Davenport Growing Paines

Worst Idea Since Pepsi Clear…

2009-04-16T15:51:00.001-05:00

I think that charging 40.00 to have handicapped parking signs put up in front of residences is just crazy. Just when we are trying to eliminate meters downtown to make Davenport a more friendly place, we start charging a challenged population for a couple signs? This is a population that may be limited in the ability to work, and likely have prescription expenses and medical bills that make most people’s premiums look like pocket change.
According to the article in the Times, Justin and Ambrose are against this. Now, call whomever you want, your mom, book of world records, your senator, but I’m definitely with Ambrose on this one. Quite frankly, if you want to control something with handicapped parking permits, start regulating who gets them and who doesn’t. To this day it amazes me that someone has to have a parking tag, but will pay a physical therapist 600.00 an hour to walk on a treadmill. (No offense to the people that actually need them.)
I see one point with merit, that we should look at these placements every couple years to perform a needs assessment. Other than that, I think this needs to go away.

Malin and the Golden Parachute... Yes, a fantasy story come true...

2009-03-16T13:18:00.002-05:00

I usually watch some portion of CNN or their Headline News channel during the day, and with the economy the way it is there is a myriad of discussion about bonuses and golden parachutes. It got me thinking about our own local golden parachute poster boy, Mr. Malin. I couldn’t remember the exact drama that unfolded in 2007, but I remember it being part of the foundation of my arguments that if Keith Meyer was better at communicating, we may have noticed that some of his ranting had merit. That being said, a little advanced search on the QC Times website led me to memory lane.

It seems that Mr. Malin’s contract expires in December of 2009, and I want to start the conversation now about what I think should happen in the revision of this document.

In the article ‘Malin lays out options for his possible departure’, back when the council was looking to oust him, it is clear that no matter how this guy leaves, he gets a parachute. And that parachute, is about what I would have to work between 2 and 6 years to make at my current rate of pay. The article reads:

“Although firing Malin, maintaining the status quo and opting to change the city ordinance to take power away from the manager and put it into the hands of elected officials have been discussed often, the “succession agreement” option is relatively new.
Such an agreement would require six votes to pass, and Malin’s agreement to a “graceful exit.” According to the document, that option would cost the city $156,000 — compared to the $416,000 if he’s fired or the $234,000 if his powers are stripped.”

*This, all of course, just prior to him getting a glowing performance review from the council… Who knew.

Here are the ridiculous numbers according to the document provided to the council which seem to differ from the article a little bit. (Here’s the link)
He’s Fired – 234,000
His position is changed or deleted – 416,000
And here’s the one that just pisses me off…. Administrator resigns without council control – 156,000. And wait, there’s more. He actually wrote the following statement: “… creates extraordinary impediments to future recruitments for professional staff (especially if City Administrator speaks unreservedly following separation.)” What the ?#!**!? Do I take that as, even after paying him 156,000, there’s no line in there about him keeping his pie hole shut??

With the political nature of his position and the ability of an elected body to remove him from his position, I am all for the severance package idea. But I think the package should be appropriate, and not a winning lottery ticket. I think a severance package similar to industry, like a week’s pay for each year worked, or even a months pay for each year worked, would still be far more appropriate than the fleecing of the taxpayer than what is currently in place. And I hope that there is a clause in there that in a case of blatant negligence, insubordination or illegal activity, etc., that would eliminate any compensation for termination.

And as far as leaving on your own, “making a graceful exit”, I think he should get what everyone else does. If you go to a restaurant and you eat, pay for your meal and then you leave, the restaurant doesn’t owe you a steak. Cash out your vacation, clean out your desk and don’t let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Promise and the S**tstorm...

2009-03-04T16:41:00.000-06:00

I am glad to see promise under the rug. I wasn’t overly for or against the idea, but I think it was poorly pitched. I see where the benefits would have been, and I find it hard to believe that anyone that wasn’t college material to begin with would have anything to do with it. Oh well, I’m sure there’s other ideas out there to stimulate the economy around here, say infrastructure for example.

I am more interested in the s**tstorm that ensued before and continuing after the voting. This Mark Nelson thing just plain pisses me off. I am starting out with saying I would like to see an image of the actual document. Until then, I can’t say that it’s worth all that much heart burn. Rumor has it that both the bank and the Gills have signed off on having the document released, and it’s Mr. Nelson that has not allowed this to proceed so far. In that case I would begin to speculate that Mr. Nelson has something to hide. In fact, if the document is not eventually released, it will likely cement in my mind that the accusations are nothing but true and that this guy belongs among the likes of the other Davenport morons that appear to attempt sabotage on anything resembling progress.

My other concern is the mayor. I wasn’t sure if I was watching Mayor Gluba on TV or if it was the gaff master himself, Joe Biden. I understand that Gluba was mad, and so was I when I heard some of the allegations, but you have to be a little politically correct. That kind of riled response is part of what made the council a circus to begin with. Take a breath, stop the name calling, and stop whining. Make a case with hard evidence and move on.

The timing of the Times article to me is suspect, but I do take the follow-up by the Times in the comments at face value that they were checking facts and would have run it earlier if they could verify what the Gills were saying. Who knows. What I do know is that regardless of the timing, the content of the appraisal, or the outcome of the overall project, someone is leaving this with egg on their face.

I'm Back...

2009-02-03T12:19:00.001-06:00

As I have more time on my hands, I think it’s time to fire this thing up again. I miss blogging, but my work has been crazy, especially with this economy and job cuts.

I guess I fell off the face of the blogosphere a while back because there wasn’t much to complain about. I usually only complain when there is some genuine complaining to do. There have been a few temptations, but nothing that I had an overwhelming opinion on.

Well, here it is, Pachino at it again. There have been the usual comments on the Times, mostly continued worthless drivel. However, some make sense. I would point out the 3-Strikes rule that Hamerlinck suggested be proposed at the state level. I think it truly is what we need to curb some of this crap, for lack of a better term. (Well, maybe there is a better term, I’m sure there are plenty of more colorful suggestions.)

I would like to take note at the jabs at Judge Dalton. I am completely on the fence about the church sentence. On one side, I believe that since the charge was only a misdemeanor, and she could have let him go completely, that someone who wants to be rehabilitated should have that opportunity. For example, you can’t quit smoking if you don’t want to quit. If Pachino wanted to quit being a menace, he should have the opportunity to quit and be rehabilitated. Nothing in Pachino’s history would have led the judge to believe that he wasn’t seriously willing to grow up, and to give it a try on a misdemeanor may not have been that bad of a move.

Now the flip side, which I think most people would believe in more, and that is once a menace always a menace. To let someone rehabilitate themselves is one thing, but why not supplant probation or parole with the church sentence. Granted, the sentence for the misdemeanor would have been minimal, but at least let him serve that stent, then commit to his rehabilitation. So, I can’t really fault the judge for trying rehabilitation, I just think the judge should be less lenient on someone with a rap sheet longer than my nieces Christmas list.

I have some other things to drum on over the next few weeks, so I’ll leave it at that…

3 Strikes Revisited

2008-05-05T17:49:00.002-05:00

I am still for three strikes.

Exhibit A.

Prosecutor to request Pachino Hill’s probation be revoked

Oh, and here's to May 5th and my shortest blog post ever.

Work Smarter, Not Harder

2008-04-28T18:38:00.002-05:00

I was always a person growing up that would be for a flood wall, much like our neighbors, to control the flooding that seems to be an annual spike in the blood pressure of public works and the media. As I get older, I see the benefit of not having that to look at all the time, and being able to see the river, despite its murky appearance. I think today was one of the best things I’ve heard in awhile, about using an alternative to sand bags. My back began hurting just watching the news with people, including some firefighters, filling sand bags downtown. Ickes, despite my being a little on the fence about her writing after the Trice shooting, wrote a good article about some floodwall technology that may be helpful. Of course, this was all vague, so off to Google I went.

I noticed there are several solutions that seem to be possible replacements for our sand bagging technology that is currently in use. Of course, I am taking this with a grain of salt, as most of the websites seem to be marketing tools which are often sugar-coated. Of the several things I saw, it seemed that one of them had some pretty in depth information, as well as studies by the Corps of Engineers in 1997. The Aqua Levee seemed to be a pretty simple solution to the problem, and comes in cheaper to buy than to be putting out sand bags. There were a couple other solutions I noticed, the Aqua Dam and the Aqua Barrier, all of which operate under the same concept. All of them are water filled devices that hold the water back. The Aqua Levee seemed to be superior to me because it has a plastic outer shell that can absorb impacts from debris, as opposed to the other devices’ unprotected water filled bladders.

I am unsure that the concern Dee has about water flow was that big of an issue, as all of the sites seem to be more concerned with depth. All of the devices come with anchoring options as well, so it would be interesting to look at some of the other data surrounding these. I am a little dismayed that we didn’t look at something like this in the past. The article seems to note that Dee pointed these items out in the past and attempted to purchase them, with little to no backing of the council to get it done. I am all for saving tax dollars, and I think this is a good idea. I think even if we have to replace these items on an occasional basis, it would still be cheaper overall than building a permanent levee.

Aqua Levee Engineering Document
Aqua Levee Video (They actually stop a river from flowing)
Aqua Dam Information
Aqua Barrier Information
QCT 4-28-08 Technology May Replace Sand Bags

Is It All That Bad?

2008-04-06T14:35:00.001-05:00

An article in the Times about housing starts has spawned some interesting comments. Getting past the mindless drivel is easy, to see some interesting comments about the good and bad that is Davenport.

4-6-08 Davenport Leaders Worry About Tumbling Home Starts

Every US city, regardless of region, has good and bad aspects. I currently choose to live here and rather enjoy it. The only point I see in moving away from here is the weather, and after this winter, most of you may be nodding your heads in agreement at this point.

The good…

I like being in a city that has many of the amenities of large cities without the headaches that they present. We have good shopping areas, recreation, a small touch of culture and great attractions and festivals. I can guarantee each and every person enjoys at least one event in the area every year. What we don’t have is traffic jams, minus the occasional bridge delay, a high rate of crime, over priced amenities, and most of the other problems faced by areas with high density populations.

The complaints fly, but what is there to really complain about? Is it really that bad? We complain about parking downtown. Well, I went to the University of Iowa and had to have a vehicle due to the job that I had at the time. I paid almost as much in parking as I did in tuition. At 10-15 minutes for a quarter, that was an expensive day, especially with the lack of residential parking and meter-less areas. Parking ramps are a complaint as well. To eat dinner in downtown Chicago costs over 20.00 at a parking deck. Much more expensive than anything I could imagine paying here.

Police are an issue, always complaining about how the cops don’t do what they are supposed to and are ineffective. Well, I did notice that of all of the homicides in the QC in the last couple years, it seems that the alleged inadequate DPD has had someone in custody within 48 hours. Personally, I think this is a bar that is set pretty high, and one that larger cities couldn’t reach if they wanted to.

We have excellent fire protection. If you have questions about that, ask your insurance man. Mine says we have one of the best fire ratings out there, hence a cheaper policy premium. Though I take exception to some of the rest of the city services as being in need of improvement, if you compare this again to other cities we are doing pretty well. Have you driven in Clinton, Iowa City or other areas during or shortly after a snowstorm? I would say the snow removal we have here is pretty good. Unfortunately, we have Bettendorf next to us that exceeds expectations on this one.

As far as cost, I think we are on the level with most places in the area, and certainly living a lot cheaper than other areas of the country. If you want to point to Bettendorf all the time, remember, they are the first ones to charge more. They were the first to charge a garbage fee, the first to charge for yard waste pick-up and has more city fees. And for all that, here’s what you don’t get… Bettendorf has been horribly behind on fire protection. That blew up in their face recently in the major house fire, that likely wasn’t the fire department’s fault. To have fire protection where you must rely on other cities, including Davenport, to fight a simple house fire, is not an amenity that I would like to sacrifice. I think I would rather have a little snow on my street than have to worry if the fire department could put out a fire in my home. Bettendorf, though on the surface looks to have better amenities, it is evident that they are cutting corners where Davenport does not.

The bad…

Streets. But look at a statement in the article. Bettendorf has done better on development starting in the 1970’s since the town was all new. New streets, new infrastructure, and after all, we all like new things. But look at Bettendorf now. I would argue that the streets in Bettendorf, once new and attractive to development, are deteriorating to levels that are at or worse than Davenport. The problem becomes keeping up with maintenance and replacement of deteriorating streets, especially in a region with weather that is horrible in relation to heating and freezing, rendering havoc on pavement. I think that in the very near future, Bettendorf is going to need to address the issues of their deteriorating infrastructure, just as Davenport does, causing a cutback in amenities that currently exists due to Bettendorf’s seemingly minimum expense in this area.

Crime. For the density of population, crime is a little high. But I see many positives here. The crime free housing program seems to be having an impact, at least in the public eye. It would be interesting to talk to some of the officers and see if they are seeing impact with this program at all. I know that comments have been made in relation to crime and its source being in rental housing. Hopefully the new chief, with experience in other areas of the country, will provide a vision of how some mitigation in the department can help improve efficiency and maybe even prevention strategies.

Infrastructure. I think a serious lack of good decision making in the past has led to a situation in a couple areas that are now at just short of crisis level. The sewer situation and the fact that we have a large business park along I-80 that doesn’t have the infrastructure to support it. I am hopeful that the current council has the priorities right to get some of these critical projects underway. I am not upset at the investment in Centennial Park, as it has been years of planning and countless hours of public input. There does have to be a balance between attractions and necessities. I am interested to see if the council, mayor and Malin are able to secure federal funds for some of these projects. I think that if the city gets aggressive in securing outside funding, this may come out in the end as a relatively significant win for Davenport.

So that’s what I have off the top of my head. Maybe someone can add to the list. Here is the challenge. Instead of complaints like are present on the Times. Try this. If you list a bad, also list a good. It’s worth thinking about good things on occasion.

First Questionable Move From the Mayor's Office...

2008-04-04T20:00:00.002-05:00

The brief fizzle from a potential fiasco came in a little article in the Times the other day. I have to agree with many naysayers that are not in favor of any action to raise taxes for the Davenport Promise program. I will follow that statement, with the fact that I am not for using tax funds for this program and it should be privately funded.
It appears the mayor is testing the waters, along with Joe Seng, on options to fund this project, that has potential to have more of an economic impact on the area than most anything we have done in the past. I am thinking that simply testing the waters was the undercurrent of this whole legislative attempt, but I could be wrong. In this case, the undercurrent may have turned into a riptide when the idea of raising taxes was mentioned. After all, as I recall, most of the anti-Gluba sentiment was the “He’s just going to raise my taxes” argument, and that may or may not be true. I was pleasantly surprised to see the budget float through so seamlessly, with no additional taxes. I am hoping that this flow continues.
Now on to the Times article. In reading the comments, I think everyone that made the aforementioned tax statement came out of the woodwork to beat the ‘I told you so’ drum. Well, to those people I would ask them to wake up. Look at what actually happened…
Gluba lobbied, a.k.a. asked his friend Joe Seng, to take to a committee to discuss and see how a bill would do at the state level that would allow a sales tax increase. Both of them admit that this bill would likely not pass, and all the bill would do is send this issue to voters, yet another likely definite thumbs down from the voters of Davenport. Gluba doesn’t seem to want to raise taxes, but I would question whether or not there is an alternative motive. Why would Gluba want to test the water with this type of bill? My only thoughts on that are, does he want to actually raise taxes in the future, or does he want to leave the impression that he is doing everything he can to ensure the Promise Program gets off the ground. I don’t know, but I think there are many other ways he could show his support.
The other fun thing about this is the guy that pointed it out, our little pitbull Hamerlinck. Another one of the misguided comments in the Times column points this out. It seems he may be a little jaded since he got slapped by the mayor for the last little stunt about putting police in college classrooms. I think Hamerlinck may have gotten a small token of revenge here, but I really think these two situations are very different. Remember, this was going to a committee to be discussed, the way the process is supposed to work. The last Hamerlinck stunt was an attempt at circumventing committees and bringing an issue that appeared to be totally disorganized.
Speaking of that, can someone tell me what happened to the police in the college classrooms by the way? It appears to have just disappeared.

4-3-08 Bill would give city ability to ask for tax increase to fund Davenport Promise

I Hope This is Temporary...

2008-03-15T14:25:00.000-05:00

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.

Playing Politics... Or Playing Us?

2008-03-13T20:00:00.000-05:00

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.

A Smoking Ban May Not Be Necessary...

2008-03-11T13:45:00.000-05:00

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?

To Zoo, or Not to Zoo...

2008-03-10T14:50:00.000-05:00

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.

Invitation: Isle of Capri, You are Invited to Fly Your Bird out of Davenport

2008-03-10T13:34:00.000-05:00

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.

Yes, I am Still Alive, and no I'm Still Not Craig...

2008-03-05T07:00:00.000-06:00

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.

In Support of Three Strikes...

2008-02-01T13:07:00.001-06:00

I will say the news of three aldermen asking the state to enact a three strikes law may not be as bad as againsters are alleging. Though the three did take a bit of a beating in the blogs, I think they are genuinely interested in improving crime rates in Davenport, along with the political spotlight seeking. After all, Hamerlinck needs all the spotlight he can get since his announcement to run for state senate.

If you look at California, and I picked one state for simplicity, it really did help crime rates. I have inserted a chart of crime rates, and the vertical line represents the enactment of the 3 strike rule. Though it works in California, where violent and dangerous felonies are committed at a much higher rate, I'm not convinced that this wouldn't help here in Iowa as well. Many of the arguments against this are the example of someone bouncing three checks and spending life in prison. If the law is structured like California, that would not be the case. A retrospective study of the law showed that there are only certain felonies that count as strikes. In addition, strikes could be obtained through convictions in other states, if that strike would qualify within the State of California. My support of a law like this is dependent of a similar structure.

Another argument is a constitutional one. On March 5. 2003 the law was upheld by the supreme court in Ewing v. California, and also denied a writ of habeas corpus that same year. It upheld that this is not cruel and unusual punishment, and I tend to agree.

Finally, the decrease in crime has caused a decrease in prison population. The perceived overcrowding issue that seemed to be an argument to not pass the law, never happened. The estimate of dollars saved due to the decreased crime rate was roughly 28.5 billion in the ten years following the enactment of the law.

Now to my own dissent. The idea of banishing someone from the state is absolutely ludicrous. It to me seems like a second chance to get it right. A criminal can simply take the deal, live in Rock Island, and continue to commit crime in Davenport until they are caught. Where this idea came from, I don’t know, but I’m sure that our neighboring states certainly won’t appreciate it, and I’m sure Iowa is not the place we want as the ‘Australia of the US.’

Links:

Study from California Prosecutors

Study from The Journal for the Advancement of Criminal Justice

Economic Stimulus and the QC...

2008-01-27T18:28:00.001-06:00

Normally I am not a proponent of supply side economic stimulus, as it doesn’t always pay for itself. In this case, if you look at the true reasons that the economy is in trouble, it is likely just a band-aid on bleeding that should be controlled with a bigger pad.

I look at the speculation at the current state of the economy and everyone is bringing up the issue of sub-prime mortgages. According to the Wall St. Journal, the true problem is not that, or as likely tied to that as speculated. Over 60% of the mortgages are not sub-prime at all, they are traditional fixed-rate mortgages. That makes me evaluate, where has the money gone?

I think that the money has gone to energy, both home and vehicular, as well as the trickle down from that such as food, airline travel, etc. I tend to think this is less of a problem with rapid onset, but more likely a problem that has occurred over time. All of this leads down the road of job loss, outsourcing and the ongoing effort of corporate America to reduce cost.

That being said, I think the QC area will benefit from this stimulus package more than other parts of the country. Assuming that mortgages actually are a problem, due to the inflated interest rates and decreased property value, that hasn’t really hit the QC like in other parts of the country. Most QC property value has remained relatively flat over the last few years. Granted that does nothing for increasing equity faster than amortization, but it does at least not put someone upside down on a mortgage.

We have not experienced huge job loss. Our unemployment has remained relatively flat as well. Most of the QC major employers, Alcoa, Deere and the healthcare industry have been relatively unaffected by the overall economy from either the nature of the industry or the ability to compete in a global market.

So what does this mean for the QC when it comes to a supply side stimulus? I think since the QC area isn’t hurting as bad as other areas of the country, it may just be a boost for most of us that are feeling the pinch of the energy prices. The only major issues I can find that have turned my budget upside down are fuel prices, since I work a good distance from home, and my gas and electric bill. With the pressure off the budget for awhile, I will look to go out more, likely in the Illinois QC because of the non-smoking law, and spend a little more than usual on meals and a drink or two. It may even be time for some new shoes or some clothing. In my mind, this may be fun, but I will also remember that this is a band-aid and may put a little away. After all, when the 600.00 that I get from the government is gone, the cause of the problem will likely still be there… fuel at 3.00 a gallon and a hefty Mid-American bill. My pay, I’m sure like the pay of many others, is certainly not keeping up with the increased cost of living.

Inappropriate Comments...

2008-01-21T16:54:00.000-06:00

Anonymous said...
Qualities of people on the blog who attack Meyer:1. Stupid2. Liars3. Greedy4. Named Kenady5. Con artists6. Drug users
January 21, 2008 1:52 PM

Well, Keith’s blog seems to have taken a sabbatical, but I’m not convinced Keith has. Keith, or one of his minions, are making some fun accusations. It seems that everyone that disagrees with him aggravate him to no end, quite frankly I think I am no longer dealing with an adult. This is simply elementary behavior and really the main reason I don’t have any respect for Keith as a leader or representative. Keith did well at making issue of wasteful behavior in the city, but has seemed to have lost it as of late. I considered deleting this comment, since it has no foundation and violates my rules one through three.

My thoughts are simple. If Keith didn’t want to be what he terms “attacked” he probably wouldn’t be throwing comments out like this one. I can assure everyone that I am not a liar, greedy, a con artist and I do not do drugs. Since stupid is a pretty vague term most everyone that has met me do not categorize me in that way, nor would anyone say that I come close to that assessment. Lastly, I don’t know who Kenady is. I haven’t seen a login like that on the blogs or on the Times. Maybe someone can fill me in as to who that is or point out a screen name or comments.

Keith has to realize that most people that actually do research and think before they speak are likely not going to agree with him. I do disagree with most of what he has to say and recognize that most of what he says is not supported by facts or any reasonability whatsoever. For example, we saw on his blog the accusation of a problem in the sixth ward and nothing came of it. In addition I am being accused of being Craig, which is totally wrong... I don’t even work for the city. I was totally lost on a post he made about the riverboats in reference to racing and gaming, then he posted something about trash that in itself was a confusing pile of rubbish. Someone has posted that the poor Keith days are over, and I agree. Whether the above post was Keith or not, I will delete anything else that makes it in the comments that has no foundation, and is quite frankly trash. If you cannot make a logical argument, and resort to name calling or other elementary behavior, it only shows me that you want to be oppositional for the sake of opposition.

Hip Shots...

2008-01-15T14:12:00.000-06:00

Though I have been busy lately, I am paying attention. There are just a few things I would like to throw out there...

1. Will the Iowa Legislature consideration of moving the local option sales tax to a statewide tax affect promise? My initial thought is that it might. From what I understand, each initiative must be approved by voters. I am leery of a project that would come up for vote possibly on an annual basis and lose finding all together with one election. I am still on the fence about promise anyway with the lack of private funding.

2. Though Keith Meyer has managed to post Craig Malin's resume on his blog under Blues Clues headings, I assure everyone that this is another delusion and that I am not Craig Malin. If I found that Craig was blogging like me, I would consider it unprofessional and would be happy to go after him like anyone else in government making bad decisions.

3. I think the open forum in relation to the police chief position was a very good thing. I hope this shows that this council isn't just BS'ing us in relation to the openness of government. I also hope this is the start of many items that can be referenced to point at when the crybabies (see last post about meeting changes) start saying there is no public input. I am confident that wont be the case with this group.

4. More aldermen are coming up with blogs. I think this is a great communication tool. I just hope that people use the alderman's blogs constructively and use it for information and genuine comments, instead of psychotic entries. If you want to see a psychotic entry on a blog, read Keith's question about how many D1 businesses are laundering drug money. Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse. Does anyone know why nobody comments on Keith's blog? Oh wait, we are sane... Opinionated, but sane.

I'm verclempt, talk amongst yourselves.

Change... Not the kind that jingles...

2008-01-14T14:56:00.000-06:00

I wanted to let this one simmer for a few days and take in the comments to see where this headed. As usual, most of the spouting off without thinking occurred on the Times site (and Keith’s blog, even though it is assumed at this point).

The best justification of the changes seems to be from Alderman Frink’s blog. I think the Times wrote a pretty fair article here, and they point out all angles of the issue. But is this really news? Changing the schedule of meetings seems like a relatively mundane act. The article does flag one issue for me anyway, that Hamerlinck and Ambrose are probably going to be the aldermen this round that don’t think before they speak. Can someone explain to me why the public should set the dates and times of the city council meetings? I think the 8th Ward Alderman Mike Matson is right, the previous scheduling was confusing.

Every Wednesday there are meetings, one day a week. This schedule to me makes sense, and the comment about the fact that there is more time between the committee meetings and the council meetings, might actually help aldermen that don’t do their homework. Meyer was a good example of this, constantly asking questions that could have been answered before the meetings, and Hamerlinck is right behind him evidenced by falsely claiming that the council knew little to nothing about the Promise. Since Hamerlinck and Ambrose don’t seem to have much time to do any homework, one would think that they would be happy to have more time to get things done.

Now on to the bulls**t about eliminating the public’s voice. For the illiterate people that cannot read an entire article, it only says that it’s being moved to the end of the meeting. This is certainly smarter than anything concerning the schedule. For anyone that has had to sit through a rant by Suzie Bell, it makes going to a meeting for an actual purpose actually tolerable. The council can actually tend to business, get comments on actual action items, then move on to the open mic night. As far as televising it or not, I see Gluba’s point, that removing it from the TV may slow some open mic night people who may just want to see themselves talk, however, if the Times quotes a citizen during that or the comments actually contain something that is valid and reasonable, I would want to be able to watch it and listen to what was said.
Keith has managed to rear his schizophrenic head and post a comment on his blog: Move "to a recess" is a fancy expression for eliminate. Dictatorships always move to restrict public input rather than deal with its own incompetence.” Since Gluba has managed to appoint people to the committees, I’m not sure where the delusion of eliminate comes from, and since public input is not being eliminated, just moved, I’m again not sure how there is a move to restrict it. Keith again is reading between the lines, or reading hallucinations, along with a bunch of other complainers that apparently have nothing better to do. In addition to that, what are these people going to do on Thursdays now? I heard rumor there may be a game of Blues Clues at Keith’s.

Conundrum on 3rd….

2007-12-29T17:24:00.000-06:00

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

Identity and Irrelevant Both Start With I….

2007-12-17T13:23:00.000-06:00

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.

Winborn... Attempting Legacy or Lame Duck?

2007-12-14T14:32:00.000-06:00

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.

Promise... Will It Deliver?

2007-12-09T18:56:00.000-06:00

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.txt http://www.rcreader.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12352&Itemid=42

Gluba and the '(a)gainsters'...

2007-12-05T15:20:00.000-06:00

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

Consolidated Dispatching

2007-11-30T18:50:00.000-06:00

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.

Sticks and Stones...

2007-11-29T22:17:00.000-06:00

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

JLCS – Overdoing philanthropy?

2007-11-25T20:34:00.000-06:00

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.

Will the Real Shawn Hamerlinck Please Stand Up?

2007-11-18T14:50:00.000-06:00

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

The Opener...

2007-11-18T13:49:00.000-06:00

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...