Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Extras | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS

More work on site a former Niagara Motors site a possibility

November 17, 2013

By GIB SNYDER OBSERVER City Editor The site of a former city factory may be in line for more work as the state Department of Environmental Conservation had advanced a possible proposal to the Dunkir......

« Back to Article

sort: oldest | newest




Nov-19-13 8:59 AM

what can we say, time to move, old habits die hard and sometimes they never do, this city has not recovered from "Urban Renewal" blunders of the 70"s, worst yet history is being repeated, simply because powers to be have a convenient forgetter

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 7:56 PM

Its gonna take more than shovel ready to fix the problems of this city. There is such a big demand for development sites for businesses to come here or wait the potential for them to maybe look at Dunkirk your list is very short for that. Tell it like it is we are grasping for straws to find a solution to revitalize this area. Spending more money on a project like this is very questionable to a city already on its knees.

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 6:01 PM

ok, the city does not write these articles, then it's obvious they do provide plenty of science fiction and pipe dreams for those that do

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 5:33 PM

shofu: my comments ("please don't print..") was directed at the editor, after all, he was the one who wrote the article. Guess I should've been a little clearer to avoid any misunderstanding. But since you brought it up, shofu, take your best guess and tell us how Gib knew what happened at this meeting? I hope you're not suggesting the board be excused from considering such crazy ideas just b/c one of them didn't write this article.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 3:18 PM

Captain, pay attention, it doesn't appear that anyone from the City has 'printed' anything. The City does not write the articles, the newspaper does.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 8:05 AM

The city is barely keeping its head above water, and the future of its biggest taxpayer is in jeopardy, yet this board is showing interest in spending OVER $500,000 to improve soil on an industrial site, and much more than that on an abandoned train station???

I give you the next winners of the Darwin Awards.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 7:43 AM

Well I can't speak for anyone else, but I for one am always interested in what Christopher has to say. even when I disagree with what he says I have to give him credit because his opinions are normally well thought out and rational.

Would you rather he rant and call names like so many others here?

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 7:40 AM

Yep, Phil soundly rejected this crazy idea by reminding folks of the city's failed history by citing all the other "shovel ready" properties it already owns AND can't sell.

There's nothing wrong with kicking around ideas, but please don't actually print such ridiculous ideas (train station) as if they were valid considerations, it only reflects how delusional and desperate they are.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 7:33 AM

Not everyone has an endless amount if time to spend on the observer. Usually I don't even have time to comment but stay logged in to vote.

What laughs. Someone doesn't agree with you, and they automatically must be the man, huh?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-18-13 6:03 AM

T.i.T.Fire, you leave already?

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 6:08 PM

Hmm, looks like Phil's post was dead on, causing Butternut (who supports this insane proposal) to quietly go away.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 3:04 PM

Well, apparently you do, since you've chosen to post on here.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 2:44 PM

cprisy - you give yourself more credit than you deserve..You think anyone cares what you think but No One does..Just because the observer gives you a column wtf who cares about the observer?

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 1:24 PM

rigged voting on comments, we think that the Observer's crack staff should launch formal investigation they could call it "the titanic"

3 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 1:15 PM

Captain and Christopher, so you have noticed the voting discrepancy /per comments, we find it humorous also but as we have stated in the past, we back up what we post,& don't give a rat's patootie what the totals reflect, "thy own self be true" is how we roll

5 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 1:01 PM

...oops, that should've said only 2 posters agree that this project may be worth the money.

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 12:57 PM

Paul: your comment about new posters (Sveash & Butterfield) is certainly telling, but WHAT'S even more interesting is that out of all the posts on this issue (27 so far), only these 2 "posters" voice opposition, yet there are anywhere from 7 to 12 "disagree" votes HAHAHA.

By all means, either one of you can jump right in and dispute the facts that Phil just cited.

5 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 12:08 PM

Let's look at the city's record of real estate investments. They spent millions to clean up Marsh Valve to make it shovel reeady - it now sits vacant, They spent millions on the renovatio of the Flickinger building which now sits half empty. They spent 3/4 million on the Steffan/Bertges properties only to have them sit idle. They spent over $400,000 on the Main Street property which now sits vacant. Yup, these guys really know what they are doing. I'm glad I don't depend on them for personal financial advice. The city is getting deeper and deeper into a hole and our leaders refuse to stop digging. Maybe some adult supervision would help!!!!

8 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 11:56 AM

I might add, that the location of this site is really only suitable for manufacturing, which would make the so-called "shovel ready" cleanup unnecessary. Well, wait a second, it might be ok for more low-income housing if it were cleaned up.

4 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 11:54 AM

Looking at the anonymous postings on this, it's clear that many local politicians, County City and Town, and members of the DLDC, are posting under names like "Butterfield". I'm thinking there might also be a few from the offices of this paper as well. Funny. Transparent, but funny.

4 Agrees | 7 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 11:23 AM

The only thing they need a shovel for is to cover up Dunkirk. They always have an interested party but they mysteriously go away. Hello....NO ONE is coming to Dunkirk.

5 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 10:54 AM

The lots on Central are privately owned. This one is not.

3 Agrees | 6 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 10:36 AM

Ther is some commercial lots on Central Ave. between 4th and 3rd st that (should) could be developed and is only 2 city blocks from the INKDO BATOR.

6 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 10:14 AM

Rumblefish, if they do, they will be copying a lot of the successful cities across the nation, because that is exactly what they say. Its called shovel ready.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »


Nov-17-13 10:03 AM

next ad campaign to attract development in the City of Dunkirk " Come to Dunkirk, we have the cleanest and most environmentally safe vacant lots around" and we got the grants to prove it,

3 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 44 comments Show More Comments

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.


I am looking for:
News, Blogs & Events Web