In reply to alfadriver :
Small potatoes..... oh what a reference too.
In reply to alfadriver :
Small potatoes..... oh what a reference too.
In reply to codrus :
We were told that the track was a tenth of a mile and ten million dollars short to host F-1. But what a show it would be!
I wonder how F1 would react to the "runoff" outside turn 6. A little bit of gravel, some tires and then air. I suspect that would be a pretty fast corner for an F1 car.
Keith Tanner said:I wonder how F1 would react to the "runoff" outside turn 6. A little bit of gravel, some tires and then air. I suspect that would be a pretty fast corner for an F1 car.
Asphalt and banking to keep cars from flying into the fence?
That would be what, a 150+ mph corner for F1?
Great article. Thanks!
The whole thing sounds incestuous to me! A favorite of the Council taking over from an experienced track operator? Good luck!
I HOPE THE COMMENTS STAY ON THE ISSUE HERE . IT'S NOT ABOUT BRINGING IN F1 BUT KEEPING THIS BELOVED TRACK GOING . THE WHOLE THING SMELLS BADLY BUT IF YOU HEAR ABOUT THE PLAYERS INVOLVED---NOT SURPRISING ---THIS MAKES NATIONAL GOVERNMENT LOOK GOOD I GUESS YOU CAN SAY (((( NO COLLUSION )))) OH BOY
AGAIN THANKS SCRAMP FOR ALL YOUR PAST SUPPORT
I can't imagine any real business - especially ISC or the like - really wanting to get involved... I'm sure their diligence was centered on the contracts/relationships with the county. Imaging running and investing significant amounts into a business this hostile, where the county board can just continuously put more and more restrictions on how you use the facility, force events on you, ultimately preventing you from running it properly. Unless they were willing to 'fix' restrictions for an extended period in exchange for a guaranteed lease, or sell the property outright, it would be almost impossible. Same challenge for the rich racer guys...
There was mention of the Army contract potentially preventing the county from bulldozing it, but I seriously doubt the Army would have much interest in stopping it from happening... The real challenge for the county in shutting it down is replacing the lost revenue... While Car Week certainly would remain large without the historics, it would no doubt be smaller without the race specific crowd... Also, I am sure there are areas in the county which benefit greater from the race crowd than the pebble crowd, so they would have to find a way to offset town specific losses. Add that to Pebble already starting to see declines in attendance due to increasing costs to attend... I also imagine that there are LS specific events which draw massive crowds that would not be replaced if the track were to close, which would need to be offset...
Having just returned from racing at the track, the track is awesome and pretty close to town and a very nice pretty place.
Our observation was the facilities seemed less developed than you would expect, but completely adequate as far as I'm concerned.
I don't know the details, but it seems the contract to manage the facility is a contract to manage the facility, and not based on profits, so if it loses money running go karts for charity events or billions running F1, the managers still get paid for managing it.
I can't see it closing up, that makes no sense for anyone. Even housing developers would want the prestige it brings to the area, still plenty of open space out there, and even more further inland.
The problem with this filing is as I said early in this post; per California state law (as well as most others) professional services are exempt from the competitive process. County officials can legally hand the contract to whomever they wish..............period.
Do I agree with this? No, but it is totally allowable under the law.
We'll see if the complaint goes anywhere.
Tom1200 said:The problem with this filing is as I said early in this post; per California state law (as well as most others) professional services are exempt from the competitive process. County officials can legally hand the contract to whomever they wish..............period.
Do I agree with this? No, but it is totally allowable under the law.
We'll see if the complaint goes anywhere.
For every public contract action, there is a specified process (even a sole source, ps contact); if any of this is remotely accurate they violated the process at a minimum, and in federal procurement, the apparent conflict of interest is a huge deal, and that's been part of this story from the beginning.
Pooks public hearing comments from the first series of articles says he knew it was a sham, now we know why.
If the board members had saved any and all of their comments and activities noted in the prior "private" meetings all for the public forum, there'd be no issue.
But these experienced public officials seem to have violated known processes to award a contract to their buddy.
Fraud is not legal.
Oldgray320i in this case there was no competitive effort required so there was no process to violate the norms of (or so the county will argue)
Where I think they may get dinged is; why didn't they just simply hand the contract to who they wanted rather than getting multiple proposals?
When this comes before a court/panel/board you can bet they will cite the statue that allows forgoing the competitive process and claim they only accepted proposals for peace of mind/due diligence. They have further ammo because they awarded contract to the lowest price.
On the minus side is why the rush? They could have tailored their request to fit awarding to a supplier with hospitality experience over race track management. They could easily have argued that they've been using an experienced race track management company (SCRAMP) and that this hasn't gotten the results they wanted so they are going with a fresh approach.
Before anyone gives me a hard time about what I'm saying; I'm not saying they are right or that the good ole boy network wasn't in full swing, I'm just telling you what they are likely to say. It would be totally naive to think the officials that did this aren't fully aware of what's allowed and used it to their advantage.
Also note as a procurement/contracts person I totally disagree with the way they went about it. They could have done exactly as they wanted without all this tumult.
Some more on the subject.
You'll need to log in to post.
