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
Monday, April 28, 2008
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Is It All That Bad?
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.
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.
Friday, April 4, 2008
First Questionable Move From the Mayor's Office...
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
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
Saturday, March 15, 2008
I Hope This is Temporary...
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)