So the city council decides to not allow Shenanigan’s to close 2 lanes of traffic to have an outdoor party on NYE. Well, I was initially on the fence on this one, but the Times points out that there may have been some behind the scenes flaws and failures that have put a QC business in limbo and out some cash.
The initial issue came up in committee where Andy Lank, a member of the family that owns the Carriage Haus and Kilkenney’s (formerly Paddy’s and Dalton’s) made issue that they did not want their parking disrupted for this event. After all, those precious 6 or 8 spaces are prime real estate after happy hour. Indeed, they have the right to defend those spaces, as they do not disrupt the parking on the south side of 3rd St. when they have outdoor events in the summer.
The main reason for the denial of the lane closure seemed to be safety. There is argument that the bars on the north side of the street close a lane all the time during the summer, and I think that’s where one of the primary differences comes into play. Shenanigan’s wanted to close 2 lanes and leave open one lane of traffic. The north side bars close one and leave two open. In addition, Shenanigan’s wanted to put up a heated tent, leaving two more major differences. One, the ability to see traffic traveling down that one open lane, and two, the inability to see what is going on outside the tent. Shenanigan’s, rumor has it, is far worse when it comes to fights and activity requiring the police and ambulances, so completely covering the front view of that building probably isn’t a great idea. There is an additional issue of propane being used to heat the tent, and in the city council meeting, there were no answers as to how those tanks would be protected in the event of an accident. The summer closures on the north side of the street aren’t met with these issues. There is sight distance around the barricades, there isn’t propane outside and there are two lanes of traffic. In addition, there is not the potential for winter driving conditions.
Now to the reason this sounds a little fishy is the issue that the planning was three months out according to the owner and there were alleged conversations with aldermen that it would not be a problem. The Times doesn’t name the aldermen, but maybe Tory can fill us in on who they were if he knows. This is another example of the disorganized circus illusion that the council leaves, and it is somewhat embarrassing, at least I hope the council members see it that way. The sad thing is that Ambrose, Howard, Barnhill and VanFossen wouldn’t even reconsider the issue. The least you can do is have some discussion on the topic and find some sort of compromise. For once, at least Lynn wins a point with me, and Frink and Justin should get the nod of approval for trying to keep a downtown business from suffering losses. I don’t buy the comments on the Times website that there is a bias against Shenanigan’s and a favor toward the north side bars. There is a legitimate concern for safety here, I’m just not sure that there wasn’t the ability to compromise and close the whole street since there was such a mess in the planning process.
By the way, I wonder where Hamerlinck, Dumas and Meyer were? Probably out playing Blues Clues with each other…
Times Article: http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/12/29/news/local/doc4775d05081518138910367.txt
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Monday, December 17, 2007
Identity and Irrelevant Both Start With I….
I have no identity on purpose. Reason being, it is truly irrelevant. Granted some of my postings will have a slanted view, and quite simply a bit of a slant on occasion is important to generate discussion. We are all learning, all soaking up information to make our decisions on where we stand and what we believe in.
If you haven’t noticed I attempt in most cases to cite my sources. Most of my opinion will show in the observation of behavior, which is hard to cite sources on unless you are a psychologist. I have noticed on blogs, especially the Times, that most bloggers don’t really care what they are writing, and on multiple occasions are writing with fabricated grounds, or no grounds at all. This is the primary reason for citing my sources.
There are times that I look at a subject, and miss consideration of a portion that I didn’t think about, hence my draw to blogging and to listening to other people’s opinion. I truly do like to hear other opinions, even Keith Meyer’s, and on occasion especially Keith’s. So speaking of Keith, he is offering a rubber key to the city if someone can guess what Davenport city staff member I am. Well, I hate to disappoint, but nobody knows my identity, and it will stay that way on purpose. I am simply stating opinions and citing the sources that I form that opinion from. I point out inconsistencies, all while trying to give the situation the benefit of the doubt. So, if you happen to disagree with me, which I’m sure many people will, quit spending your time trying to find out who I am, and structure an argument to back your opinion. One could even make it credible and cite their sources. In the end, regardless of whether I’m arguing with Keith, Craig Malin, Ed Winborn, Hamerlinck, Boom, Justin, Barnhill, Ambrose, Lynn, etc. the same thing will happen, I debate my opinion and provide evidence to why I think I’m right…
The identity is irrelevant, going through the motions stays the same.
If you haven’t noticed I attempt in most cases to cite my sources. Most of my opinion will show in the observation of behavior, which is hard to cite sources on unless you are a psychologist. I have noticed on blogs, especially the Times, that most bloggers don’t really care what they are writing, and on multiple occasions are writing with fabricated grounds, or no grounds at all. This is the primary reason for citing my sources.
There are times that I look at a subject, and miss consideration of a portion that I didn’t think about, hence my draw to blogging and to listening to other people’s opinion. I truly do like to hear other opinions, even Keith Meyer’s, and on occasion especially Keith’s. So speaking of Keith, he is offering a rubber key to the city if someone can guess what Davenport city staff member I am. Well, I hate to disappoint, but nobody knows my identity, and it will stay that way on purpose. I am simply stating opinions and citing the sources that I form that opinion from. I point out inconsistencies, all while trying to give the situation the benefit of the doubt. So, if you happen to disagree with me, which I’m sure many people will, quit spending your time trying to find out who I am, and structure an argument to back your opinion. One could even make it credible and cite their sources. In the end, regardless of whether I’m arguing with Keith, Craig Malin, Ed Winborn, Hamerlinck, Boom, Justin, Barnhill, Ambrose, Lynn, etc. the same thing will happen, I debate my opinion and provide evidence to why I think I’m right…
The identity is irrelevant, going through the motions stays the same.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Winborn... Attempting Legacy or Lame Duck?
It appears Meyer isn’t the only person able to ruffle feathers before an apparent welcome departure from the council. Winborn has riled up the masses one last time in an effort to push Davenport Promise to the voters. (I was going to ask someone to check Hamerlinck’s pulse since he has stopped the whistling kettle behavior after the election, formerly spewing steam at Howard and the Mayor. Now he’s back to the predictable whistling, in addition to getting condescending with people. I think he owes the Menard’s representative an apology after talking to him much like I talk to my dog during the first consideration on zoning. “Good boy!”)
That being said, on the surface Hamerlinck is likely right, as the council may not be overly educated on this, and Winborn could be partially culpable. One of the comments in the Times relates to where the committee is on this, since we haven’t heard from them publicly, or even know the make-up of the committee either. I think it is premature to push this to voters now, especially when the council isn’t even up to speed on the ins and outs of the plan.
But, it turns out, after a conversation with a reliable source, that this is not the case after all and this is a BS smokescreen. Anyone on the council that has not been educated on this has not gone to the committee meetings to which they were invited, or done their homework. Apparently, they have all gotten packets of information on numbers, organization and forecasts from the plan. None of that seems to be public that I can find, or at least nobody has published it. I haven’t seen this information, but I don’t doubt the fact that it has been distributed to the council. On top of that, it was stated by Ms. Cartee that the aldermen have been invited to numerous meetings and apparently they are just not attending. So in the end this may not be Winborn’s fault after all, but lies in the hands of the aldermen, namely Hamerlinck and Howard, who are leery about this, but haven’t made any effort to look at it. I find Hamerlinck’s comments about this just being a Winborn legacy move a little slanted. I think this is something that Hamerlinck sees as something that is going to be a good thing, and he wants a little more shine directed toward himself. To me, Hamerlinck is trying to make Winborn look like a lame duck, nothing more.
That being said, on the surface Hamerlinck is likely right, as the council may not be overly educated on this, and Winborn could be partially culpable. One of the comments in the Times relates to where the committee is on this, since we haven’t heard from them publicly, or even know the make-up of the committee either. I think it is premature to push this to voters now, especially when the council isn’t even up to speed on the ins and outs of the plan.
But, it turns out, after a conversation with a reliable source, that this is not the case after all and this is a BS smokescreen. Anyone on the council that has not been educated on this has not gone to the committee meetings to which they were invited, or done their homework. Apparently, they have all gotten packets of information on numbers, organization and forecasts from the plan. None of that seems to be public that I can find, or at least nobody has published it. I haven’t seen this information, but I don’t doubt the fact that it has been distributed to the council. On top of that, it was stated by Ms. Cartee that the aldermen have been invited to numerous meetings and apparently they are just not attending. So in the end this may not be Winborn’s fault after all, but lies in the hands of the aldermen, namely Hamerlinck and Howard, who are leery about this, but haven’t made any effort to look at it. I find Hamerlinck’s comments about this just being a Winborn legacy move a little slanted. I think this is something that Hamerlinck sees as something that is going to be a good thing, and he wants a little more shine directed toward himself. To me, Hamerlinck is trying to make Winborn look like a lame duck, nothing more.
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Promise... Will It Deliver?
I was initially against promise, mainly from bitterness that I was never afforded any assistance in getting post-secondary education. My experience at Central High School when I was a student there was a visit to the office where scholarship research could be done, and being told that the person in the office couldn’t help me because I was not a minority. Apparently, that position is staffed on a grant to help minorities. It just seems to me that everyone should have the same opportunities. I would have loved to have promise when I was younger since I progressed through the Davenport Community Schools from K-12. I would have been a prime candidate for the plan since I attended Scott Community for 2 years then on to the U of Iowa for the advantage of saving money the first two years.
After some research, the promise to me makes some economic sense. There are so many angles that it is beneficial that it seems to me to overshadow the drawbacks. I am interested, as a taxpayer, in the benefits that have surfaced from Kalamazoo. Increased property value, increased leverage in gaining employers and a more driven student population are all to Davenport’s benefit. This seems to me to be important since I just refinanced my mortgage to find that my property value has not changed in the last 8 years. (The appraiser should meet the assessor. They certainly aren’t on the same page.)
I think that the biggest drawback to this is the long term. The reason that Kalamazoo works is that they are one of the only areas in the country doing this. The attraction begins to fade as more areas of the country get on board. Now that being said, I think that if Davenport is going to do this, that it needs to happen now. My thought is that most areas will notice this drawback and be hesitant as the areas that offer promise increases, leaving Davenport in a spot where we remain a unique area. I believe that Kalamazoo recognizes this drawback as well. In an article in the RC Reader, they interview the woman in charge of promise in Kalamazoo. She seemed a little negative about it, as well she should. The more cities that develop this, the less effective promise is for her city. The RC Reader doesn’t really address this, which pretty much goes with their history of not thinking before they send something to the printing press.
The advantages are pretty attractive. There is an immediate attraction to business, likely more so than the advantages of TIF benefits. With the dwindling ability of businesses to offer benefits to employees, this is a win – win for both sides. Companies can attract employees by highlighting this as a benefit to working for a Davenport based company, while employees would want to live here to get the benefit themselves. Businesses want to be where people want to live, especially people with a college education, and quite frankly, an outstanding public education system as well.
My property value will go up. You can’t argue that this is a bad thing with the exception that taxes go up too. That’s a trivial cost vs. benefit when it comes to finances. I don’t really buy that the city would lower taxes based on increased revenue, but it may happen. I’d really enjoy it if my property value actually increased at the rate the assessor’s office speculates that it is increasing. In Kalamazoo, investors immediately realized the property value would increase, changing a trend of decreasing at a pretty substantial rate. One developer even dumped 7 million into land. That was just one developer.
There is a comment in a Times article about the decrease in services and programs by Davenport Schools, and if they can’t keep up now, how will they keep up when enrollment increases. When you increase enrollment, the schools get more money. It seems that the increase in enrollment in Kalamazoo would be similar here, resulting in increased funding for Davenport Schools and hopefully reversing a trend of cuts that are affecting school programs and staffing.
I would like to see a way out of this however, but I’m on the fence about ever retracting the program. Because of that drawback of it becoming a popular nationwide program, the economic benefit may decline over time. Getting out of the program if it loses its effectiveness may not be the best idea, resulting in a negative economic impact. That being said, I would also like to see some private/corporate funding, like that in the Kalamazoo program. After all, it is a benefit to business. However, adding private/corporate funding may help offset the decreasing economic impact should that occur.
I see the positive impact that this can have, and I certainly don’t see it as a bad thing. To really cement my support for this, I would like to see some funding other than that of the taxpayer. Granted, living here and paying taxes makes this a nice benefit to get a little money back. And in my opinion, I’d rather put money into a taxpayer pocket through this than in the pocket of a big business through TIF. It is nice that Davenport can do this without generating a new tax. I just wish there was truly a promise to me, the taxpayer, that the benefit will offset the reallocation of current monies and that my taxes will go down from the increased tax base. Based on Kalamazoo and the lack of growth in Davenport, I think I am ready for the risk.
Articles:
http://media.www.westernherald.com/media/storage/paper881/news/2007/01/22/Opinion/Editorial.Michigan.Promise-2665140.shtml
http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2007/11/college_promise_could_spread.html
http://qctimes.com/articles/2007/05/28/news/local/doc465a4b29c1b72629490152.txthttp://www.rcreader.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12352&Itemid=42
After some research, the promise to me makes some economic sense. There are so many angles that it is beneficial that it seems to me to overshadow the drawbacks. I am interested, as a taxpayer, in the benefits that have surfaced from Kalamazoo. Increased property value, increased leverage in gaining employers and a more driven student population are all to Davenport’s benefit. This seems to me to be important since I just refinanced my mortgage to find that my property value has not changed in the last 8 years. (The appraiser should meet the assessor. They certainly aren’t on the same page.)
I think that the biggest drawback to this is the long term. The reason that Kalamazoo works is that they are one of the only areas in the country doing this. The attraction begins to fade as more areas of the country get on board. Now that being said, I think that if Davenport is going to do this, that it needs to happen now. My thought is that most areas will notice this drawback and be hesitant as the areas that offer promise increases, leaving Davenport in a spot where we remain a unique area. I believe that Kalamazoo recognizes this drawback as well. In an article in the RC Reader, they interview the woman in charge of promise in Kalamazoo. She seemed a little negative about it, as well she should. The more cities that develop this, the less effective promise is for her city. The RC Reader doesn’t really address this, which pretty much goes with their history of not thinking before they send something to the printing press.
The advantages are pretty attractive. There is an immediate attraction to business, likely more so than the advantages of TIF benefits. With the dwindling ability of businesses to offer benefits to employees, this is a win – win for both sides. Companies can attract employees by highlighting this as a benefit to working for a Davenport based company, while employees would want to live here to get the benefit themselves. Businesses want to be where people want to live, especially people with a college education, and quite frankly, an outstanding public education system as well.
My property value will go up. You can’t argue that this is a bad thing with the exception that taxes go up too. That’s a trivial cost vs. benefit when it comes to finances. I don’t really buy that the city would lower taxes based on increased revenue, but it may happen. I’d really enjoy it if my property value actually increased at the rate the assessor’s office speculates that it is increasing. In Kalamazoo, investors immediately realized the property value would increase, changing a trend of decreasing at a pretty substantial rate. One developer even dumped 7 million into land. That was just one developer.
There is a comment in a Times article about the decrease in services and programs by Davenport Schools, and if they can’t keep up now, how will they keep up when enrollment increases. When you increase enrollment, the schools get more money. It seems that the increase in enrollment in Kalamazoo would be similar here, resulting in increased funding for Davenport Schools and hopefully reversing a trend of cuts that are affecting school programs and staffing.
I would like to see a way out of this however, but I’m on the fence about ever retracting the program. Because of that drawback of it becoming a popular nationwide program, the economic benefit may decline over time. Getting out of the program if it loses its effectiveness may not be the best idea, resulting in a negative economic impact. That being said, I would also like to see some private/corporate funding, like that in the Kalamazoo program. After all, it is a benefit to business. However, adding private/corporate funding may help offset the decreasing economic impact should that occur.
I see the positive impact that this can have, and I certainly don’t see it as a bad thing. To really cement my support for this, I would like to see some funding other than that of the taxpayer. Granted, living here and paying taxes makes this a nice benefit to get a little money back. And in my opinion, I’d rather put money into a taxpayer pocket through this than in the pocket of a big business through TIF. It is nice that Davenport can do this without generating a new tax. I just wish there was truly a promise to me, the taxpayer, that the benefit will offset the reallocation of current monies and that my taxes will go down from the increased tax base. Based on Kalamazoo and the lack of growth in Davenport, I think I am ready for the risk.
Articles:
http://media.www.westernherald.com/media/storage/paper881/news/2007/01/22/Opinion/Editorial.Michigan.Promise-2665140.shtml
http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2007/11/college_promise_could_spread.html
http://qctimes.com/articles/2007/05/28/news/local/doc465a4b29c1b72629490152.txthttp://www.rcreader.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12352&Itemid=42
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Gluba and the '(a)gainsters'...
That was quick. Gluba makes a decision and the good ole boys club conspiracy begins in the Times comments. An article in the Times points out that Gluba selected Barnhill as Mayor-Pro-Tem.
If this is an example of the decisions that Gluba is going to be making in the future, I am glad he got elected. Lets look at what he had to choose from. First off, eliminate all of the new guys. Left-over you have Barnhill, Ambrose, Frink, Hamerlinck, and Lynn. Lets think this out for a second.
Ambrose. Um, no. This guy couldn’t make a decent decision if he was allowed a cabinet of highly qualified decision makers.
Frink. Well, if you want to leave the illusion that it really is the boys club, this is the one to pick. He is accused of being the council D1 rep more than most. I will say, initially I thought Frink would be a D1 puppet when he first ran, coming to my door pretty early in the campaign process, all sweaty and handing me my free pad of Frink Post-it’s. He has not done bad, though he does have a definite should have had a V8 lean toward D1 initiatives, he seems to be more level-headed than I thought. But, in the end, compared to Barnhill I don’t think he’s much like Gluba personality-wise.
Hamerlinck. Well, you know how I feel about this guy. If I were mayor, I wouldn’t put him in my club. I don’t think Hamerlinck has decided what club he belongs to. With his decisiveness, if he comes to my door selling cookies I wouldn’t be all that shocked. With new team-mates, I don’t think Gluba, or anyone for that matter, can count on which uniform he’ll be wearing.
Lynn. Here is a cascade of bad decisions that makes Niagra Falls look like lock and dam 14. Nice thing is, with this council I doubt he will get any bone-head things accomplished that allow him to harbor fugitives in his rentals. Overall, he is bordering on making it look like McGivern never had an agenda of his own.
So Barnhill is it. It seems after all of the above you have someone that is not a D1 puppet and when the accusations of the boys club in the last few years has surfaced, you rarely see Barnhill being negatively accused of playing along with Team Howard, Frink and Brooke. He has been on the council multiple terms and honestly, when the bickering hits Defcon 4, he truly keeps his cool and manages to make sense. Barnhill doesn’t seem to me to be a D1 puppet and I haven’t gotten that from Gluba yet either. I think Gluba made a good call here and picked the guy that, at least on the surface, seems to be most like him. I could be wrong, but we’ll see how it plays out.
Times article:
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/12/05/news/local/doc4756e7ee8d793660559963.txt
If this is an example of the decisions that Gluba is going to be making in the future, I am glad he got elected. Lets look at what he had to choose from. First off, eliminate all of the new guys. Left-over you have Barnhill, Ambrose, Frink, Hamerlinck, and Lynn. Lets think this out for a second.
Ambrose. Um, no. This guy couldn’t make a decent decision if he was allowed a cabinet of highly qualified decision makers.
Frink. Well, if you want to leave the illusion that it really is the boys club, this is the one to pick. He is accused of being the council D1 rep more than most. I will say, initially I thought Frink would be a D1 puppet when he first ran, coming to my door pretty early in the campaign process, all sweaty and handing me my free pad of Frink Post-it’s. He has not done bad, though he does have a definite should have had a V8 lean toward D1 initiatives, he seems to be more level-headed than I thought. But, in the end, compared to Barnhill I don’t think he’s much like Gluba personality-wise.
Hamerlinck. Well, you know how I feel about this guy. If I were mayor, I wouldn’t put him in my club. I don’t think Hamerlinck has decided what club he belongs to. With his decisiveness, if he comes to my door selling cookies I wouldn’t be all that shocked. With new team-mates, I don’t think Gluba, or anyone for that matter, can count on which uniform he’ll be wearing.
Lynn. Here is a cascade of bad decisions that makes Niagra Falls look like lock and dam 14. Nice thing is, with this council I doubt he will get any bone-head things accomplished that allow him to harbor fugitives in his rentals. Overall, he is bordering on making it look like McGivern never had an agenda of his own.
So Barnhill is it. It seems after all of the above you have someone that is not a D1 puppet and when the accusations of the boys club in the last few years has surfaced, you rarely see Barnhill being negatively accused of playing along with Team Howard, Frink and Brooke. He has been on the council multiple terms and honestly, when the bickering hits Defcon 4, he truly keeps his cool and manages to make sense. Barnhill doesn’t seem to me to be a D1 puppet and I haven’t gotten that from Gluba yet either. I think Gluba made a good call here and picked the guy that, at least on the surface, seems to be most like him. I could be wrong, but we’ll see how it plays out.
Times article:
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/12/05/news/local/doc4756e7ee8d793660559963.txt
Friday, November 30, 2007
Consolidated Dispatching
This seems to be a hot topic, more so with the Bettendorf crowd than anyone else. This one took a lot of research, but I think this is a good thing. I tried to break this down into sections of what costs the taxpayers money. There’s personnel, hardware and management.
Personnel seems to be most of the against argument by the Bettendorf crowd since they seem to be pleased with their dispatch as is. According to the articles that address the personnel issue, it seems that there will not be a loss of numbers, or even the people that exist as of right now. How this would affect day to day operations seems to be slim to none, as there are going to be plenty of dispatchers to answer the calls.
Another issue that comes up is that the Bettendorf folks say that there will be a delay in getting services. I think that is a large heap of speculation and really has no merit. As a matter of fact I think it will decrease delays and here’s why. Cell phones. I don’t know if this has happened to any of you but a friend of mine was in the area of 53rd and Elmore and dialed 911 from his cell phone. He got Bettendorf. He wasn’t in Bettendorf. Had that been a consolidated center, it wouldn’t matter, that dispatcher could send him Davenport’s assistance from the same desk. One call, no transferring from place to place.
Hardware was a lot more involved than I thought. After reading the report that is posted as a link from the Sheriff’s Department site, it seems that getting everyone to communicate with each other may not be that difficult, as long as all of the departments involved are willing to work together. The term interoperability keeps surfacing in the sites that I went to and it seems that agencies that develop interoperability are eligible for federal grants. I stumbled into a lot of information at the federal level about national incident management and it’s everywhere. The fed is supporting it, and not only is willing to put funds into it, they already have.
These dispatch centers are working well and interoperability was proven to be very important and successful in the Minneapolis interstate bridge collapse. If interoperability isn’t in place here in the QC I think it should be. I think that all law enforcement, fire departments and ambulances need to be able to talk to each other. If they all had the same dispatch center that can’t hurt. If that center knows where everyone is would they be able to send the closest responder instead of what is now in their limited span of control? I couldn’t find that answer definitively, but it makes sense.
I think the true issue with Bettendorf is the management side. If they lose control of the management, they may seem like the little guy being bullied around by Davenport, just because of mere numbers. I’m not sure how that issue could be resolved, but it sounds like everyone would maintain some control over their portion of the world. I really don’t think that Bettendorf is going to lose the ability to get a police officer in a decent amount of time, unlike Davenport on occasion. It seems the change is limited to changing dispatch, not departments themselves. I doubt after all the crying about the fire department in that city that the citizens there wouldn’t want emergency services to be able to communicate with other agencies in the most efficient manner. It appears that they are the only city that cannot handle a moderate to major emergency without the assistance of other jurisdictions, namely when it comes to fire. (No offense intended.) It seems overall, it’s not going to change emergency response, just save us money and increase the efficiency when someone calls for help.
Personnel seems to be most of the against argument by the Bettendorf crowd since they seem to be pleased with their dispatch as is. According to the articles that address the personnel issue, it seems that there will not be a loss of numbers, or even the people that exist as of right now. How this would affect day to day operations seems to be slim to none, as there are going to be plenty of dispatchers to answer the calls.
Another issue that comes up is that the Bettendorf folks say that there will be a delay in getting services. I think that is a large heap of speculation and really has no merit. As a matter of fact I think it will decrease delays and here’s why. Cell phones. I don’t know if this has happened to any of you but a friend of mine was in the area of 53rd and Elmore and dialed 911 from his cell phone. He got Bettendorf. He wasn’t in Bettendorf. Had that been a consolidated center, it wouldn’t matter, that dispatcher could send him Davenport’s assistance from the same desk. One call, no transferring from place to place.
Hardware was a lot more involved than I thought. After reading the report that is posted as a link from the Sheriff’s Department site, it seems that getting everyone to communicate with each other may not be that difficult, as long as all of the departments involved are willing to work together. The term interoperability keeps surfacing in the sites that I went to and it seems that agencies that develop interoperability are eligible for federal grants. I stumbled into a lot of information at the federal level about national incident management and it’s everywhere. The fed is supporting it, and not only is willing to put funds into it, they already have.
These dispatch centers are working well and interoperability was proven to be very important and successful in the Minneapolis interstate bridge collapse. If interoperability isn’t in place here in the QC I think it should be. I think that all law enforcement, fire departments and ambulances need to be able to talk to each other. If they all had the same dispatch center that can’t hurt. If that center knows where everyone is would they be able to send the closest responder instead of what is now in their limited span of control? I couldn’t find that answer definitively, but it makes sense.
I think the true issue with Bettendorf is the management side. If they lose control of the management, they may seem like the little guy being bullied around by Davenport, just because of mere numbers. I’m not sure how that issue could be resolved, but it sounds like everyone would maintain some control over their portion of the world. I really don’t think that Bettendorf is going to lose the ability to get a police officer in a decent amount of time, unlike Davenport on occasion. It seems the change is limited to changing dispatch, not departments themselves. I doubt after all the crying about the fire department in that city that the citizens there wouldn’t want emergency services to be able to communicate with other agencies in the most efficient manner. It appears that they are the only city that cannot handle a moderate to major emergency without the assistance of other jurisdictions, namely when it comes to fire. (No offense intended.) It seems overall, it’s not going to change emergency response, just save us money and increase the efficiency when someone calls for help.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Sticks and Stones...
If you’ve read the last post comments, Keith Meyer has managed to declare that I am a jerk.
Jerk –noun
1. a quick, sharp pull, thrust, twist, throw, or the like; a sudden movement: The train started with a jerk.
2. a spasmodic, usually involuntary, muscular movement, as the reflex action of pulling the hand away from a flame.
3. any sudden, quick movement of the body, as in dodging something.
4. Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person.
There are other definitions, but that is a start, and I ended the list with the one that he likely was referring to. He made this profound conclusion after I responded to a question that I am not going to answer in the same typing format that he did; a reversal of lower case and capital letters. Now if he was going to resort to name calling, and has an IQ over 75 as he claims to in another blog, he could have certainly selected a more accurate term.
In Mr. Meyer’s current state of mind, whatever that may be, it seems he is showing true colors, and to recognize that would not describe someone that is a jerk… foolish and inconsequential. As a matter of fact, in an effort not to be fatuous, I resisted posting anything about Mr. Meyer in the blog since he was not re-elected and does get my respect for his years of public service. I am not naïve in the fact that his behavior should predictably change to lashing out and name-calling since he seems to need to vent his frustration in public forum, for example, at churches being remodeled, at the skate park, from the city council chamber, etc. When I compare his foolish behavior both pre and post election to the president it makes sense when psychological principles are attached to it. Here is an excerpt from a psychiatrist in reference to President Bush:
At this point, the president seems to have entered a place in his psyche where he is discounting all external criticism and unpopularity, and fixing stubbornly on his illusion of vindication, because he's still "The Decider," who can just keep deciding until he gets to success. It's hard not to feel something heroic in this position - but it's a recipe for bad, if not catastrophic, decisions. Psychologically, President Bush has received support for so long because many have thought of him as "one of us." Most of us feel inadequate in some way, and watching him we can feel his inadequacies and sense his uncertainties, so we admire him for "pulling it off." His model tells us, "If you act like you're confident and competent, then you are." We are the culture that values the power of positive thinking and seeks assertiveness training. We believe that the right attitude can sometimes be more important than brains or hard work. He's bullied us, too. We don't dare to really confront the scale of his incompetent behavior, because then we would have to face what it means to have such an incompetent and psychologically disabled decision-maker as our president. It raises everyone's uncertainty. And that is, in fact, happening now. – John Briggs, M.D.
So not only is it explained that Keith doesn’t like not making any progress, it explains why anyone ever voted for him in the first place. When the uncertainty mounts and Keith just wasn’t pulling it off with his antics, he got voted out. Now that he is voted out, he is lashing out in an attempt to not become an inconsequential person which may be inevitable. So after being provoked, I think I have vented in the most prudent and politically correct manner possible. Not only did I submit that I am likely not a jerk, I think that I can justify saying that Keith Meyer is a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, and inconsequential person. A jerk.
Cited Work: Bush and the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807J.shtml
Jerk –noun
1. a quick, sharp pull, thrust, twist, throw, or the like; a sudden movement: The train started with a jerk.
2. a spasmodic, usually involuntary, muscular movement, as the reflex action of pulling the hand away from a flame.
3. any sudden, quick movement of the body, as in dodging something.
4. Slang. a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, or inconsequential person.
There are other definitions, but that is a start, and I ended the list with the one that he likely was referring to. He made this profound conclusion after I responded to a question that I am not going to answer in the same typing format that he did; a reversal of lower case and capital letters. Now if he was going to resort to name calling, and has an IQ over 75 as he claims to in another blog, he could have certainly selected a more accurate term.
In Mr. Meyer’s current state of mind, whatever that may be, it seems he is showing true colors, and to recognize that would not describe someone that is a jerk… foolish and inconsequential. As a matter of fact, in an effort not to be fatuous, I resisted posting anything about Mr. Meyer in the blog since he was not re-elected and does get my respect for his years of public service. I am not naïve in the fact that his behavior should predictably change to lashing out and name-calling since he seems to need to vent his frustration in public forum, for example, at churches being remodeled, at the skate park, from the city council chamber, etc. When I compare his foolish behavior both pre and post election to the president it makes sense when psychological principles are attached to it. Here is an excerpt from a psychiatrist in reference to President Bush:
At this point, the president seems to have entered a place in his psyche where he is discounting all external criticism and unpopularity, and fixing stubbornly on his illusion of vindication, because he's still "The Decider," who can just keep deciding until he gets to success. It's hard not to feel something heroic in this position - but it's a recipe for bad, if not catastrophic, decisions. Psychologically, President Bush has received support for so long because many have thought of him as "one of us." Most of us feel inadequate in some way, and watching him we can feel his inadequacies and sense his uncertainties, so we admire him for "pulling it off." His model tells us, "If you act like you're confident and competent, then you are." We are the culture that values the power of positive thinking and seeks assertiveness training. We believe that the right attitude can sometimes be more important than brains or hard work. He's bullied us, too. We don't dare to really confront the scale of his incompetent behavior, because then we would have to face what it means to have such an incompetent and psychologically disabled decision-maker as our president. It raises everyone's uncertainty. And that is, in fact, happening now. – John Briggs, M.D.
So not only is it explained that Keith doesn’t like not making any progress, it explains why anyone ever voted for him in the first place. When the uncertainty mounts and Keith just wasn’t pulling it off with his antics, he got voted out. Now that he is voted out, he is lashing out in an attempt to not become an inconsequential person which may be inevitable. So after being provoked, I think I have vented in the most prudent and politically correct manner possible. Not only did I submit that I am likely not a jerk, I think that I can justify saying that Keith Meyer is a contemptibly naive, fatuous, foolish, and inconsequential person. A jerk.
Cited Work: Bush and the Psychology of Incompetent Decisions
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/011807J.shtml
Sunday, November 25, 2007
JLCS – Overdoing philanthropy?
I am seeing that the comments on the last thread went there, so here is my two cents for what it’s worth. I am not unhappy with the overall behavior of John Lewis Coffee Shop. I think that there is a genuine need to help the homeless and people who are going through a hard time. I’m just not sure that JLCS is doing this in a way that is best for the community. As my thought process developed on this, I decided to consult with some people that I know… a few Davenport Police officers and a Davenport Firefighter, who also works part time on the ambulance in Davenport.
The accusations always fly about how JLCS attracts crime and the homeless are the cause of it. Though I appreciate the concern of neighbors, the police do not seem to be overly concerned with them, as they have far more issues with rental properties than JLCS could ever dream of. It seems that the overwhelming consensus is that the issue with JLCS residents is that they are frequently intoxicated and sleeping in back yards, alleys, etc. As far as their crime actually having a victim, it doesn’t seem to be overwhelming as it is made out to be. In addition, I wouldn’t attribute this to JLCS alone, it would happen anyway.
The other consensus, which tends to rely on less speculation, is that JLCS is much bigger than it needs to be. The majority of the residents that the police and medical personnel deal with are not from here. The homeless do state on a regular basis to the police that they came here because they heard about the benefits and services that were available.
Of the roughly 3 million that JLCS has spent in their fiscal year ending 2005, half of it was on salaries. A large portion of dollars are involved in development as well. With the closing of the lunch time meal that they served, a seemingly lower expense than the development that they are doing (160K vs. 2.5m in outstanding mortgages), seems to make it look like they are more interested in growing and obtaining property then they are “…work(ing) with the greater community in challenging the root causes of poverty and affecting systemic change through development activities.” It seems to me that if you are going to address the root cause of poverty you should provide food, shelter and programs to get people back to work, and in their own homes. That doesn’t mean to me that you should spend millions in public funds to develop consolidated areas of affordable housing that has the potential to lower property values, i.e. Cobblestone.
To me if JLCS wants the support of the community they need to stop attracting homeless here, working to provide needed services which should focus on providing food and temporary shelter and truly affect systemic change. I am very much into philanthropy and helping the poor, but I do not support taking it so far as to negatively impact our community.
Source: www.guidestar.org, JLCS FYE 2005 IRS 990.
The accusations always fly about how JLCS attracts crime and the homeless are the cause of it. Though I appreciate the concern of neighbors, the police do not seem to be overly concerned with them, as they have far more issues with rental properties than JLCS could ever dream of. It seems that the overwhelming consensus is that the issue with JLCS residents is that they are frequently intoxicated and sleeping in back yards, alleys, etc. As far as their crime actually having a victim, it doesn’t seem to be overwhelming as it is made out to be. In addition, I wouldn’t attribute this to JLCS alone, it would happen anyway.
The other consensus, which tends to rely on less speculation, is that JLCS is much bigger than it needs to be. The majority of the residents that the police and medical personnel deal with are not from here. The homeless do state on a regular basis to the police that they came here because they heard about the benefits and services that were available.
Of the roughly 3 million that JLCS has spent in their fiscal year ending 2005, half of it was on salaries. A large portion of dollars are involved in development as well. With the closing of the lunch time meal that they served, a seemingly lower expense than the development that they are doing (160K vs. 2.5m in outstanding mortgages), seems to make it look like they are more interested in growing and obtaining property then they are “…work(ing) with the greater community in challenging the root causes of poverty and affecting systemic change through development activities.” It seems to me that if you are going to address the root cause of poverty you should provide food, shelter and programs to get people back to work, and in their own homes. That doesn’t mean to me that you should spend millions in public funds to develop consolidated areas of affordable housing that has the potential to lower property values, i.e. Cobblestone.
To me if JLCS wants the support of the community they need to stop attracting homeless here, working to provide needed services which should focus on providing food and temporary shelter and truly affect systemic change. I am very much into philanthropy and helping the poor, but I do not support taking it so far as to negatively impact our community.
Source: www.guidestar.org, JLCS FYE 2005 IRS 990.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Will the Real Shawn Hamerlinck Please Stand Up?
I am confused as to what the last election did to Shawn. It seems the “outspoken critic” of Malin on a regular basis is now giving him a positive review. If you haven’t seen the initial article that just tickled a little here it is…
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/11/16/news/local/doc473d39efd720b997719139.txt
Essentially, Shawn has been browbeating Malin, along with his buddies Lynn, Ambrose and Meyer, and is now blaming it on himself and the council. At least, that is how I read the passage in that article, that the council gives Malin no direction, and it is their fault.
So what is Shawn really saying? He likes Malin and the job he’s doing, even though he voted to fire the guy? In an April 17th article in the QCT, Shawn says: “I will grant that Craig Malin offers institutional knowledge,” he said. “It’s amazing the ability he has to get stuff done. The problem is sometimes in what that stuff is and what direction he wants to move.” Huh? So where does Shawn get this magical “he’s doing a good job” gameface?
It seems to me that Shawn might be a little frustrated. In my view, and I don’t think I’m alone, he is attempting to micromanage the city from his ward. Charlie Brooke tried to explain to Shawn why this was a bad thing when Shawn was fired up about taking responsibilities away from Malin. Here is a snip from the same April 17th article referenced above:
Alderman Charlie Brooke, 6th Ward, said a city with a $180 million budget and 900 employees would be a nightmare to run by a micromanaging elected body.“It needs a professional, a CEO, to run it, not 10 politicians elected every two years,” he said. “Nine of the 10 aldermen of Davenport have no experience running a business. Eight of the 10 have no real job at all. One is in jail. No other city in Iowa runs without an administrator.”Hamerlinck said his idea would be to keep an administrator but give the power to hire and fire department heads to the council and mayor.
Now back to the latest article where Shawn is quoted as saying:
“The biggest issue affecting the city administrator is a City Council that has refused to give him direct policy direction,” he said. “It’s our responsibility to tell him exactly what we want him to do, and too often, we haven’t.” Is that it? Is that the issue? Shawn, remember wanting to eliminate the position all together?? Here’s a clip from an April 14th article from the QCT:
Alderman Keith Meyer, 3rd Ward, who attended Hamerlinck’s meeting, told the Quad-City Times late last week that he will support the alderman’s (Hamerlinck's) efforts to eliminate the position. Aldermen Ray Ambrose, 4th Ward, and Bill Lynn, 5th Ward, also have positioned themselves in support of Hamerlinck.
So what do you want Shawn? Do you want the council to do everything, or do you want to just tell Malin what to do? It seems to me you should leave a significant amount of decision making in the hands of the person, whom you give glowing approval of that has “institutional knowledge” and not in the hands of 9 of 10 aldermen who “have no experience running a business.”
Links to the other cited articles:
April 14, 2007
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/14/news/local/doc462197afb7bf0094213189.txt
April 17, 2007
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/17/news/local/doc4624548342483807602860.txt
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/11/16/news/local/doc473d39efd720b997719139.txt
Essentially, Shawn has been browbeating Malin, along with his buddies Lynn, Ambrose and Meyer, and is now blaming it on himself and the council. At least, that is how I read the passage in that article, that the council gives Malin no direction, and it is their fault.
So what is Shawn really saying? He likes Malin and the job he’s doing, even though he voted to fire the guy? In an April 17th article in the QCT, Shawn says: “I will grant that Craig Malin offers institutional knowledge,” he said. “It’s amazing the ability he has to get stuff done. The problem is sometimes in what that stuff is and what direction he wants to move.” Huh? So where does Shawn get this magical “he’s doing a good job” gameface?
It seems to me that Shawn might be a little frustrated. In my view, and I don’t think I’m alone, he is attempting to micromanage the city from his ward. Charlie Brooke tried to explain to Shawn why this was a bad thing when Shawn was fired up about taking responsibilities away from Malin. Here is a snip from the same April 17th article referenced above:
Alderman Charlie Brooke, 6th Ward, said a city with a $180 million budget and 900 employees would be a nightmare to run by a micromanaging elected body.“It needs a professional, a CEO, to run it, not 10 politicians elected every two years,” he said. “Nine of the 10 aldermen of Davenport have no experience running a business. Eight of the 10 have no real job at all. One is in jail. No other city in Iowa runs without an administrator.”Hamerlinck said his idea would be to keep an administrator but give the power to hire and fire department heads to the council and mayor.
Now back to the latest article where Shawn is quoted as saying:
“The biggest issue affecting the city administrator is a City Council that has refused to give him direct policy direction,” he said. “It’s our responsibility to tell him exactly what we want him to do, and too often, we haven’t.” Is that it? Is that the issue? Shawn, remember wanting to eliminate the position all together?? Here’s a clip from an April 14th article from the QCT:
Alderman Keith Meyer, 3rd Ward, who attended Hamerlinck’s meeting, told the Quad-City Times late last week that he will support the alderman’s (Hamerlinck's) efforts to eliminate the position. Aldermen Ray Ambrose, 4th Ward, and Bill Lynn, 5th Ward, also have positioned themselves in support of Hamerlinck.
So what do you want Shawn? Do you want the council to do everything, or do you want to just tell Malin what to do? It seems to me you should leave a significant amount of decision making in the hands of the person, whom you give glowing approval of that has “institutional knowledge” and not in the hands of 9 of 10 aldermen who “have no experience running a business.”
Links to the other cited articles:
April 14, 2007
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/14/news/local/doc462197afb7bf0094213189.txt
April 17, 2007
http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2007/04/17/news/local/doc4624548342483807602860.txt
The Opener...
I have long been a fan of blogging and have paid an occasional visit to the blogs that deal with the politics and the ongoings in the City of Davenport. I think there is some lively and prudent discussion that occurs, and that this is a way to communicate with not only each other as voters and active citizens in government, but to politicians and city employees that may not always grasp where we stand as citizens who want this city to grow and prosper.
That being said, I would refer you to the rules that were created by the originator of this little hobby, The Fly. Rule #1, I am king.... I will not allow anyone to belittle or defame another person, we all have the ability to be civil and structure arguments that are constructive. Rule #2, Do not get vulgar, I will delete comments. Feel free to insult, but do it like an adult. Rule #3, I too believe that we can all agree to disagree, your comments should be focused toward making our city better, or simply the enlightenment of someone that just doesn't get it. Rule#4, I can change the rules at any time.
As of now I will allow anonymous posts.... This may change if it gets out of hand. One liner jabs will be deleted as well as irrelevant posts from anonymous persons. If you want your comment to stay, I suggest logging in with some sort of identity, or supplying evidence with your anonymous post.
Well, let us begin...
That being said, I would refer you to the rules that were created by the originator of this little hobby, The Fly. Rule #1, I am king.... I will not allow anyone to belittle or defame another person, we all have the ability to be civil and structure arguments that are constructive. Rule #2, Do not get vulgar, I will delete comments. Feel free to insult, but do it like an adult. Rule #3, I too believe that we can all agree to disagree, your comments should be focused toward making our city better, or simply the enlightenment of someone that just doesn't get it. Rule#4, I can change the rules at any time.
As of now I will allow anonymous posts.... This may change if it gets out of hand. One liner jabs will be deleted as well as irrelevant posts from anonymous persons. If you want your comment to stay, I suggest logging in with some sort of identity, or supplying evidence with your anonymous post.
Well, let us begin...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)