Last year, the arbitrator ordered the city to pay $836,378 for the 80-acre parcel, far more than the $126,000 Wasilla originally thought it would pay for a piece of land 65 acres larger. The arbitrator also determined that the city owed Mr. Lundgren [the owner] $336,000 in interest. Wasilla's legal bill since the eminent domain action has come to roughly $250,000 so far, according to Mr. Klinkner, the city attorney.
Palin's Hockey Rink Leads To Legal Trouble in Town She Led - WSJ.com

and

"Palin, who portrays herself as a fiscal conservative, racked up nearly $20 million in long-term debt as mayor of the tiny town of Wasilla — that amounts to $3,000 per resident. She argues that the debt was needed to fund improvements."
Dems armed with Palin opposition - Glenn Thrush - Politico.com

Clearly you're not fully informed and I'm confident that one of Palin's supporters will come along shortly to explain to you why you're wrong on this.

__________________

Yes We Did.

Does anyone know what the $20 million long term debt is for? I have not yet found anything that says exactly what the debt is for, several things, one thing, etc. The only thing I found was something about improvements.
I know in my city they will are looking at long term debt of millions for new school buildings/renovations, etc.

Mostly legal fees. The WSJ article explains.

Those numbers listed in that article is no where near $20 million. ETA: Ok I understand now.

edited to add:
according to the WSJ article a big portion "$14.7 million bond issue to pay for the sports center." that the public voted on.
"In a March 2002 referendum, residents approved the mayor's plan by a 20-vote margin, 306 to 286. The city cleared roads, installed utilities and made preparations to build."

Sarah campaigned in Wasilla as a “fiscal conservative”. During her six years as Mayor, she increased general government expenditures by over 33%. During those same 6 years the amount of taxes collected by the City increased by 38%. This was during a period of low inflation (1996-2002). She reduced progressive property taxes and increased a regressive sales tax which taxed even food. The tax cuts that she promoted benefited large corporate property owners way more than they benefited residents.

The huge increases in tax revenues during her mayoral administration weren’t enough to fund everything on her wish list though, borrowed money was needed, too. She inherited a city with zero debt, but left it with indebtedness of over $22 million. What did Mayor Palin encourage the voters to borrow money for? Was it the infrastructure that she said she supported? The sewage treatment plant that the city lacked? or a new library? No. $1m for a park. $15m-plus for construction of a multi-use sports complex which she rushed through to build on a piece of property that the City didn’t even have clear title to, that was still in litigation 7 yrs later–to the delight of the lawyers involved! The sports complex itself is a nice addition to the community but a huge money pit, not the profit-generator she claimed it would be. She also supported bonds for $5.5m for road projects that could have been done in 5-7 yrs without any borrowing.

While Mayor, City Hall was extensively remodeled and her office redecorated more than once.

These are small numbers, but Wasilla is a very small city.

About Sarah Palin | The LA Progressive

Oh man, can we please stop quoting the LA Progressive! They don't like Sarah Palin? Really!? Imagine a left wing, progressive activist sight posting numbers making her look bad.

It's kinda like if I posted this:


One Party’s Trash Is Another Party’s Treasure: McCain Camp Rescues Flags Thrown in Trash From DNC

One Party’s Trash Is Another Party’s Treasure: McCain Camp Rescues Flags Thrown in Trash From DNC : Stop The ACLU

So, are you the arbiter of exactly which sites are allowable on this site? I think not. Post your own links from your sites of choice...you cannot dictate what others care to post.

__________________
"Well-Behaved Women SELDOM make history."Laurel Thatcher Ulrich


"Yesterday is but a vision, and tomorrow is only a dream. But today well lived makes every yesterday a dream of happiness, and every tomorrow a dream of hope." Anonymous

"Your candle does not lose it's light by lighting another candle" Generosity

Have the courage to be yourself.

I'm not really dictating what people post. . .just merely pointing out how incredibly silly it is.

And I would NEVER post something from a completely biased source as if it was credible, right or left.

I could post all kinds of crazy stories with biased slants, BUT I am not interested in partisan rhetoric. Just the facts please!

How about this. . .everytime someone posts something from a completely biased source I will simply follow it with this:


****WARNING! The above post has been carefully plucked from a completely biased, uncredible source. Please feel free to take the 2 seconds to verify that for yourself.****

If you posted it? You DID post it, in fact, and it's a bunch of lies. Contrary to saving the flags, the Republicans showed their family values by stealing them.

Republicans Steal Flags

Anyone can see that those flags weren't simply dumped, they were carefully rolled and placed in the bags to be moved. You don't neatly roll up and stack flags you're going to throw away.

__________________

Yes We Did.

Next time you quote me, please quote the entire text.

I was pointing out how silly it is to post such biased links!

But since you brought up the neatly rolled up flag thing. . .

I didn't misquote you at all, and the pictures you post are not the ones in the article.

If you didn't MEAN to post the untruthful story, why did you provide the link? Your point could have been made without posting a link. The fact that someone cleaning up after the DNC found a few flags and put them in the trash does not indicate that the DNC tosses dozens, as your link said.

I'm 100% confident you would have found more than a few (stolen from the DNC) flags in the trash after the RNC convention.


You're biased, we all know it. I'm biased, too, but I don't try to deny it.

Just stop pretending to be some above-it-all neutral party.

__________________

Yes We Did.

I didn't say you misquoted me. But you did partially quote me in a way that misrepresented the intention of my original post.

In no way, shape or form was I supportin the DNC flag story. In fact, I was kinda poking fun at it! I did just previously post this:

I thought I made it pretty clear that I posted the link, AS AN EXAMPLE, of a biased link.

In essence, so it's REALLY clear, I said a post with a link to a biased site (like the LA Progressive) IS KINDA LIKE a post with a link from a biased site (like Stop the ACLU). I was pointing out how silly BOTH of them are!

As far as the pics, I have no idea. . .I searched Photobucket for "DNC flags."

And that story was created by the oh so fair and balanced Fox network.

Read above post.

The letter itself is all over the net. The LA Progressive is just one source. It's the letter writer's opinion and contains no bias that I can see. The letter writer has generated a lot of interest and will be interviewed by the morning shows ect. shortly.

I wouldn't be so quick to discount it.

I am extremely skeptical about anything coming from a biased source, as I think I have cleary shown.

I did find this. And I consider Snopes to be very reliable.

snopes.com: Alaskans' Opinions on Sarah Palin


The letter is real, from an Ann Kilkenny. They spoke with her directly and she explains her motivation for writing the letter. There are also three other letters on the sight. One very positive one from a Debbie Frost, a Wassila resident; another positive one from a Butch King, Wildman Lake Lodge owner; and a negative one from a Jackie S., who they havent' been able to identify yet.

Yesterday, Sarah Palin repeated her misleading love story to herself about "thanks, but not thanks" on the Bridge to Nowhere. She said no to the bridge -- after it was dead and gone, but yes to the money. And now Alaska is building an access road on Gravina Island to service that non-existent bridge -- WTH? Because otherwise the money would have gone back to the federal government. Better wasted than returned, I guess, is her theory. Fiscal conservative? Not so much.

Palin pushed to increase taxes on oil companies (guess who's going to end up paying it?). Palin decided those fund should be distributed as $1,200 to each and every Alaskan -- yep, even Trig gets it -- instead of being used for infrastructure, which she herself said the state needed. Instead, that money comes from federal earmarks -- which means that instead of Alaskans paying for Alaskan improvements, residents of the other 49 states are doing so. Fiscal conservative? With Alaskan's money, yes. With everyone else's? Not so much.

__________________

Yes We Did.

Alaska gets about $500 per head in earmarks. The rest of the states about $50 per head.

In case you missed it, here it is again:

FactCheck.org: The Party's Over

About half way through it says:

Yes she changed her mind on the bridge. No, she wasn't required to spend it on the bridge to keep the money. Yes, she spent it on other transportation projects.

Let me guess. . .Factcheck is biased too??

Edited to add: here is the link to The National Conference of State Legislator's:Surface Transportation Funding Options for States

http://www.ncsl.org/print/transportation/item014233.pdf

It's 122 pages but it describes exactly what the laws/ guidelines are for state earmarks for transportation funding.

Yes, I know. Which means she's out there repeating her lie day after day.

__________________

Yes We Did.