| Previous :: Next Topic |
| Author |
Message |
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17851 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
 Sun Sep 25, 2016 12:52 am |
|
|
| Ski wrote: | | RandyHiker wrote: | | "Actually -- you are still wrong..." |
That's the sort of response I'd expect from one of the resident drive-by cyberpunks here, Randy.
Let me know when you have some actual facts to support that argument, will you?
I read all that jazz when the story broke several years ago, and try as they might, neither the Seattle Times or the Tacoma News Tribune was able to come up with anything that was enough to convince a prosecutor's office (in either county - take your pick) to file charges.
But keep bangin' that drum... I'm sure somebody will listen. |
The article says "federal prosecutors in Seattle". I don't believe county would be federal. Honestly, Ski, I'm amazed that anyone could look at this and conclude this was on the up and up, much less argue it until they are blue in the face.
|
| Back to top |
  
|
|
Klapton
Member
Joined: 21 Dec 2006
Posts: 940 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Klapton
Member
|
Sun Sep 25, 2016 8:40 am |
|
|
Semi-automatic, like nearly every gun produced after WW1.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12824 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Sun Sep 25, 2016 11:56 am |
|
|
| Tom wrote: | | I'm amazed that anyone could look at this and conclude this was on the up and up, |
Where did I say the deal was "on the up and up"?
I said the PRICE PAID for the real estate was a non-issue. It's still a non-issue. The PRICE the parcel sold for has NOTHING to do with any of the rest of the deal.
Okay: FEDERAL prosecutor. Still chose not to prosecute the case. What the hell difference does it make? City, State, County, Federal - who cares? They didn't have enough to file charges - bottom line.
The sexual harassment thing, which was supposedly the subject of the thread, is a separate issue, and other than one brief comment in this thread, I haven't expressed an opinion about it.
One more time: the PRICE paid for the real estate deal has absolutely NOTHING to do with the other issues. NONE. ZIP. NADA. People were paying all kinds of ridiculous prices for real estate at that time - I gave you two examples above. That YOU weren't aware of it doesn't make it less true.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17851 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Sun Sep 25, 2016 1:01 pm |
|
|
I'm not sure why you think price paid has nothing to do with whether or not he took a bribe. You have been arguing that from page 1 (in addition to whether it relates to the topic). Yes, sexual harassment has nothing to do with whether he took a bribe, but price paid paid does to the extent it was well above market value. Now, you could argue assessed value might not be a good indicator of market value, and perhaps prosecutors felt it could be problematic to prove it was.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12824 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Sun Sep 25, 2016 1:06 pm |
|
|
Okay... you win, because you guys are all real estate experts, right?
one more time:
Real estate was selling for prices which were absolutely crazy during that period. "fair market value" and "assessed value" had absolutely NO relationship to what actual selling prices were.
Again: I gave you TWO examples above: one the house two doors down from me, and my mom's condo.
The Seattle Times played up the selling price of $425K because they knew it would get a reaction from their readers.
But hey, you guys are all big-time real estate experts, so you know better, right? 
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tom
Admin
Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17851 | TRs | Pics
|
|
Tom
Admin
|
Sun Sep 25, 2016 1:13 pm |
|
|
Well, it helps to know the definition of fair market value if you want to speak intelligently on the subject. 
| google wrote: | | a selling price for an item to which a buyer and seller can agree. |
Or try wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_market_value
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cascadeclimber
Member
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1427 | TRs | Pics
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | Uberuaga may not have been prosecuted, but neither was he exonerated. |
No, he was twice promoted by his boss after the incident. Finally to one of the most prestigious positions in the park service where he apparently did nothing about ongoing reports of sexual harassment for years.
If you watch the testimony, this is one of the things the whistleblowers kept coming back to: Obviously guilty parties are consistently just moved elsewhere (and often promoted in the process) and allowed to continue their careers and malfeasance.
As far as the Uberuagua thing goes, I'll let the investigator's report speak for itself. They found enough wrong to refer it for federal prosecution. All the info about the listing (which was for show only) is in there. Ski or whoever you are, I'd bet you have some chips in that pot somehow to be so upset about the truth.
Regardless, it finally caught up with Uberuagua, though I'm pissed he was allowed to retire. And it's catching up with his boss Jarvis, whom I hope is NOT allowed to retire, but fired instead.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cascadeclimber
Member
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1427 | TRs | Pics
|
| Ski wrote: | | They didn't have enough to file charges - bottom line. |
That is an assumption. They declined to say why is was dropped, actually. Which in itself is unusual, and, I think, suspicious.
As far as the sale price goes it was ridiculous for the area. So ridiculous that the bank apparently refused to finance it. So Uberuagua did.
All without running it through the ethics people. And his filed a fraudulent conflict of interest form. Should have been fired for that right then. But nope, twice promoted instead, to a place where he let his employees abuse each other for years.
Argue as you want about the complexities of the real estate deal. What I see here is a clear pattern of cronyism, lack of accountability high in the NPS, and lower-level employees who paid the price for it for years and years.
And the perps, including the peeping tom/voyeur have repeatedly been allowed to retire at our expense.
But yes, keep explaining how reasonable the real estate deal was in all this. It makes it all better for me and all the abused employees.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12824 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Sun Sep 25, 2016 8:21 pm |
|
|
| cascadeclimber wrote: | | Ski or whoever you are, I'd bet you have some chips in that pot somehow to be so upset about the truth. |
Please send me a PM and let me know where you're getting your drugs, because they're clearly better than anything I can obtain here if they cause you to be that disconnected from reality.
| cascadeclimber wrote: | | That is an assumption. |
No, it is not an assumption - that is what happened. No charges were filed.
Speaking of "reading comprehension problems", it looks to me like it's common among those of you who are not bothering to actually read what I've been saying.
Everything about the real estate deal was sketchy, but the price isn't an issue. What part of that is so difficult to grasp? What part of that do you not understand? You can sell real estate for any goddam price you want as long as you have a willing buyer. My old man used to do it all the time - that's how people make money selling real estate. So big deal. Profit is the name of the game - it's the American way. Only pinkos complain about "too much profit".
But hey, it's okay.. keep bangin' away there...
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Magellan
Brutally Handsome
Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 13116 | TRs | Pics
Location: Inexorable descent |
|
Magellan
Brutally Handsome
|
Sun Sep 25, 2016 9:38 pm |
|
|
Thanks for bringing this all together in one place Loren. I've known about the bs for years, but to see it all tied together is sickening.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Randito
Snarky Member
Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9512 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment. |
|
Randito
Snarky Member
|
Mon Sep 26, 2016 6:48 am |
|
|
| Ski wrote: | | but the price isn't an issue. What part of that is so difficult to grasp? |
We grasp OK that is the point you've repeatedly tried to make. You simply haven't offered a convincing argument that the pricing was legit and only about real estate.
Given the how the real market in that area has developed in the 14 years since that sale -- it's pretty clear this was a bad real estate investment. The sale occurred in 2002 for $450,000 -- the property now has a Zestimate of just $258,000
Zestimates don't always reflect market value -- however there is a comp property currently for sale for $240,000 that seems better located (same side of highway) as Whittaker's bunkhouse.
So 14 years on the property is worth roughly 60% of it's sale price.
So either Whittaker is a really bad real estate investor -- or he expected something else out of the deal.
It's possible that this transaction didn't influence Uberuagua's policy decisions -- but Uberuagua may have induced Whittaker to believe it might -- or perhaps Uberuagua's real estate agent told him that the owners of Mountain Madness (or some other guide service) were making an offer on the property -- implying that they expected to be setting up shop in the area.
Either way the case that you are making that Whittaker bought the property at that price and expected only real estate out of the deal just isn't convincing.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cascadeclimber
Member
Joined: 04 Sep 2006
Posts: 1427 | TRs | Pics
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | Given the how the real market in that area has developed in the 14 years since that sale -- it's pretty clear this was a bad real estate investment. The sale occurred in 2002 for $450,000 -- the property now has a Zestimate of just $258,000 |
Clearly you are misguided going and introducing more actual facts into the red-herring this person keeps bringing up.
By all means, let's continue to consider that this house, now generously worth $300k was worth $450k 14 years ago, because, you know, red-hot real estate market in Ashford and all.
And let's ignore the fact that Javis has a long, long track record of enabling malfeasance amongst his direct reports, including promoting peeping toms and writing glowing statements when they finally retire (at our expense).
Here's the deal: If this sh## makes you angry or upset, don't just read. Write a letter (old fashioned) or use the online form to send an email to Patty Murray, or PM me and I'll send you the email for her aide. Tell them how you feel.
|
| Back to top |
|
|
WANative
Member
Joined: 09 May 2016
Posts: 277 | TRs | Pics
|
|
WANative
Member
|
Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:12 am |
|
|
Peter, Jim and Lou are just a phone call away.
What's stopping you from calling them up and sharing your concerns?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ski
><((((°>
Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12824 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma |
|
Ski
><((((°>
|
Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:36 am |
|
|
| RandyHiker wrote: | | "You simply haven't offered a convincing argument..." |
I don't need to, Randy.
There hasn't been any evidence that there was anything amiss in regard to the price, other than it being above the assessed value.
So big deal.
cascadeclimber can continue his campaign - no problem. Maybe he can even pretend to be a big-time real estate expert too.
If the Seattle Times hadn't made an issue of the selling price, nobody would have even noticed.
You can keep hammering away at this one until hell freezes over, Randy, but unless you can provide actual evidence of your wildly speculative claims, it's all just a bunch of smoke. You got nothin'.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cefire
Member
Joined: 03 Feb 2010
Posts: 523 | TRs | Pics
|
|
cefire
Member
|
Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:53 am |
|
|
| Ski wrote: | | but the price isn't an issue. |
Is there anything that could conceivably convince you that the selling price indicated that this was a dishonest transaction?
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s). |
