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.
Showing posts with label City Council. Show all posts
Showing posts with label City Council. Show all posts
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Monday, March 16, 2009
Malin and the Golden Parachute... Yes, a fantasy story come true...
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.
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.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Work Smarter, Not Harder
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
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
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
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.
Monday, March 10, 2008
To Zoo, or Not to Zoo...
Fejervary is an icon in the history of Davenport. Growing up, kids were able to go to a smaller zoo that seemed to be just as friendly as Niabi, despite its size. Now, we are faced with a dilemma, continue to fund a money pit, or say enough and move on.
I think I’m in the move on group, but I suppose I could be swayed. Here is the issue, to put out 200K and get 30K in return, tells me that it’s less of an attraction than it probably should be. It seems that what used to be, a local attraction that actually attracted people, is fading on its own. If attendance is that poor, assuming that admission and other sources of income are accurate, there is not enough attendance to support this venture. We have the Niabi Zoo, with a significantly bigger budget and more animals. I know the kids in my family go to Niabi, and probably don’t end up at Fejervary. I know when I was growing up, my grandma took me there once, but we frequently went to Niabi.
I am not impressed by the poor animals argument. I am confident that if the zoo is eliminated, that the animals would be placed in other zoos, and properly cared for. One of the comments in the QC Times was something to the fact that if we can’t do it right, we shouldn’t do it at all. I happen to agree with that, and 250K, after the proposed addition of a curator, could be much better spent.
I would like to question Mike Matson. What on earth is this guy thinking? We have spent all of this money on community development and he wants to take half of the money we give to the economic development group and dump it into the zoo? To me, that’s like remodeling your business and eliminating your marketing department. Not a wise move, along with the other hair-brained idea of eliminating two half-time officers. These positions would result in officers being removed from the front desk and put on the street. I think we need to focus on necessity and not on frills.
One commenter on the Times, who may be right, but doesn’t really apply here, made note that we cant afford a zoo, so it ends up in Illinois, along with a civic center (I-Wireless), racetrack in Newton, etc. It’s not that we are turning down something new, we are simply eliminating something that has had its prime and passed. Let’s get something that we are proud of. Lets get the necessities in place and build from there.
I think the mayor can take less of a hard line here. Like I said, I may still be swayed, but my initial opinion is consistent with the mayor thus far. I would like to commend the council on a side note. This is the first time we see a budget and there isn’t the ‘Cut Police and Fire’ vulture circling. This is probably one of the most positive things I’ve seen thus far from this council.
I think I’m in the move on group, but I suppose I could be swayed. Here is the issue, to put out 200K and get 30K in return, tells me that it’s less of an attraction than it probably should be. It seems that what used to be, a local attraction that actually attracted people, is fading on its own. If attendance is that poor, assuming that admission and other sources of income are accurate, there is not enough attendance to support this venture. We have the Niabi Zoo, with a significantly bigger budget and more animals. I know the kids in my family go to Niabi, and probably don’t end up at Fejervary. I know when I was growing up, my grandma took me there once, but we frequently went to Niabi.
I am not impressed by the poor animals argument. I am confident that if the zoo is eliminated, that the animals would be placed in other zoos, and properly cared for. One of the comments in the QC Times was something to the fact that if we can’t do it right, we shouldn’t do it at all. I happen to agree with that, and 250K, after the proposed addition of a curator, could be much better spent.
I would like to question Mike Matson. What on earth is this guy thinking? We have spent all of this money on community development and he wants to take half of the money we give to the economic development group and dump it into the zoo? To me, that’s like remodeling your business and eliminating your marketing department. Not a wise move, along with the other hair-brained idea of eliminating two half-time officers. These positions would result in officers being removed from the front desk and put on the street. I think we need to focus on necessity and not on frills.
One commenter on the Times, who may be right, but doesn’t really apply here, made note that we cant afford a zoo, so it ends up in Illinois, along with a civic center (I-Wireless), racetrack in Newton, etc. It’s not that we are turning down something new, we are simply eliminating something that has had its prime and passed. Let’s get something that we are proud of. Lets get the necessities in place and build from there.
I think the mayor can take less of a hard line here. Like I said, I may still be swayed, but my initial opinion is consistent with the mayor thus far. I would like to commend the council on a side note. This is the first time we see a budget and there isn’t the ‘Cut Police and Fire’ vulture circling. This is probably one of the most positive things I’ve seen thus far from this council.
Invitation: Isle of Capri, You are Invited to Fly Your Bird out of Davenport
After reading QCI’s entry on the Isle of Capri, I was inspired to look into this and truly review the lines and lines of complete bullsh*t that we have been fed by this company. I want you to take a moment and read this article:
8-16-2000, No Agreement Yet on License for Isle
If you’re back and not happy, let me spray some lighter fluid on this cozy little campfire.
“…the Isle of Capri include guarantees that the gaming company's existing riverboat in Bettendorf and the one in Davenport will remain competitive and an assurance that the RDA will continue to get at least the same annual income from the Davenport riverboat as it does now.”
Now, let us review the article that got the fire started at QCI’s camp…
“At the same time, hopes for a first-class casino and hotel property in Davenport were dashed. Isle officials said that the Rhythm City Casino will be rebranded as a Lady Luck property — the casino company’s new brand for smaller casinos serving local markets.”
Now back to my fun little history lesson,
"We're looking for an income guarantee," Chamberlin said. "We want assurances that our current level of income will go forward and assurances that there will be competition so the gap in income between Davenport and Bettendorf won't grow wider."
Now it seems to me that there is a blatent about face in the promises of a short 7 and a half years ago. This, combined with the constant chain jerking of develop or not develop, on top of the let’s let the Blackhawk Hotel collect another year of dust scenario has certainly put a sour look on the face of most of us in the QC.
We are dealing with a company that is not being truthful, consistently changes their minds and took what was a profitable President Casino, and turned it into an overall embarrassment for the city.
Do they help the economy, sure they do, about a million in taxes doesn’t hurt the city coffers at all. But let’s look at something else, as I have found another bottle of lighter fluid…
“During talks with company representatives, Chamberlin said the RDA was assured that as many existing jobs as possible would be kept at the two boats, although there will probably be some immediate reorganization of human resources and training functions and staffing.”
Hmm… cause here is another article of interest:
9-10-2001, Isle of Capri Makes Changes at Rhythm City
“Isle of Capri Casinos Inc. has shuffled its top management in the Quad-City market. And in the process, Mark Lohman, the general manager of the Rhythm City Casino in Davenport and one of the first people to be employed in the gambling industry in Davenport, is no longer with the company.”
Here is where someone needs to be slapped. Just waiting a year, not a whole 7 and a half, the lies from the first article begins, and nobody calls them out on it. This move, started a cascade of layoffs from the company, combining most positions from the Bettendorf property and resulting in job losses, likely approaching the million dollar mark, if not more.
A friend of mine, and former casino employee, stated that there have been constant lay-offs and combining of positions. Everything from the general manager, food and beverage positions, gaming operations positions, human resources and even housekeeping positions, most all of them good paying supervisory or management positions have been eliminated. So which is better? Tax revenue directly from the casino, or tax revenue from our citizens of Davenport that we lost to a dishonest company.
Had the President remained, or the license be issued to a competitive firm, would we have been jerked around? Well, who knows. Business is unpredictable and companies do work to maximize profits for themselves. However, I would place a bet that we would not have seen so many job losses, and Davenport would still be getting their tax money.
Now, what do we do? Malin needs to fix the problem, and I think we should hold him responsible, along with Mary Ellen Chamberlin and the RDA. As of now, much like Stephen Colbert, I am putting Malin and the City Council on notice. (It has no authority and doesn’t hold water, but it sounds fun.)
1. Get the documentation and do the research. Show us where they lied to us and hold their noses to the fire. (Yes, even despite the fact that I have emptied two canisters of lighter fluid on it. They have been burning us this whole time, our turn.)
2. Take this to Mary Ellen Chamberlin and not only show her the burns, but let her smell it too.
3. Use every power and right that the city has been bestowed by the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, to remove the Isle of Capri from this gaming license and give that license to someone that will compete with the Bettendorf establishment.
This is not just Malin, this is the council members too. I would hope that each of them take this seriously and do something about it.
8-16-2000, No Agreement Yet on License for Isle
If you’re back and not happy, let me spray some lighter fluid on this cozy little campfire.
“…the Isle of Capri include guarantees that the gaming company's existing riverboat in Bettendorf and the one in Davenport will remain competitive and an assurance that the RDA will continue to get at least the same annual income from the Davenport riverboat as it does now.”
Now, let us review the article that got the fire started at QCI’s camp…
“At the same time, hopes for a first-class casino and hotel property in Davenport were dashed. Isle officials said that the Rhythm City Casino will be rebranded as a Lady Luck property — the casino company’s new brand for smaller casinos serving local markets.”
Now back to my fun little history lesson,
"We're looking for an income guarantee," Chamberlin said. "We want assurances that our current level of income will go forward and assurances that there will be competition so the gap in income between Davenport and Bettendorf won't grow wider."
Now it seems to me that there is a blatent about face in the promises of a short 7 and a half years ago. This, combined with the constant chain jerking of develop or not develop, on top of the let’s let the Blackhawk Hotel collect another year of dust scenario has certainly put a sour look on the face of most of us in the QC.
We are dealing with a company that is not being truthful, consistently changes their minds and took what was a profitable President Casino, and turned it into an overall embarrassment for the city.
Do they help the economy, sure they do, about a million in taxes doesn’t hurt the city coffers at all. But let’s look at something else, as I have found another bottle of lighter fluid…
“During talks with company representatives, Chamberlin said the RDA was assured that as many existing jobs as possible would be kept at the two boats, although there will probably be some immediate reorganization of human resources and training functions and staffing.”
Hmm… cause here is another article of interest:
9-10-2001, Isle of Capri Makes Changes at Rhythm City
“Isle of Capri Casinos Inc. has shuffled its top management in the Quad-City market. And in the process, Mark Lohman, the general manager of the Rhythm City Casino in Davenport and one of the first people to be employed in the gambling industry in Davenport, is no longer with the company.”
Here is where someone needs to be slapped. Just waiting a year, not a whole 7 and a half, the lies from the first article begins, and nobody calls them out on it. This move, started a cascade of layoffs from the company, combining most positions from the Bettendorf property and resulting in job losses, likely approaching the million dollar mark, if not more.
A friend of mine, and former casino employee, stated that there have been constant lay-offs and combining of positions. Everything from the general manager, food and beverage positions, gaming operations positions, human resources and even housekeeping positions, most all of them good paying supervisory or management positions have been eliminated. So which is better? Tax revenue directly from the casino, or tax revenue from our citizens of Davenport that we lost to a dishonest company.
Had the President remained, or the license be issued to a competitive firm, would we have been jerked around? Well, who knows. Business is unpredictable and companies do work to maximize profits for themselves. However, I would place a bet that we would not have seen so many job losses, and Davenport would still be getting their tax money.
Now, what do we do? Malin needs to fix the problem, and I think we should hold him responsible, along with Mary Ellen Chamberlin and the RDA. As of now, much like Stephen Colbert, I am putting Malin and the City Council on notice. (It has no authority and doesn’t hold water, but it sounds fun.)
1. Get the documentation and do the research. Show us where they lied to us and hold their noses to the fire. (Yes, even despite the fact that I have emptied two canisters of lighter fluid on it. They have been burning us this whole time, our turn.)
2. Take this to Mary Ellen Chamberlin and not only show her the burns, but let her smell it too.
3. Use every power and right that the city has been bestowed by the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission, to remove the Isle of Capri from this gaming license and give that license to someone that will compete with the Bettendorf establishment.
This is not just Malin, this is the council members too. I would hope that each of them take this seriously and do something about it.
Friday, February 1, 2008
In Support of Three Strikes...
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.
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.’
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:
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Hip Shots...
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.
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.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Change... Not the kind that jingles...
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)