I am a little concerned with the article in reference to the new police chief. From what I gathered, during the interview process, the interview candidates were running on a platform of change for the better. Community policing and a more efficient department is what is needed in Davenport, but now we have someone hired and claiming that he is not going to make any changes?
3-12-08 New Police Chief : Donchez Learns Davenport Ways
I hope that these are comments directed at the fact that he needs to get his feet wet before making changes, but the way this article is written it doesn’t really spell that out. It seems that Donchez doesn’t want to make major changes. For that, I would suggest that we should have just promoted someone that is already there. We pay status quo on a daily basis. We hired someone who purported to want change, because I think that’s what we need.
I was not at the open interviews or public meetings on this, and I could be wrong on what his intent was while addressing the public and the interview panel before his hire. Maybe someone that was there can comment further on the contrast between the pre and post hiring comments. My concerns are founded from this article:
1-15-08 Davenport Police Chief Finalists Emphasize Community Policing
And here is the ultimate ironic twist. Mr. Yerington, praising the man that he apologized for hiring, citing it was a big mistake, was praising Malin and making comments about a fresh view being needed. Granted, he has every right to have a beef with the administration that is currently in place, but despite the potential conflicts here, I think Yerington is right.
‘Yerington also likes the idea of new blood at the leadership level.’
“Davenport is at the point right now where an outside, fresh view is needed,” he said. “And we’re going to get that no matter who Craig decides to hire.”
It seemed that the candidates were all about changes, but now what? I hope that this new guy is kept on his toes and we truly have a positive outcome here. We need to give him a chance, but I hope it doesn’t take him long to get his feet wet and make changes that results in cleaning up some neglected areas of the city. Yes, we have a great police department, but the delivery of police protection in Davenport needs a change. If we truly are getting a fresh view, like Yerington thought we were going to get based on his comments, I hope that the fresh view doesn't disappoint us resulting in the same old routine.
Saturday, March 15, 2008
Thursday, March 13, 2008
Playing Politics... Or Playing Us?
One thing I learned after the last city council meeting is that playing politics is not for amateurs. I was amused at the grandstanding, though repetitive and predictable, from Alderman Hamerlinck on the topic of the officers in the college classes. What happened next, was more amusing than the aforementioned, and included the well deserved hand-slapping by the mayor. Essentially what I gathered, and correct me if I’m wrong, is that Sean, under the auspices of not wanting to be “political,” wants to circumvent committees and open discussion of an issue, so instead of a committee recommending this to the council, it’s just him. And of course, the dancing around to be in the spotlight doesn’t stop there as he’s already talking about being the national model for this idea.
I’m not sure at this point that Sean has the city in mind anymore. It seems to be all about him. It’s not that he wasn’t grandstanding before, but now it’s worse since the new announcement of running at the state level. On the flip side of that is the fact that what he is presenting are generally good ideas. I am in support of the three strikes rule, Sean’s first attempt to reach out of the local arena, that time not needing any approval of the council or committees at the other levels. And now, he presents the cooperation between police and higher education, which needs a little more than a smile and a nod. These ideas are certainly not without merit, and can bring positive change to our community, as well as others. It’s the lack of forethought while attempting to be in the spotlight that has now bitten Hamerlinck et. al.
The mayor was upset, and rightfully so. To be caught off guard without insight to what is truly happening is not a good spot to be. For college deans to be calling the mayor, upset about this media spectacle is certainly within their rights. And to go to the media and attempt to move items past committees, or the professional, mind you political, process is a demonstration of a lack of experience, and possibly maturity.
The public, the same public that just short of attacked the mayor on the issue of meeting times and public input, should be outraged. In the pursuit of publicity Sean has abandoned the people that put him where he is, circumventing the exact process that he purports to uphold. Virtually eliminating public input is not the goal or purpose of our city government, and should be frowned upon.
I hope that in the coming months that this does not continue. Regardless of whether or not Sean is running for a state seat or not, he needs to serve the voters, not his own interest. At this point, I don’t think that Sean should be on a city council, let alone a state legislature.
I’m not sure at this point that Sean has the city in mind anymore. It seems to be all about him. It’s not that he wasn’t grandstanding before, but now it’s worse since the new announcement of running at the state level. On the flip side of that is the fact that what he is presenting are generally good ideas. I am in support of the three strikes rule, Sean’s first attempt to reach out of the local arena, that time not needing any approval of the council or committees at the other levels. And now, he presents the cooperation between police and higher education, which needs a little more than a smile and a nod. These ideas are certainly not without merit, and can bring positive change to our community, as well as others. It’s the lack of forethought while attempting to be in the spotlight that has now bitten Hamerlinck et. al.
The mayor was upset, and rightfully so. To be caught off guard without insight to what is truly happening is not a good spot to be. For college deans to be calling the mayor, upset about this media spectacle is certainly within their rights. And to go to the media and attempt to move items past committees, or the professional, mind you political, process is a demonstration of a lack of experience, and possibly maturity.
The public, the same public that just short of attacked the mayor on the issue of meeting times and public input, should be outraged. In the pursuit of publicity Sean has abandoned the people that put him where he is, circumventing the exact process that he purports to uphold. Virtually eliminating public input is not the goal or purpose of our city government, and should be frowned upon.
I hope that in the coming months that this does not continue. Regardless of whether or not Sean is running for a state seat or not, he needs to serve the voters, not his own interest. At this point, I don’t think that Sean should be on a city council, let alone a state legislature.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
A Smoking Ban May Not Be Necessary...
Smokers seem to want it both ways. Suing the tobacco companies for millions of dollars for wrongful death, arguing that the companies are responsible for their lung cancer, missing oral anatomy and the fact that they have to breathe through a hole in their throat. All of these arguments are similar, that the tobacco companies knew that the product would do harm and did not make it known to the consumer.
Here is a summary of judgements from Wikipedia:
-June 2002: A District Court in Kansas awarded $15 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco after calling the company's conduct "highly blameworthy and deserving of significant punishment." (David Burton vs. R.J. Reynold's Tobacco
-June 2002: A Miami jury held three cigarette companies liable for $37.5 million in a lawsuit involving an ex–smoker who lost his tongue to tobacco–related oral cancer. (Lukacs vs. Phillip Morris)
-October 2002: A Los Angeles jury issued $28 billion in punitive damages against Phillip Morris. This was later reduced to $28 million. (Betty Bullock vs. Phillip Morris)
-2004: A New York jury issued $20 million to the wife of a long-term smoker who died of lung cancer at the age of 57. This was the first time that a New York court had held a tobacco company liable for an individual smoker's death. (Gladys Frankson vs. Brown and Williams Tobacco Corp)
Now if this is the case, and smokers were able to win suits from the tobacco companies that knew they were doing harmful things to others, shouldn’t it work both ways? I have an equal right to be in a restaurant, bar or casino as anyone else, assuming that I am of legal age. If a smoker is participating in a behavior that they know is causing me harm, shouldn’t they be held liable? If the tobacco companies can be held liable for smokers health problems, shouldn’t the source of second hand smoke be liable for my bronchitis or asthma? I would argue that they should be.
I suggest that non-smokers start getting the name and address of anyone smoking indoors and suing them for causing lung damage to those around them. It is easy to prove actual damages, proximate cause, as well as neglegence on behalf of the smoker, who has been educated that they are in fact causing harm to those around them.
Who needs a smoking ban, just start holding smokers accountable for their actions.
Who wants to be my lawyer?
Here is a summary of judgements from Wikipedia:
-June 2002: A District Court in Kansas awarded $15 million in punitive damages against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco after calling the company's conduct "highly blameworthy and deserving of significant punishment." (David Burton vs. R.J. Reynold's Tobacco
-June 2002: A Miami jury held three cigarette companies liable for $37.5 million in a lawsuit involving an ex–smoker who lost his tongue to tobacco–related oral cancer. (Lukacs vs. Phillip Morris)
-October 2002: A Los Angeles jury issued $28 billion in punitive damages against Phillip Morris. This was later reduced to $28 million. (Betty Bullock vs. Phillip Morris)
-2004: A New York jury issued $20 million to the wife of a long-term smoker who died of lung cancer at the age of 57. This was the first time that a New York court had held a tobacco company liable for an individual smoker's death. (Gladys Frankson vs. Brown and Williams Tobacco Corp)
Now if this is the case, and smokers were able to win suits from the tobacco companies that knew they were doing harmful things to others, shouldn’t it work both ways? I have an equal right to be in a restaurant, bar or casino as anyone else, assuming that I am of legal age. If a smoker is participating in a behavior that they know is causing me harm, shouldn’t they be held liable? If the tobacco companies can be held liable for smokers health problems, shouldn’t the source of second hand smoke be liable for my bronchitis or asthma? I would argue that they should be.
I suggest that non-smokers start getting the name and address of anyone smoking indoors and suing them for causing lung damage to those around them. It is easy to prove actual damages, proximate cause, as well as neglegence on behalf of the smoker, who has been educated that they are in fact causing harm to those around them.
Who needs a smoking ban, just start holding smokers accountable for their actions.
Who wants to be my lawyer?
Monday, March 10, 2008
To Zoo, or Not to Zoo...
Fejervary is an icon in the history of Davenport. Growing up, kids were able to go to a smaller zoo that seemed to be just as friendly as Niabi, despite its size. Now, we are faced with a dilemma, continue to fund a money pit, or say enough and move on.
I think I’m in the move on group, but I suppose I could be swayed. Here is the issue, to put out 200K and get 30K in return, tells me that it’s less of an attraction than it probably should be. It seems that what used to be, a local attraction that actually attracted people, is fading on its own. If attendance is that poor, assuming that admission and other sources of income are accurate, there is not enough attendance to support this venture. We have the Niabi Zoo, with a significantly bigger budget and more animals. I know the kids in my family go to Niabi, and probably don’t end up at Fejervary. I know when I was growing up, my grandma took me there once, but we frequently went to Niabi.
I am not impressed by the poor animals argument. I am confident that if the zoo is eliminated, that the animals would be placed in other zoos, and properly cared for. One of the comments in the QC Times was something to the fact that if we can’t do it right, we shouldn’t do it at all. I happen to agree with that, and 250K, after the proposed addition of a curator, could be much better spent.
I would like to question Mike Matson. What on earth is this guy thinking? We have spent all of this money on community development and he wants to take half of the money we give to the economic development group and dump it into the zoo? To me, that’s like remodeling your business and eliminating your marketing department. Not a wise move, along with the other hair-brained idea of eliminating two half-time officers. These positions would result in officers being removed from the front desk and put on the street. I think we need to focus on necessity and not on frills.
One commenter on the Times, who may be right, but doesn’t really apply here, made note that we cant afford a zoo, so it ends up in Illinois, along with a civic center (I-Wireless), racetrack in Newton, etc. It’s not that we are turning down something new, we are simply eliminating something that has had its prime and passed. Let’s get something that we are proud of. Lets get the necessities in place and build from there.
I think the mayor can take less of a hard line here. Like I said, I may still be swayed, but my initial opinion is consistent with the mayor thus far. I would like to commend the council on a side note. This is the first time we see a budget and there isn’t the ‘Cut Police and Fire’ vulture circling. This is probably one of the most positive things I’ve seen thus far from this council.
I think I’m in the move on group, but I suppose I could be swayed. Here is the issue, to put out 200K and get 30K in return, tells me that it’s less of an attraction than it probably should be. It seems that what used to be, a local attraction that actually attracted people, is fading on its own. If attendance is that poor, assuming that admission and other sources of income are accurate, there is not enough attendance to support this venture. We have the Niabi Zoo, with a significantly bigger budget and more animals. I know the kids in my family go to Niabi, and probably don’t end up at Fejervary. I know when I was growing up, my grandma took me there once, but we frequently went to Niabi.
I am not impressed by the poor animals argument. I am confident that if the zoo is eliminated, that the animals would be placed in other zoos, and properly cared for. One of the comments in the QC Times was something to the fact that if we can’t do it right, we shouldn’t do it at all. I happen to agree with that, and 250K, after the proposed addition of a curator, could be much better spent.
I would like to question Mike Matson. What on earth is this guy thinking? We have spent all of this money on community development and he wants to take half of the money we give to the economic development group and dump it into the zoo? To me, that’s like remodeling your business and eliminating your marketing department. Not a wise move, along with the other hair-brained idea of eliminating two half-time officers. These positions would result in officers being removed from the front desk and put on the street. I think we need to focus on necessity and not on frills.
One commenter on the Times, who may be right, but doesn’t really apply here, made note that we cant afford a zoo, so it ends up in Illinois, along with a civic center (I-Wireless), racetrack in Newton, etc. It’s not that we are turning down something new, we are simply eliminating something that has had its prime and passed. Let’s get something that we are proud of. Lets get the necessities in place and build from there.
I think the mayor can take less of a hard line here. Like I said, I may still be swayed, but my initial opinion is consistent with the mayor thus far. I would like to commend the council on a side note. This is the first time we see a budget and there isn’t the ‘Cut Police and Fire’ vulture circling. This is probably one of the most positive things I’ve seen thus far from this council.
Invitation: Isle of Capri, You are Invited to Fly Your Bird out of Davenport
After reading QCI’s entry on the Isle of Capri, I was inspired to look into this and truly review the lines and lines of complete bullsh*t that we have been fed by this company. I want you to take a moment and read this article:
8-16-2000, No Agreement Yet on License for Isle
If you’re back and not happy, let me spray some lighter fluid on this cozy little campfire.
“…the Isle of Capri include guarantees that the gaming company's existing riverboat in Bettendorf and the one in Davenport will remain competitive and an assurance that the RDA will continue to get at least the same annual income from the Davenport riverboat as it does now.”
Now, let us review the article that got the fire started at QCI’s camp…
“At the same time, hopes for a first-class casino and hotel property in Davenport were dashed. Isle officials said that the Rhythm City Casino will be rebranded as a Lady Luck property — the casino company’s new brand for smaller casinos serving local markets.”
Now back to my fun little history lesson,
"We're looking for an income guarantee," Chamberlin said. "We want assurances that our current level of income will go forward and assurances that there will be competition so the gap in income between Davenport and Bettendorf won't grow wider."
Now it seems to me that there is a blatent about face in the promises of a short 7 and a half years ago. This, combined with the constant chain jerking of develop or not develop, on top of the let’s let the Blackhawk Hotel collect another year of dust scenario has certainly put a sour look on the face of most of us in the QC.
We are dealing with a company that is not being truthful, consistently changes their minds and took what was a profitable President Casino, and turned it into an overall embarrassment for the city.
Do they help the economy, sure they do, about a million in taxes doesn’t hurt the city coffers at all. But let’s look at something else, as I have found another bottle of lighter fluid…
“During talks with company representatives, Chamberlin said the RDA was assured that as many existing jobs as possible would be kept at the two boats, although there will probably be some immediate reorganization of human resources and training functions and staffing.”
Hmm… cause here is another article of interest:
9-10-2001, Isle of Capri Makes Changes at Rhythm City
“Isle of Capri Casinos Inc. has shuffled its top management in the Quad-City market. And in the process, Mark Lohman, the general manager of the Rhythm City Casino in Davenport and one of the first people to be employed in the gambling industry in Davenport, is no longer with the company.”
Here is where someone needs to be slapped. Just waiting a year, not a whole 7 and a half, the lies from the first article begins, and nobody calls them out on it. This move, started a cascade of layoffs from the company, combining most positions from the Bettendorf property and resulting in job losses, likely approaching the million dollar mark, if not more.
A friend of mine, and former casino employee, stated that there have been constant lay-offs and combining of positions. Everything from the general manager, food and beverage positions, gaming operations positions, human resources and even housekeeping positions, most all of them good paying supervisory or management positions have been eliminated. So which is better? Tax revenue directly from the casino, or tax revenue from our citizens of Davenport that we lost to a dishonest company.
Had the President remained, or the license be issued to a competitive firm, would we have been jerked around? Well, who knows. Business is unpredictable and companies do work to maximize profits for themselves. However, I would place a bet that we would not have seen so many job losses, and Davenport would still be getting their tax money.
Now, what do we do? Malin needs to fix the problem, and I think we should hold him responsible, along with Mary Ellen Chamberlin and the RDA. As of now, much like Stephen Colbert, I am putting Malin and the City Council on notice. (It has no authority and doesn’t hold water, but it sounds fun.)
1. Get the documentation and do the research. Show us where they lied to us and hold their noses to the fire. (Yes, even despite the fact that I have emptied two canisters of lighter fluid on it. They have been burning us this whole time, our turn.)
2. Take this to Mary Ellen Chamberlin and not only show her the burns, but let her smell it too.
3. Use every power and right that the city has been bestowed by the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, to remove the Isle of Capri from this gaming license and give that license to someone that will compete with the Bettendorf establishment.
This is not just Malin, this is the council members too. I would hope that each of them take this seriously and do something about it.
8-16-2000, No Agreement Yet on License for Isle
If you’re back and not happy, let me spray some lighter fluid on this cozy little campfire.
“…the Isle of Capri include guarantees that the gaming company's existing riverboat in Bettendorf and the one in Davenport will remain competitive and an assurance that the RDA will continue to get at least the same annual income from the Davenport riverboat as it does now.”
Now, let us review the article that got the fire started at QCI’s camp…
“At the same time, hopes for a first-class casino and hotel property in Davenport were dashed. Isle officials said that the Rhythm City Casino will be rebranded as a Lady Luck property — the casino company’s new brand for smaller casinos serving local markets.”
Now back to my fun little history lesson,
"We're looking for an income guarantee," Chamberlin said. "We want assurances that our current level of income will go forward and assurances that there will be competition so the gap in income between Davenport and Bettendorf won't grow wider."
Now it seems to me that there is a blatent about face in the promises of a short 7 and a half years ago. This, combined with the constant chain jerking of develop or not develop, on top of the let’s let the Blackhawk Hotel collect another year of dust scenario has certainly put a sour look on the face of most of us in the QC.
We are dealing with a company that is not being truthful, consistently changes their minds and took what was a profitable President Casino, and turned it into an overall embarrassment for the city.
Do they help the economy, sure they do, about a million in taxes doesn’t hurt the city coffers at all. But let’s look at something else, as I have found another bottle of lighter fluid…
“During talks with company representatives, Chamberlin said the RDA was assured that as many existing jobs as possible would be kept at the two boats, although there will probably be some immediate reorganization of human resources and training functions and staffing.”
Hmm… cause here is another article of interest:
9-10-2001, Isle of Capri Makes Changes at Rhythm City
“Isle of Capri Casinos Inc. has shuffled its top management in the Quad-City market. And in the process, Mark Lohman, the general manager of the Rhythm City Casino in Davenport and one of the first people to be employed in the gambling industry in Davenport, is no longer with the company.”
Here is where someone needs to be slapped. Just waiting a year, not a whole 7 and a half, the lies from the first article begins, and nobody calls them out on it. This move, started a cascade of layoffs from the company, combining most positions from the Bettendorf property and resulting in job losses, likely approaching the million dollar mark, if not more.
A friend of mine, and former casino employee, stated that there have been constant lay-offs and combining of positions. Everything from the general manager, food and beverage positions, gaming operations positions, human resources and even housekeeping positions, most all of them good paying supervisory or management positions have been eliminated. So which is better? Tax revenue directly from the casino, or tax revenue from our citizens of Davenport that we lost to a dishonest company.
Had the President remained, or the license be issued to a competitive firm, would we have been jerked around? Well, who knows. Business is unpredictable and companies do work to maximize profits for themselves. However, I would place a bet that we would not have seen so many job losses, and Davenport would still be getting their tax money.
Now, what do we do? Malin needs to fix the problem, and I think we should hold him responsible, along with Mary Ellen Chamberlin and the RDA. As of now, much like Stephen Colbert, I am putting Malin and the City Council on notice. (It has no authority and doesn’t hold water, but it sounds fun.)
1. Get the documentation and do the research. Show us where they lied to us and hold their noses to the fire. (Yes, even despite the fact that I have emptied two canisters of lighter fluid on it. They have been burning us this whole time, our turn.)
2. Take this to Mary Ellen Chamberlin and not only show her the burns, but let her smell it too.
3. Use every power and right that the city has been bestowed by the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, to remove the Isle of Capri from this gaming license and give that license to someone that will compete with the Bettendorf establishment.
This is not just Malin, this is the council members too. I would hope that each of them take this seriously and do something about it.
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Yes, I am Still Alive, and no I'm Still Not Craig...
Have I been on hiatus? No, actually I haven’t seen much worth writing, but for the spirit of conversation, I’ll submit some hip shots…
Gas prices are horrible. On KWQC the other night, they pointed out that we are 0.70 CPG over what we were paying this time last year. Out of curiosity, after a quick dose of Rolaids, I did the math. 12,000 miles per year, divided by 18 MPG times .70 adds up to a lovely 466.00 plus change. So much for the Bush stimulus plan, 134 for me, 466 for oil.
The historical house thing seemed to make some waves. I am generally not a fan of the historical society type, as they are the first to complain about tearing something down, but are never interested in putting money where their mouth is. I am thinking that they may have a point on this one, however. First off, it was on a historic registry long before demolition considerations surfaced. Now, I will admit, I am ignorant as to the historical value of the home, other than the fact that it is old, and does possess character, unlike most construction today. I do take exception to the likely alternative motive for demolition, which seems to be surface parking. Hamerlinck was displaying his true ‘what team am I on today’ colors when he departed to the opposite pole from the Menards issue. From one week, so concerned about the impact of a project on a neighborhood, to another week, who cares about that neighborhood, after all, the parking is in the name of God. Jesus drove his Lexus to church and sure didn’t have to park on the street with everyone else.
I recently had a business trip in Ohio. Do not leave the state. Remember the political ads? We are safe here.
The stabbing at 4th and Gaines in the paper this morning seems to surround more John Lewis folk. I could complain, but why, it's all the same, just a different day.
And lastly, the Iowa smoking ban. Outstanding, and I hope it passes. Thanks to the Illinois ban, I went bowling for the first time in ages. Hopefully I will be able to go the bowling alley a little closer to my home next time.
Gas prices are horrible. On KWQC the other night, they pointed out that we are 0.70 CPG over what we were paying this time last year. Out of curiosity, after a quick dose of Rolaids, I did the math. 12,000 miles per year, divided by 18 MPG times .70 adds up to a lovely 466.00 plus change. So much for the Bush stimulus plan, 134 for me, 466 for oil.
The historical house thing seemed to make some waves. I am generally not a fan of the historical society type, as they are the first to complain about tearing something down, but are never interested in putting money where their mouth is. I am thinking that they may have a point on this one, however. First off, it was on a historic registry long before demolition considerations surfaced. Now, I will admit, I am ignorant as to the historical value of the home, other than the fact that it is old, and does possess character, unlike most construction today. I do take exception to the likely alternative motive for demolition, which seems to be surface parking. Hamerlinck was displaying his true ‘what team am I on today’ colors when he departed to the opposite pole from the Menards issue. From one week, so concerned about the impact of a project on a neighborhood, to another week, who cares about that neighborhood, after all, the parking is in the name of God. Jesus drove his Lexus to church and sure didn’t have to park on the street with everyone else.
I recently had a business trip in Ohio. Do not leave the state. Remember the political ads? We are safe here.
The stabbing at 4th and Gaines in the paper this morning seems to surround more John Lewis folk. I could complain, but why, it's all the same, just a different day.
And lastly, the Iowa smoking ban. Outstanding, and I hope it passes. Thanks to the Illinois ban, I went bowling for the first time in ages. Hopefully I will be able to go the bowling alley a little closer to my home next time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)