How nice of the mayor to make sure "regular joes" are appointed to the various boards and commissions. I am not sure "regular joes" should be appointed to some boards/commissions. Some of these boards/commissions are highly technical and need people with knowledge, background and experience in the area the board oversees in order to serve with distinction. It is dangerous to put people on boards/commissions with no expertise or credible knowledge in a specific area.
The mayor went to great length to call out ordinary citizen Tim Stanga for his public input at the City Council meeting on January 9th. The mayor said it was "incredibly unfair to say its not an open process. It is true this mayor has made aggressive efforts to advertise openings on various city boards and commissions through press releases and advertisements in the local newspaper.
However, the mayor is the one who still reviews the applications and decides who to recommend for appointment. When I retired from city government service, I wanted to give back to the city by volunteering my time to serve on two boards that I felt I could provide credible and knowledgeable service. I immediately put in applications to serve on one of the two pension boards and the charter revision commission. I have never received so much as a letter or contact of interest regarding my applications. I also know of others who would have been credible and knowledgeable volunteers for the Charter Revision Commission who were also not contacted by the mayor's office.
Incredibly fair? Unbiased appointments? I think not. I do not view the current membership of the Charter Revision Commission as "regular joes." Two have political ties to the mayor. Two have professional contracts with the City of Sioux Falls and do business and receive remuneration from the city.
I would like to see the mayor publicly identify the criteria he uses to identify and evaluate the "regular joes" he recommends for appointment to city boards and commissions. What criteria does the city council use when they give their advice and consent to the mayor's appointments? It appears it is just a rubber stamp process.
Andy Traub said it best at the city council meeting on January 9th. Parliamentary procedure should not be used to stifle public input and submission of proposals to the Charter Revision Commission. Why didn't the City Attorney speak up and advise the Commission that they were acting inappropriately by silencing the voice of a city councilor? Councilor Jamison was treated with great disrespect by Commission member Aanenson. Commission member Thimjon seconded his blatent misuse of parlimentary procedure to silence Councilor Jamison. The other members followed like sheep.
Councilor Entenmen is right - people who serve on city boards and commissions should be commended for their volunteerism and service to the community. However, board/commission members do not deserve recognition and commendation when they act to circumvent free speech and stifle public input by using parliamentary procedure in such an irresponsible and highly suspect manner.
Words are cheap. It's one's actions and how they conduct themselves in the public eye that establishes credibility. The current Charter Revision Commission has lost credibility by their actions. Frankly, I think this Commission should be disbanded or the members should resign and the Mayor and City Council should reappoint a brand new Charter Revision Commission.
Monday, January 9, 2012
Saturday, January 7, 2012
Rush to Amend
Why is the Charter Revision Commission on such a fast track to get charter amendments ready for a public vote in April 2012? Maybe it's because this latest charter revision commission wasn't appointed until late 2011 and there is an agenda.
City Charter establishes a charter revision commission for purpose of proposing amendments to the charter. City Ordinance outlines the commission's duties. Chapter 2, Section 41 of the city code of ordinances says the following:
Sec. 2-41. Duties; public meetings.
City Charter establishes a charter revision commission for purpose of proposing amendments to the charter. City Ordinance outlines the commission's duties. Chapter 2, Section 41 of the city code of ordinances says the following:
Sec. 2-41. Duties; public meetings.
The commission may deliver a report to the city election
authorities framing and proposing amendments to the Sioux Falls Home Rule
Charter which it deems advisable. The commission shall hold at least one public
meeting each calendar year for the purpose of receiving recommendations from the
public regarding revisions to the charter and to take action upon any matters
before the commission relating to proposed charter revisions.
Charter Revision Commission members are appointed by the mayor, upon advice and consent of the city council. They serve 3 year terms. That usually means that the current mayor gets the opportunity to appoint a new commission every new mayoral term. It is something that just needs to get done procedurally.
The last Charter Revision Commission member terms expired June 2010. In spite of what is directed in the charter, this mayor did not appoint a Charter Revision Commission until late 2011 forcing a very fast timeline to get anything on the spring 2012 ballot. That's not to say that something needs to be on the Spring 2012 ballot. This commission has a lot of proposals before them and they seem hell bent on getting these proposals on the April 2012 ballot with little to no public discussion.
According to the 2010 Annual Report, the previous commission, which was appointed in 2007 by former mayor Dave Munson, held 4 meetings in 2008, 5 meetings in 2009 and 4 meetings in 2010. The commission delivered 2 proposed revisions to city election officials for the April 13, 2010 ballot.
Previously, voters have approved revisions to the city charter in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008. So why the rush to get all these proposals on the April 2012 ballot without a meaningful study and public discussion? Why the rush to amend? Shouldn't amendments to the charter take time to study, discuss, and research all the implications of the changes? Why rush to put these latest amendments on the ballot after only two shallow meetings where no substantive discussion took place? The ink on their appointment to this commission is barely dry.
Commission member Gregerson is right when he says there is a concern that there may be too many amendments on the ballot which will just confuse the voters. This commission has until October 2014 to study the charter and make recommendations for revisions.
At least two of the current commission members are known "contributors" of the mayor. Thimjon and Aanenson certainly showed their "home team colors" at the January 4th commission meeting. The Charter Revision Commission should be made up of members whose agenda is good government, not to promote the agenda of a political crony. Their water carrying antics were so transparent we all got wet.
What we saw on January 4th, was political cronyism and payback and unsatisfactory performance by a supposedly neutral charter revision commission. Poletes, Knudson and Gregerson need to get some you know what or this entire commission will go down as one of the most outrageous and politically motivated commissions yet.
Previously, voters have approved revisions to the city charter in 1996, 2000, 2004 and 2008. So why the rush to get all these proposals on the April 2012 ballot without a meaningful study and public discussion? Why the rush to amend? Shouldn't amendments to the charter take time to study, discuss, and research all the implications of the changes? Why rush to put these latest amendments on the ballot after only two shallow meetings where no substantive discussion took place? The ink on their appointment to this commission is barely dry.
Commission member Gregerson is right when he says there is a concern that there may be too many amendments on the ballot which will just confuse the voters. This commission has until October 2014 to study the charter and make recommendations for revisions.
At least two of the current commission members are known "contributors" of the mayor. Thimjon and Aanenson certainly showed their "home team colors" at the January 4th commission meeting. The Charter Revision Commission should be made up of members whose agenda is good government, not to promote the agenda of a political crony. Their water carrying antics were so transparent we all got wet.
What we saw on January 4th, was political cronyism and payback and unsatisfactory performance by a supposedly neutral charter revision commission. Poletes, Knudson and Gregerson need to get some you know what or this entire commission will go down as one of the most outrageous and politically motivated commissions yet.
Friday, January 6, 2012
We Have Enough Water - At the Moment.
Once again, we see that the current Administration is not into long term planning. The latest short term sightedness is illustrated in their agenda to sell land the city has been methodically planning and buying for the past several decades. The administration wants to sell the Slip Up Creek watershed northeast of Sioux Falls.
Water solutions are not for short time thinking. There are certain things in managing city government infrastructure needs that take a long term vision. Shape Sioux Falls 2035 is a comprehensive plan adopted by the City Council on December 7, 2009 with policies that help guide future ordinances, budgets and master plans. This is what the plan says about the Slip Up Creek Growth Area:
At one point, Slip Up Creek was identified as a future reservoir area for City water needs. However, following the emergence of the Lewis and Clark water project, the reservoir is no longer being considered for that purpose. Instead, the Slip Up Creek area should be preserved as a rural agricultural area. In the later half of the growth horizon, the southern section of the growth area will urbanize. The Slip Up Creek floodplain area should be protected, and existing City-owned parcels in the floodplain should be preserved as flooding buffer and future park area.
So, why sell the land now? Well, for one thing, that land will bring in $2.4 million dollars to go back into the water fund to help the water rates. Short term thinking. How do we know that the money from this sale won't be used to deal with the water issues at the event center construction site? Once sold, gone forever. Once put into the water fund, spent forever. I have an extended family of farmers who say never sell the land.
I agree with former mayor Gary Hanson when he says the city is making a mistake giving up on Slip Up Creek. Why even the city's own comprehensive plan says the existing city-owned parcels in the floodplain should be preserved as flooding buffer and future park area. Once that land is sold, it is gone forever. Land is gold and holds the future to this city. Think of the long term uses for this land. A possible reservoir for recreational use? Forward quality of life thinking for this community.
But it appears this administration lives in the moment. At the moment, selling the land means dollar signs and using it for short term water rate relief is an "in the moment" mentality. I hope the City Council has some sense to stop this proposed sale.
Water solutions are not for short time thinking. There are certain things in managing city government infrastructure needs that take a long term vision. Shape Sioux Falls 2035 is a comprehensive plan adopted by the City Council on December 7, 2009 with policies that help guide future ordinances, budgets and master plans. This is what the plan says about the Slip Up Creek Growth Area:
At one point, Slip Up Creek was identified as a future reservoir area for City water needs. However, following the emergence of the Lewis and Clark water project, the reservoir is no longer being considered for that purpose. Instead, the Slip Up Creek area should be preserved as a rural agricultural area. In the later half of the growth horizon, the southern section of the growth area will urbanize. The Slip Up Creek floodplain area should be protected, and existing City-owned parcels in the floodplain should be preserved as flooding buffer and future park area.
So, why sell the land now? Well, for one thing, that land will bring in $2.4 million dollars to go back into the water fund to help the water rates. Short term thinking. How do we know that the money from this sale won't be used to deal with the water issues at the event center construction site? Once sold, gone forever. Once put into the water fund, spent forever. I have an extended family of farmers who say never sell the land.
I agree with former mayor Gary Hanson when he says the city is making a mistake giving up on Slip Up Creek. Why even the city's own comprehensive plan says the existing city-owned parcels in the floodplain should be preserved as flooding buffer and future park area. Once that land is sold, it is gone forever. Land is gold and holds the future to this city. Think of the long term uses for this land. A possible reservoir for recreational use? Forward quality of life thinking for this community.
But it appears this administration lives in the moment. At the moment, selling the land means dollar signs and using it for short term water rate relief is an "in the moment" mentality. I hope the City Council has some sense to stop this proposed sale.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
Charter Revision Commission
The Charter Revision Commission met on January 4th. Charter Revision proposals have been submitted by the City Attorney, the Director of Finance, out of town citizen Joe Kirby, and Councilor Jamison.
This was a painful meeting to watch. The chair does not appear to understand or know anything about parliamentary procedure and the City Clerk and City Attorney didn't do anything at the beginning of this meeting to help clarify how this process should work. Interim Clerk Roust finally spoke up but, my goodness, this was like watching water boil. Painful lapses of silence, tentative direction from the chair, and silence from the board. Run these meetings like a council meeting. The proposals weren't read publicly even though the Assistant City Clerk attempted to correct the chair's omission to do it.
The city charter established a strong mayor, weak council form of government and it has been contentious between these two bodies every since regarding what they roles should be. The "tweaking" of charter language by the administration and the council attempts to deal with the strong mayor, weak council concept. Granted, some proposals are not substantive, just technical changes. But each proposal deserves in-depth study and discussion because changes to a "constitution" are serious and could have unintended circumstances later on.
I question whether in-depth study and discussion took place during this meeting. Who knows, maybe this group studied these proposals and discussed these proposals with the mayor or other councilors before they came to the meeting. I hope this group of citizens talked to someone because they are lay people who are not experienced in government or this charter. Proposals from Kirby and the City Attorney were passed with little or no debate and frankly, discussion only started once Interim City Clerk Roust got up and questioned what they were actually doing regarding Finance Director Turbak's proposals.
Then we come to Councilor Jamison. His proposals come from past history and controversy with the Mayor. Board member Aanenson shut down Councilor Jamison and Thimjon seconded silencing City Council Jamison. Why such a disrespectful display of behavior? Whose water is Aanenson really carrying? Knudson didn't want to offend her fellow councilor so attempted to postpone it to another meeting. Aanenson shut her down. They all voted to shut him down except Knudson.Whether you agreed with his proposals or not, Councilor Jamison deserved to be heard and his proposals deserved a proper discussion. Shameful behavior towards an elected city councilor member.
Pay attention to the business being conducted by the Charter Revision Commission. They will decide what charter language should be changed and submitted to the good folks of Sioux Falls citizens to vote on in April. This is serious business because it is the city's constitution. These people who were appointed to serve on this charter revision commission should be unbiased. I did not see that at this meeting and Aanenson was the king bully that day. He played the mayor's role very successfully.
This meeting was just an extension of what goes on between the mayor and the city council. I have never been a fan of this form of government. Electing a lay person to be the "CEO" of city government is a crapshoot. This form of government promotes the kind of territorial in fighting that has been going on since it was voted in back in 1995. I think this city is big enough for a city manager form of government.
Everybody has an agenda. Let's hope the agenda is good government. I did not see that at this meeting.
This was a painful meeting to watch. The chair does not appear to understand or know anything about parliamentary procedure and the City Clerk and City Attorney didn't do anything at the beginning of this meeting to help clarify how this process should work. Interim Clerk Roust finally spoke up but, my goodness, this was like watching water boil. Painful lapses of silence, tentative direction from the chair, and silence from the board. Run these meetings like a council meeting. The proposals weren't read publicly even though the Assistant City Clerk attempted to correct the chair's omission to do it.
The city charter established a strong mayor, weak council form of government and it has been contentious between these two bodies every since regarding what they roles should be. The "tweaking" of charter language by the administration and the council attempts to deal with the strong mayor, weak council concept. Granted, some proposals are not substantive, just technical changes. But each proposal deserves in-depth study and discussion because changes to a "constitution" are serious and could have unintended circumstances later on.
I question whether in-depth study and discussion took place during this meeting. Who knows, maybe this group studied these proposals and discussed these proposals with the mayor or other councilors before they came to the meeting. I hope this group of citizens talked to someone because they are lay people who are not experienced in government or this charter. Proposals from Kirby and the City Attorney were passed with little or no debate and frankly, discussion only started once Interim City Clerk Roust got up and questioned what they were actually doing regarding Finance Director Turbak's proposals.
Then we come to Councilor Jamison. His proposals come from past history and controversy with the Mayor. Board member Aanenson shut down Councilor Jamison and Thimjon seconded silencing City Council Jamison. Why such a disrespectful display of behavior? Whose water is Aanenson really carrying? Knudson didn't want to offend her fellow councilor so attempted to postpone it to another meeting. Aanenson shut her down. They all voted to shut him down except Knudson.Whether you agreed with his proposals or not, Councilor Jamison deserved to be heard and his proposals deserved a proper discussion. Shameful behavior towards an elected city councilor member.
Pay attention to the business being conducted by the Charter Revision Commission. They will decide what charter language should be changed and submitted to the good folks of Sioux Falls citizens to vote on in April. This is serious business because it is the city's constitution. These people who were appointed to serve on this charter revision commission should be unbiased. I did not see that at this meeting and Aanenson was the king bully that day. He played the mayor's role very successfully.
This meeting was just an extension of what goes on between the mayor and the city council. I have never been a fan of this form of government. Electing a lay person to be the "CEO" of city government is a crapshoot. This form of government promotes the kind of territorial in fighting that has been going on since it was voted in back in 1995. I think this city is big enough for a city manager form of government.
Everybody has an agenda. Let's hope the agenda is good government. I did not see that at this meeting.
Conventions Centers - Familiarity Breeds Contempt
It does not matter where you live in this country, you are going to read an article about the unprofitability of convention centers. We all heard about how profitable the Sioux Falls Convention Center was going to become with the building of a new Event Center.
In Virginia Beach, Virginia there is a public controversy going on regarding the Virginia Beach Convention Center and the necessity to build a another luxury hotel to spur competition with cities like Savannah, Myrtle Beach, Charlotte, Richmond, Louisville, Baltimore, Raleigh and Nashville who have built hotels next to their convention centers. Their state of the art convention center is located approximately eight blocks from the oceanfront. Even with the oceanfront being a selling point, the convention center has brought in little more than half the visits from conventions and trade shows predicted in a 2000 study as reported by a Virginian-Pilot editorial.
The Virginia Beach City Council wants to enter into a public-private partnership with a developer to build a hotel and more conference space. You know, that pesky floor space issue we heard so much about in the campaign. The proposed hotel would cost $102 million with the city paying $67 million up front. The city council says that money will not come from the "general fund." Sound familiar? The VB City Council is split 5-5 and the Mayor is expected to break the tie. Sound familiar?
They say the tourists are going to pay for the hotel. Sound familiar? Virginia Beach has a "Tourism Investment Program Fund" which is similar in theory to our Entertainment Tax Fund. They charge an 8% hotel tax, a 5.5% restaurant meals tax, and 10% amusement tax paid on such things as going to the movies, playing golf, bowling, going to plays, etc. There's a cigarette tax, revenue from parking tickets - this fund has approximately 20 different revenue streams and pays off the debt service of many buildings and facilities in the area.
Their "TIP" is being proposed to pay off the debt incurred with this new public private hotel partnership. Our ETF is going to subsidize the operating expense. The public outcry is that it is a joke to say it won't cost the taxpayers any money. They say they all pay some portion of the tourism tax. They eat out, they go to movies, they play golf - you get the idea. But it's the debt that worries taxpayers here and they don't like it when they read things like a stagnant convention business and the convention center business not meeting projections. They are saying the numbers don't add up. Sound familiar?
There are stories in newspapers all over the country about the convention centers and event centers not meeting expectations or fulfilling those lofty study estimates. The WALLSTREET JOURNAL ran an article last Friday about this very subject. Here's a few quotes out of that article that tell the tale about convention centers :
It would be funny if it weren't downright ironic. Familiarity breeds contempt.
In Virginia Beach, Virginia there is a public controversy going on regarding the Virginia Beach Convention Center and the necessity to build a another luxury hotel to spur competition with cities like Savannah, Myrtle Beach, Charlotte, Richmond, Louisville, Baltimore, Raleigh and Nashville who have built hotels next to their convention centers. Their state of the art convention center is located approximately eight blocks from the oceanfront. Even with the oceanfront being a selling point, the convention center has brought in little more than half the visits from conventions and trade shows predicted in a 2000 study as reported by a Virginian-Pilot editorial.
The Virginia Beach City Council wants to enter into a public-private partnership with a developer to build a hotel and more conference space. You know, that pesky floor space issue we heard so much about in the campaign. The proposed hotel would cost $102 million with the city paying $67 million up front. The city council says that money will not come from the "general fund." Sound familiar? The VB City Council is split 5-5 and the Mayor is expected to break the tie. Sound familiar?
They say the tourists are going to pay for the hotel. Sound familiar? Virginia Beach has a "Tourism Investment Program Fund" which is similar in theory to our Entertainment Tax Fund. They charge an 8% hotel tax, a 5.5% restaurant meals tax, and 10% amusement tax paid on such things as going to the movies, playing golf, bowling, going to plays, etc. There's a cigarette tax, revenue from parking tickets - this fund has approximately 20 different revenue streams and pays off the debt service of many buildings and facilities in the area.
Their "TIP" is being proposed to pay off the debt incurred with this new public private hotel partnership. Our ETF is going to subsidize the operating expense. The public outcry is that it is a joke to say it won't cost the taxpayers any money. They say they all pay some portion of the tourism tax. They eat out, they go to movies, they play golf - you get the idea. But it's the debt that worries taxpayers here and they don't like it when they read things like a stagnant convention business and the convention center business not meeting projections. They are saying the numbers don't add up. Sound familiar?
There are stories in newspapers all over the country about the convention centers and event centers not meeting expectations or fulfilling those lofty study estimates. The WALLSTREET JOURNAL ran an article last Friday about this very subject. Here's a few quotes out of that article that tell the tale about convention centers :
- America's convention center business has been declining, resulting in a nationwide surplus of empty meeting facilities, struggling convention halls and vacant hotel rooms.
- Governments have responded to the glut by building more convention centers, financed by debt backed by new taxes and fees on already struggling taxpayers.
- Optimistic projections about new facilities fail to account for how other cities are expanding too.
- The failure of these facilities to live up to exaggerted projections is nothing that hundreds of millions more in taxpayer dollars can't fix.
It would be funny if it weren't downright ironic. Familiarity breeds contempt.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Cellphone Use While Driving
It looks like the citizens of South Dakota will see a bill in the 2012 Legislature banning texting while driving and/or banning cellphone use while driving. I have to admit that when texting first became available, I texted while driving. I do not text while driving anymore and haven't for quite a long time. I have scared myself silly too many times to continue to do it.
I do not support the whole cellphone use ban, however. I know that probably sounds like a wishy washy stance that doesn't make sense, but at least when a person is talking on their phone, their eyes are not down looking at their phone. I have hands link free system tied to bluetooth in my van that makes it pretty darn easy to answer the cellphone if it rings. The button to answer it is right on the steering wheel. My eyes stay on the road and my hands are on the steering wheel.
The article in the ARGUS LEADER was interesting and in-depth in its coverage of the possibility of a cellphone ban in the Legislature this year. Both Sheriff Milstead and Police Chief Barthel make a lot sense regarding this issue. I would think law enforcement professionals should weigh in heavily on the issue when it comes before the legislature and they should be listened to as the experts. The careless driving statute covers it and enforcing such a law is nigh onto impossible. However, clearer heads have not been the norm with legislators in Pierre.
If the legislators in Pierre want to ban cellphone use, then they should also include banning such activities such as turning your head to talk to your child or other person in the car, putting in a CD, changing the radio station, eating food in the car, putting on your lipstick, blowing your nose, sneezing where you momentarily shut your eyes, drinking coffee or pop, or looking at the person in the car next to you picking his nose. Really, how ridiculous a list do you want to make it?
From a state which has always been about personal freedoms, this is a curious stance. But then why should it surprise anyone considering what the legislature did about the abortion issue last year which will end up costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.
It will be interesting to see what develops regarding this topic in the 2012 Legislature. I say no to legislation on this issue. I agree with the Sheriff and the Police Chief. Why create a law you can't enforce when there is already a law on the books to cover it?
I do not support the whole cellphone use ban, however. I know that probably sounds like a wishy washy stance that doesn't make sense, but at least when a person is talking on their phone, their eyes are not down looking at their phone. I have hands link free system tied to bluetooth in my van that makes it pretty darn easy to answer the cellphone if it rings. The button to answer it is right on the steering wheel. My eyes stay on the road and my hands are on the steering wheel.
The article in the ARGUS LEADER was interesting and in-depth in its coverage of the possibility of a cellphone ban in the Legislature this year. Both Sheriff Milstead and Police Chief Barthel make a lot sense regarding this issue. I would think law enforcement professionals should weigh in heavily on the issue when it comes before the legislature and they should be listened to as the experts. The careless driving statute covers it and enforcing such a law is nigh onto impossible. However, clearer heads have not been the norm with legislators in Pierre.
If the legislators in Pierre want to ban cellphone use, then they should also include banning such activities such as turning your head to talk to your child or other person in the car, putting in a CD, changing the radio station, eating food in the car, putting on your lipstick, blowing your nose, sneezing where you momentarily shut your eyes, drinking coffee or pop, or looking at the person in the car next to you picking his nose. Really, how ridiculous a list do you want to make it?
From a state which has always been about personal freedoms, this is a curious stance. But then why should it surprise anyone considering what the legislature did about the abortion issue last year which will end up costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.
It will be interesting to see what develops regarding this topic in the 2012 Legislature. I say no to legislation on this issue. I agree with the Sheriff and the Police Chief. Why create a law you can't enforce when there is already a law on the books to cover it?
1st Avenue Parking Ramp Update
Thanks to KELOLAND TV we now know why there is free hourly parking in the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp. City Director Darrin Smith said, "We wanted to make sure that, especially in the month of December that customers Downtown go shopping, visiting Downtown was as convenient as possible for them so we've allowed them to park in the ramp."
Come on, if that was really the reason for not collecting hourly parking fees because of "a few setbacks in software issues communicating with the city's IT, then why not advertise the grand benevolent gesture back in late November when they knew the system was not capable of going live?
Why didn't the city do a press release letting the general public know that they were going to give the Downtown shoppers a Christmas gift in December? It's not like they don't know how to do press releases since there is at least a couple press releases a day coming out of City Hall. What a great way to let citizens and visitors to our great city know that they could park for free while visiting and shopping downtown.
Director Smith stated that the city parking lot delay is not costing the city money because it's saving money on the salaries of the people they let go. The hourly parking only brings in $50 a day, for goodness sakes. It's hardly worth the effort to collect the fees. If that is the case, it sounds like a nuisance fee to me. Maybe the Public Parking Facilities Board needs to just do away with that piddly, nuisance amount of revenue and let the shoppers and visitors park in the ramp free all the time.
Oh and by the way, there is a nice new business-like sign up on the parking fee machine instead of that tacky grey tape covering the slot. It now says, Please proceed. Upgrades in progress.
Another spin cycle out of City Hall after the cow left the barn. Mooooooooo!
Come on, if that was really the reason for not collecting hourly parking fees because of "a few setbacks in software issues communicating with the city's IT, then why not advertise the grand benevolent gesture back in late November when they knew the system was not capable of going live?
Why didn't the city do a press release letting the general public know that they were going to give the Downtown shoppers a Christmas gift in December? It's not like they don't know how to do press releases since there is at least a couple press releases a day coming out of City Hall. What a great way to let citizens and visitors to our great city know that they could park for free while visiting and shopping downtown.
Director Smith stated that the city parking lot delay is not costing the city money because it's saving money on the salaries of the people they let go. The hourly parking only brings in $50 a day, for goodness sakes. It's hardly worth the effort to collect the fees. If that is the case, it sounds like a nuisance fee to me. Maybe the Public Parking Facilities Board needs to just do away with that piddly, nuisance amount of revenue and let the shoppers and visitors park in the ramp free all the time.
Oh and by the way, there is a nice new business-like sign up on the parking fee machine instead of that tacky grey tape covering the slot. It now says, Please proceed. Upgrades in progress.
Another spin cycle out of City Hall after the cow left the barn. Mooooooooo!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)