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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)