adplus-dvertising
Connect with us

Media

Mayor responds to social media discussion on ski hill, golf course appraisals – ElliotLakeToday.com

Published

 on


After a story was published in Elliot Lake Today last weekend, Mayor Dan Marchisella posted a comment to several social media sites the story had been shared to. 

His first sentence read, “Some of the comments in this article and the last are inaccurate and misleading. Neither committee nor council recommended selling either of these assets (golf course – ski hill) at our last Economic Development Committee meeting but have requested that council declare surplus and acquire a professional to do a proper appraisal which would also include operations.”

In response to an inquiry from ElliotLakeToday, the mayor has clarified his comments, saying the article itself was not inaccurate but reactions to it appeared to be based on inaccurate assumptions.

The following is his full statement in which he explains what he was referring to.

I believe anyone with concern, prior to contacting the media or splashing inaccurate information on social media should have taken the time to watch both the council meeting in which council deliberated the unsolicited offer to purchase the golf course which was denied by council and also the Ec-Dev Standing Committee meeting where members received the report from Mr. Antunes and discussed the next steps and purpose. Neither staff nor council is “targeting” the golf course or ski hill. The current recommendation that is coming to council for March 14, 2022, is;

  1. that council declares the golf course surplus, gets a professional appraisal of land and assets and
  2. turns down any current offers for the golf course.

It was also stated by staff that the purpose of this is to obtain real figures and values for the course and assets not only for the awareness of council and the community but also for proper insurance figures. This is not something that can be done locally as there are no comparables. Council has been clear that they currently have no interest in selling this asset but still would like to have an accurate picture of its value.

Currently, the city has a management contract for the operations of the golf course with Retirement Living, which both the board and Council have clear oversight of. Retirement Living does a fine job of the management aspect however the course has averaged a cost to the taxpayers of about $150,000 yearly (Insurance, Taxes, Capital Expenses) even with the last few years of positive earnings.

It has been noted that private sector-owned golf courses across the country have the ability to invest more capital in upgrades, beautification and marketing than municipally-owned courses which can attract more tourism and membership.

This is due to tighter municipal budgets that span a vast variety of community needs…. Once again, no, there is no current plan from our council to sell at this time that I am aware of.

Comments made that the Mayor and Council do not have the right to sell these assets are completely wrong. As a member of council, you have a fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers which requires complete financial oversight. As we always look at the best interests of our community in health, safety and well-being, this does include physical activities, recreation, arts, culture and facilities.

If council has the ability to minimize the financial burden on its ratepayers while still maintaining the same offering then it is in our purview to consider alternative solutions like the private sector, especially if the offer would see increased value to the community.

The negative comments and misinformation that was spread about the offer to purchase the golf course left my phone and email going off all weekend along with that of other councillors. Unfortunately, the concerns came from rumours that the course would be no more, turned into perhaps housing or closed to be used for another purpose, which was not the case.

After councils deliberation on the offer, I had many of the same people calling and messaging that did not realize the reality of what was actually being offered nor the yearly cost to them.

Again that being said, I fully support my council’s decision on this matter and personally would like to know what the real value is because I’ve heard the rumours myself that it is anywhere from $1 million to $9 million…. This is a huge gap that needs to be narrowed down.

On the point of the ski hill, 90 per cent is on city-owned land. Although the majority of assets had been purchased through fundraising and donations many, many years ago, the financials are clear that there is about $680 K worth of assets and (of that) $387 K, about 60 per cent is city-owned.

As the majority of the assets have surpassed their depreciation time frames and the city covers insurance to the tune of $25 K a year, it is in the best interest of the taxpayers that we know the actual value of the land and assets, including the clubhouse that will require updates to meet accessibility standards and potentially a building condition assessment report for future planning.

Again, if the city wants to sell the property, legally we could, it is not the call of any one individual (including myself or the hill manager) but this is not the case, no one has mentioned a sale at any meeting. What becomes of greater concern however is the complete lack of oversight that the municipality has in this area as there has been no council-supported management plan, contract or agreement with the ski hill since 2016.

The municipality has covered major capital expenses, minor repairs, insurance, and audit reserve, which averages out to $107 K yearly if drawn over a five-year period of tax dollars to an outside organization. Yes, we respect the volunteers who are involved and also appreciate and want to keep the ski hill as a source of winter recreation, but I also remember a time when events were held year-round at the hill, that generated additional income and entertainment.

From my knowledge of happenings over the last few years, we have had an unchecked management, not city staff, pick and choose who they allow to rent the property and what events they personally deem fit to host on the property, rather than staff or council. From my knowledge, there is no succession plan that would make anyone feel comfortable about future management or lift operations when we see retirements being planned.

These issues are very real and need to be addressed in the near future so we can see the continuation of the ski hill for generations to come. This is something that myself, council and staff are committed to, but again, this requires dialogue and a proper management contract.

Neither the golf course nor ski hill can be compared to city-owned and operated facilities like the Pool, Collins Hall or Centennial Arena, these have complete oversight from council and are staff operated including programming and long-term asset management plans. That being said, many communities have YMCA which alleviates financial burdens on host municipalities.

The city does provide yearly grants to non-profit organizations like the Food Bank, Maplegate and the Ren’s Active Living Center as a part of community well-being, but nowhere near the cost or losses from the ski hill or golf course so they should not be compared like apples to apples. The city has in the past and will again in the future offer affordable rental spaces for arts groups and social groups in city-owned facilities like the Civic Center had hosted, not free, but affordable.

What should have happened in this case is, if anyone had a concern, don’t believe the social media rumour mill, watch the meeting, contact staff or contact a member of council to get the real answers. None of us mind answering to our community members, but it is quite difficult dealing with angry taxpayers that got their misinformation from the gossip page. We are here for all residents and don’t work on behalf of only a few.

Cheers,
Mayor Dan Marchisella

Adblock test (Why?)

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Trump could cash out his DJT stock within weeks. Here’s what happens if he sells

Published

 on

Former President Donald Trump is on the brink of a significant financial decision that could have far-reaching implications for both his personal wealth and the future of his fledgling social media company, Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG). As the lockup period on his shares in TMTG, which owns Truth Social, nears its end, Trump could soon be free to sell his substantial stake in the company. However, the potential payday, which makes up a large portion of his net worth, comes with considerable risks for Trump and his supporters.

Trump’s stake in TMTG comprises nearly 59% of the company, amounting to 114,750,000 shares. As of now, this holding is valued at approximately $2.6 billion. These shares are currently under a lockup agreement, a common feature of initial public offerings (IPOs), designed to prevent company insiders from immediately selling their shares and potentially destabilizing the stock. The lockup, which began after TMTG’s merger with a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC), is set to expire on September 25, though it could end earlier if certain conditions are met.

Should Trump decide to sell his shares after the lockup expires, the market could respond in unpredictable ways. The sale of a substantial number of shares by a major stakeholder like Trump could flood the market, potentially driving down the stock price. Daniel Bradley, a finance professor at the University of South Florida, suggests that the market might react negatively to such a large sale, particularly if there aren’t enough buyers to absorb the supply. This could lead to a sharp decline in the stock’s value, impacting both Trump’s personal wealth and the company’s market standing.

Moreover, Trump’s involvement in Truth Social has been a key driver of investor interest. The platform, marketed as a free speech alternative to mainstream social media, has attracted a loyal user base largely due to Trump’s presence. If Trump were to sell his stake, it might signal a lack of confidence in the company, potentially shaking investor confidence and further depressing the stock price.

Trump’s decision is also influenced by his ongoing legal battles, which have already cost him over $100 million in legal fees. Selling his shares could provide a significant financial boost, helping him cover these mounting expenses. However, this move could also have political ramifications, especially as he continues his bid for the Republican nomination in the 2024 presidential race.

Trump Media’s success is closely tied to Trump’s political fortunes. The company’s stock has shown volatility in response to developments in the presidential race, with Trump’s chances of winning having a direct impact on the stock’s value. If Trump sells his stake, it could be interpreted as a lack of confidence in his own political future, potentially undermining both his campaign and the company’s prospects.

Truth Social, the flagship product of TMTG, has faced challenges in generating traffic and advertising revenue, especially compared to established social media giants like X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook. Despite this, the company’s valuation has remained high, fueled by investor speculation on Trump’s political future. If Trump remains in the race and manages to secure the presidency, the value of his shares could increase. Conversely, any missteps on the campaign trail could have the opposite effect, further destabilizing the stock.

As the lockup period comes to an end, Trump faces a critical decision that could shape the future of both his personal finances and Truth Social. Whether he chooses to hold onto his shares or cash out, the outcome will likely have significant consequences for the company, its investors, and Trump’s political aspirations.

728x90x4

Source link

Continue Reading

Media

Arizona man accused of social media threats to Trump is arrested

Published

 on

Cochise County, AZ — Law enforcement officials in Arizona have apprehended Ronald Lee Syvrud, a 66-year-old resident of Cochise County, after a manhunt was launched following alleged death threats he made against former President Donald Trump. The threats reportedly surfaced in social media posts over the past two weeks, as Trump visited the US-Mexico border in Cochise County on Thursday.

Syvrud, who hails from Benson, Arizona, located about 50 miles southeast of Tucson, was captured by the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office on Thursday afternoon. The Sheriff’s Office confirmed his arrest, stating, “This subject has been taken into custody without incident.”

In addition to the alleged threats against Trump, Syvrud is wanted for multiple offences, including failure to register as a sex offender. He also faces several warrants in both Wisconsin and Arizona, including charges for driving under the influence and a felony hit-and-run.

The timing of the arrest coincided with Trump’s visit to Cochise County, where he toured the US-Mexico border. During his visit, Trump addressed the ongoing border issues and criticized his political rival, Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris, for what he described as lax immigration policies. When asked by reporters about the ongoing manhunt for Syvrud, Trump responded, “No, I have not heard that, but I am not that surprised and the reason is because I want to do things that are very bad for the bad guys.”

This incident marks the latest in a series of threats against political figures during the current election cycle. Just earlier this month, a 66-year-old Virginia man was arrested on suspicion of making death threats against Vice President Kamala Harris and other public officials.

Continue Reading

Media

Trump Media & Technology Group Faces Declining Stock Amid Financial Struggles and Increased Competition

Published

 on

Tech News in Canada

Trump Media & Technology Group’s stock has taken a significant hit, dropping more than 11% this week following a disappointing earnings report and the return of former U.S. President Donald Trump to the rival social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. This decline is part of a broader downward trend for the parent company of Truth Social, with the stock plummeting nearly 43% since mid-July. Despite the sharp decline, some investors remain unfazed, expressing continued optimism for the company’s financial future or standing by their investment as a show of political support for Trump.

One such investor, Todd Schlanger, an interior designer from West Palm Beach, explained his commitment to the stock, stating, “I’m a Republican, so I supported him. When I found out about the stock, I got involved because I support the company and believe in free speech.” Schlanger, who owns around 1,000 shares, is a regular user of Truth Social and is excited about the company’s future, particularly its plans to expand its streaming services. He believes Truth Social has the potential to be as strong as Facebook or X, despite the stock’s recent struggles.

However, Truth Social’s stock performance is deeply tied to Trump’s political influence and the company’s ability to generate sustainable revenue, which has proven challenging. An earnings report released last Friday showed the company lost over $16 million in the three-month period ending in June. Revenue dropped by 30%, down to approximately $836,000 compared to $1.2 million during the same period last year.

In response to the earnings report, Truth Social CEO Devin Nunes emphasized the company’s strong cash position, highlighting $344 million in cash reserves and no debt. He also reiterated the company’s commitment to free speech, stating, “From the beginning, it was our intention to make Truth Social an impenetrable beachhead of free speech, and by taking extraordinary steps to minimize our reliance on Big Tech, that is exactly what we are doing.”

Despite these assurances, investors reacted negatively to the quarterly report, leading to a steep drop in stock price. The situation was further complicated by Trump’s return to X, where he posted for the first time in a year. Trump’s exclusivity agreement with Trump Media & Technology Group mandates that he posts personal content first on Truth Social. However, he is allowed to make politically related posts on other social media platforms, which he did earlier this week, potentially drawing users away from Truth Social.

For investors like Teri Lynn Roberson, who purchased shares near the company’s peak after it went public in March, the decline in stock value has been disheartening. However, Roberson remains unbothered by the poor performance, saying her investment was more about supporting Trump than making money. “I’m way at a loss, but I am OK with that. I am just watching it for fun,” Roberson said, adding that she sees Trump’s return to X as a positive move that could expand his reach beyond Truth Social’s “echo chamber.”

The stock’s performance holds significant financial implications for Trump himself, as he owns a 65% stake in Trump Media & Technology Group. According to Fortune, this stake represents a substantial portion of his net worth, which could be vulnerable if the company continues to struggle financially.

Analysts have described Truth Social as a “meme stock,” similar to companies like GameStop and AMC that saw their stock prices driven by ideological investments rather than business fundamentals. Tyler Richey, an analyst at Sevens Report Research, noted that the stock has ebbed and flowed based on sentiment toward Trump. He pointed out that the recent decline coincided with the rise of U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic presidential nominee, which may have dampened perceptions of Trump’s 2024 election prospects.

Jay Ritter, a finance professor at the University of Florida, offered a grim long-term outlook for Truth Social, suggesting that the stock would likely remain volatile, but with an overall downward trend. “What’s lacking for the true believer in the company story is, ‘OK, where is the business strategy that will be generating revenue?'” Ritter said, highlighting the company’s struggle to produce a sustainable business model.

Still, for some investors, like Michael Rogers, a masonry company owner in North Carolina, their support for Trump Media & Technology Group is unwavering. Rogers, who owns over 10,000 shares, said he invested in the company both as a show of support for Trump and because of his belief in the company’s financial future. Despite concerns about the company’s revenue challenges, Rogers expressed confidence in the business, stating, “I’m in it for the long haul.”

Not all investors are as confident. Mitchell Standley, who made a significant return on his investment earlier this year by capitalizing on the hype surrounding Trump Media’s planned merger with Digital World Acquisition Corporation, has since moved on. “It was basically just a pump and dump,” Standley told ABC News. “I knew that once they merged, all of his supporters were going to dump a bunch of money into it and buy it up.” Now, Standley is staying away from the company, citing the lack of business fundamentals as the reason for his exit.

Truth Social’s future remains uncertain as it continues to struggle with financial losses and faces stiff competition from established social media platforms. While its user base and investor sentiment are bolstered by Trump’s political following, the company’s long-term viability will depend on its ability to create a sustainable revenue stream and maintain relevance in a crowded digital landscape.

As the company seeks to stabilize, the question remains whether its appeal to Trump’s supporters can translate into financial success or whether it will remain a volatile stock driven more by ideology than business fundamentals.

Continue Reading

Trending