personal intiative to go out and successfully recruit a manufacturer to St. marys or Camden that would replace every lost job from Durango plus some at higher wages, would some of you move to block the industry coming here for fear that that official. mifght say, get a job with them. Alas, a I believe that many of you would.
For those who don't know the expression "dog-in-the-manger," it relates to a dog who could not eat hay but would jelously sit atop the manger growling and snarling to keep any of the animals who could from getting any.
Option A if implemented as stated!!
Thank you!
Now, would some of you who are out there saying, "Option B, you S.O.B!," could you tell us, A, why you chose Option B in the imagined scenario presented, and B, why would you choose Option, B, or its equavalent - maintaining the status quo - in the real situation.
That was not a rhetorical question. I am truly mystified as to how rational human beings who do not own a plane or an airport business could possibly not see the overwhelming advantages of closing it down and selling it. Please, someone enlighten me.
By the way, this might be a good time and place to educate some and remind others that by outr city charter in St. Marys, we have a "weak mayor / city manager" form of government. Under that set up, the mayor acts only as a moderator or facilitator of the council meetings, upholding Robert's Rules of Order. He has no vote except in the case of a tie. It is ENTIRELY APPROPRIATE for the councilmen to be the ones to introduce and orate in favor of legislative intiatives - not the mayor.
If you want a "strong mayor / weak council" form, you should move to Kingsland where their charter provides for that.
the only problem i see with "A" is the cost would be 31,000,000 not 10,000,000
now who would spend 31,000,000 to gain 27,000,000? ON A DREAM.
if so i'll start with 5,000 today and you you give back 7,000.
The only problem that I see with your terse statement, which you no doubt consider a masterfully devastating stroke, is that it is in fact a bit of inatentive idiocy.
Nopwhere in my sceneario did I mention the rebuilding of an airport for the $31,000,000 I assume you are referring to. That $10,000,000 is what the city would sell the existing airport for.
Even if the FAA will not relent and demands that the $10,000,000 slae price revert back to them, my scenario is pretty damend good for the city even minus the paltry one time sum of $10,000,000 (paltry compared to the tax revenue stream in perpetuity).
Truthfully, did you really misunderstand, or were simply trying to baffle the uninformed with deceptive bullshit?
I don't vote for option A. We don't need any more houses and commercial property is about to tank. We need jobs in the form of industry.
Oh great!! Landmar is going to turn the old papermill into a little city for millionaires, Chip Drury is going build his own tropical resort in an old rice paddy, and the team of Moreno and Hase are going to turn the airport into a booming industrial area with jobs for everyone. Tax income will go up and everyone will be able to get a good job. The city budget will be back in the black and all city employees will get a raise. Then we will all have to admit that these visionarys have saved us.
I agree that we need more industry, however, the old airport property would not be an ideal place to put it. The highest and best use would clearly be mixed residential / commercial. There is no shortage of other land in Camden which is ideally suited for industry, from light to heavy.
Given a choice between having "to thank theses visionaries" and waking up 20 years from now to find that absolutley nothing has improved, which would you - correction - which would a logical person not blinded by senseless, obstructionistic, kneejerk, xenophobic, parochialism
choose?
Solid, long range planning for real
commercial and fiscal growth, not promotion of half baked pie-in-the-sky ideas that only look good in the presentation. A city council whose vision of the future goes beyond the end of their terms in office. A unified overall goal for city growth that is immune to opportunistic sniping and bombast.
I basically agree with you.
Of the several projects of late, the most "pie-in-the-sky" has been the Drury project. However, that same idea 20 years hence may very well fly.
The least "pie" and most doable is the closing of the existing airport with resale to a developer (independent of the issue of a new airport).
Rochester Reply »
|Report Abuse
|Judge it!
|#152
23 min ago Get a clue wrote:
What meeting did she say that? I think you are a liar. She would never say that. You are just a Weaver hater. She has always promoted St Marys and Camden county as a place for families. I know some don't like her because of the airport issue, but I bet they don't know why she voted for the move. You need to look at her voting record. She has done a lot since she got on council.
Actually, I have always liked Gull...as a person if not a councilmember. The meeting involved Gull and a highly-placed and pivotal member of the commercial community - one who works tirelessly to increase our tourism base and to bring much-needed revenue into St. Marys. That person was so stunned and disgusted that they immediately wrote Gull's exact words down.
Perhaps it was a "slip of the tongue" on Gull's part but it shows where her allegiance is: to the "affluent". To discount the vast tourism dollars of "average" people with children and to, instead, curry favor with the rich is misguided, narrow-minded and harmful to the future of St. Marys.
Oh...do tell us all Gull's secret reason for supporting the idiotic airport-relocation scheme! I can't wait to hear this.
(Jay) Oh, I see, "Rochester," this was not siad ina public forum with witnesses and perhaps a video taped record. It was writne down by a stunned, but anonymous, business leader during a private conversation. I see - and I suspect most voters will as well.
Question: Does a jeweler have an "allegiance" to tyhe affluent just becuase they constitute the overwhelming najority of his market. Would he turn down a "family purchase?" This whole specious canard is truly assinine.
Do they market Rolex's in Walmart. Of course not. They know their natural market. Obviously, Weaver knows -assuming she actually said this - that the wisest expendioture of marketing funds for tourism is to those - largely empty nesters with more disposable income - with the wherewithal to avail themselves of what little St. Marys prpoer (i.e., exclusive of Cumberland Island) has to offer. tourists
i misunderstood your option A and I'm sorry for that.As long as we keep the $10.000,00 and not give it away.The way I see it if goverment at any level spends money it cost taxpayers.
"My source has been a totally reliable source on many, many occassions for 15 + years."
But, your source was not at the meeting. Granting that she is giving you reliable information, she must be quoting the opinion of someone who was there. The most likely source of her information is Mr. Deloughy who has not proved himself to be quite so reliable and forth coming.
"She?" I never said whether my informant is a male or a female. Nice try, Duke.
"The most likely source of her information is Mr. Deloughy who has not proved himself to be quite so reliable and forth coming."
So you say, but can you cite afirmative instances in which he has actively proved himself to be NOT reliablw and NOT forthcoming?
Please be specific.
Jay,
ou asked, "So, what exactly is your position on the airport?"
We have drifted rather far from discussion of your original inference that Mr. Eskridge was the subject of a lawsuit because of a nefarious financil deal. But the discussion is meaningful, but only if we deal with real situations.
The present airport relocation plan that is on the mind of many voters is a real issue that will effect and will be effected by the upcoming election.
The plan does not involve closing our present airport and selling the land to some developer who has plans in place to build a mid scale residential/commercial development. In fact, we cannot simply close the existing airport at this time due to our contract with the FAA to keep it open and available.
Present plans do call for the construction of a replacement airport in Woodbine after which our present airport may be closed. The airport land may, at that time, be sold. Whether or not it is sold, the fair market value of the land must be returned to the FAA to ofset their cost of constuction of the new airport.
This IS the plan in place and this is what we should be discussing. What-if scenerios about dead farmers and fallow farms have no relevfance to the reality of what we have to decide at this point.
Our airport and the land it is on is a city asset and can be regarded as "money in the bank." If we do nothing at all today, it will still be an assett in five, ten, or twenty years. Its value will not decrease. However, if we give it away now by selling it and giving the profits to the federal government, we will have lost that asset. Experience should have taught us not to rely on public officials or developers who promise us future prosperity in return for our unsecured investment today. In some circles, its called "selling smoke."
"We have drifted rather far from discussion of your original inference that Mr. Eskridge was the subject of a lawsuit because of a nefarious financil deal. But the discussion is meaningful, but only if we deal with real situations."
Nope, can't let you get away with that. You know very well (and are being disingenuous in pursuit of polemic points)that I have already written that I was quoting my informant when I usaed the term "lawsuit" as opposed to "foreclosure." I have not and do not infer anything untoward on the part of the mayor - although I would note that a foreclsoure is tantamount to a "lawsuit" in which both parties have agreed to the outcome before the fact in the terms of the mortgage. Clearly, you are in favor of the status quo at the airport for whatever economically indefensible reason you have.
Thank you for acknowledging the singular efficacy of my " old dairy farm" scenario by singling it out for ridicule.
Surely, you are not claiming that the FAA can force the city to continue to operate an airport?
I am saying that even if the city closed the airport, gave the proceeeds of the sale back to the feds, did NOT build another airport, AND if you reduced my estimates of the built-out value of the land to highest and best use and the resulting tax revenues by 50%, it would still be the immensly more sensible thing to do and the far, far better deal for the majority of the citizens of St. Marys. Can you logically and convincingly deny that?
Oh, and other than his oppostion to the airport deal, what else can you tell us that would commend the mayor to the voters for another term?
Are you aware that it was the mayor who invited Chip Drury to give his "Georgia Keys" presentation that night? No one else on council knew anyhting about it.
Jay,
You posted the original story that accused Mr. Eskridge of financial impropriety. You chose to rely on the information from an unamed source. It is your post and you own it.
Yes, the FAA can force the city to keep the airport open. The city can go to battle with them and spend years and a lot of money in a court case but they will probably lose.
But once again, closing the airport is not an issue that is presently under consideration by anyone but you.
I am not yet supporting any candidate. I don't know enough yet about many of their views.
I did not know that Mr. Eskridge, alone, invited Mr. Drury to present his proposal to the council and the public in a special hearing. I don't for a second believe that no-one else on the council knew anything about it. We all had ample notice. We discussed it on this blog. You and I along with many others attended. It had wide media coverage. I think that it was wise to bring it before us in that manner and if it was all Mr. Eskridge's doing, I am ready to give all the credit and my thanks.
Whether Mr. Eskridge and I agree on this or any use of the TAD is another matter and will influence my decision of who to support for mayor.
Well, I see you have abondoned the facade of pseudo-civil rationality in favor of outright prevarication. Readers need only go back to the original post to see that your statement that I accused the mayor of "financial impropriety" is a bald-faced lie.
Yes, I own it. Note that I have not taken it down but have explained that the informant obviously used the word "sue" very loosely to encompas any kind of civil legal action, including foreclosure proceedings.
So if thhe city council voted to close the airport tomorrow, the FAA would send federla troops to keep it open? Bullshit! The city can close it anytime they want to.
The fact that I'm the only one talking about just closing it and selling it (not true, by the way)should not surprise anyone. My ideas are quite often ahead of and better than those of most others.
It is common knowledge that Eskridge and Shanahhan approached Drury hoping to find custoemrs for their overbuilt water / sewer capacity. Eskridge invited Drury to do his presentation. The rest of council knew nothing (i.e., had no details untilt hey found them in their in-boxes when they came to the meeting.
Clearly you have decided who you will vote for - any and all who will submit to the litmus test of local, anti- progress, dog-in-the-manger, tribal loyalty by promising not only to stop the airport move (or sale) but any and all other proposals to bring St. Marys to anything remotely like her full potential. Your assertions to the contrary are obviosu crap.
Post a Comment