If it has been a long time since you looked at the drivers license manual, you might have forgotten one test question relating to which lane you are required to enter when making a left turn. There are a lot of drivers in Sioux Falls who have forgotten the rule or just choose to ignore the rule. Actually state law specifically addresses left turns:
32-26-18. Left-turning vehicle--Manner of making turn--Violation as misdemeanor. The driver of a vehicle intending to turn left shall approach the turn in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle. If practicable, the left turn shall be made to the left of the center of the intersection and so as to leave the intersection or other location in the extreme left-hand lane lawfully available to traffic moving in the same direction as the vehicle on the roadway being entered. A violation of this section is a Class 2 misdemeanor.
As a driver, you are supposed to turn into the lane closest to the one you came from. Very few do it. People turn into the lane they need to be in and the majority of the time it is the farthest lane, not the closest lane. One of the reasons for turning directly into the lane you eventually want to be in is because other drivers won't let you in when you want to change lanes. Everyone is in a hurry. Heaven forbid someone gets a head of you. Traffic is heavy and you need to cross over two or more lanes to get to the turn lane you really want to be in and no one is going to accommodate you.
Well, last week the police were ticketing people who were breaking the rule. I know someone personally who got a ticket for $120 for making a left turn out of the Empire Mall at the stoplight by Macy's and entering the farthest the lane, not the lane closest to the lane they came from. This person needed to make a right turn at the next intersection and traffic was heavy. My friend practically had a heart attack. She said she knew the rule but everyone does it. She said, who heard of anyone getting a ticket for turning into the farthest lane.
In Lewis Drug a couple days later, two workers in the pharmacy department were overheard talking about the very same thing. Evidently, one of them got a $120 for the same thing out at the Mall and the other person said a friend got stopped for it as well.
I feel bad for my friend but I actually kind of like the fact that the police are targeting this rule. It is broken all the time and it is annoying. I say go for it. The more people who get the ticket, the more people will talk about it, and hopefully, more people will start turning into the lane closest to them and start being courteous to other drivers who have their turn signal on to change lanes.
Then I want the police to get all those speeders on 57th Street, and the ones who run red lights thinking they are sneaking through a yellow caution light. Maybe this could be a public service program focusing on basic traffic laws for Channel 16 by the SFPD. For many drivers, it has probably been a long time anyone has looked at the drivers manual. There are plenty of drivers out there who could use a refresher course in traffic rules. Me included.
Be courteous and be safe out there and follow the rules of the road.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Monday, December 26, 2011
Free Parking at the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp
I wonder how many people know that the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp was to undergo a new parking ramp system that did away with a live person attendant, going to an Entry Station with Integrated Swipe Pad and Ticket Dispenser. The City announced the upcoming change back in late November. Here is what the new system was going to look like when the new system was to go live on November 30th per city public parking officials:
On November 29th, a communication went out to the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp customers. It said in part:
Subject: 1st Avenue Parking Ramp Upgrades
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:30:03 +0000
1st Avenue Parking Ramp Customers,
Thank you for your patience as we transition to our new gate equipment. We have experienced some unexpected issues in setting up our new communication network, which has delayed our live date. We are also waiting for the correct gate arms to arrive.
Anticipated Live Date:
Monday Afternoon December 5th (attendant available)
I was downtown on Thursday, December 22nd and parked in the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp. I was ready to try the new system. As I pulled in to take my ticket for hourly parking, this is what I saw:
No ticket. Gate arm up. Did that mean free parking? Sure looked like it to me. I pulled into a space in the ramp and went about my merry way. I came back to my car three hours later and drove to the check out lane and low and behold, it was truly going to be a freebie parking day. As I pulled up to the parking attendant booth, this is what I saw:
It's the end of December and the system has not gone live yet. I checked with a couple of people who work part-time downtown and they said they have been parking for free during the month of December. It is kind of nice that the shoppers and restaurant patrons have been able to park for free during the month of December at the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp. Have to wonder what it has done to the parking revenues though.
It kind of begs the question why the public parking facility officials would go ahead and implement the change when they clearly are not ready to go live with their new parking system. The city laid off two employees who worked at the ramp as parking lot attendants. Why not keep them on until the new system actually goes live so you can still collect the daily parking revenue? Someone doesn't have their eye on the ball. People can say what they want about the previous director, but I doubt seriously that he would have let this snafu happen.
Oh well, park for free at the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp, people! A little present from the City during the Christmas holidays. And maybe it will continue into 2012? I wonder when it is actually going to go live? November 30th and December 5th have come and gone.
On November 29th, a communication went out to the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp customers. It said in part:
Subject: 1st Avenue Parking Ramp Upgrades
Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2011 22:30:03 +0000
1st Avenue Parking Ramp Customers,
Thank you for your patience as we transition to our new gate equipment. We have experienced some unexpected issues in setting up our new communication network, which has delayed our live date. We are also waiting for the correct gate arms to arrive.
Anticipated Live Date:
Monday Afternoon December 5th (attendant available)
I was downtown on Thursday, December 22nd and parked in the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp. I was ready to try the new system. As I pulled in to take my ticket for hourly parking, this is what I saw:
No ticket. Gate arm up. Did that mean free parking? Sure looked like it to me. I pulled into a space in the ramp and went about my merry way. I came back to my car three hours later and drove to the check out lane and low and behold, it was truly going to be a freebie parking day. As I pulled up to the parking attendant booth, this is what I saw:
It kind of begs the question why the public parking facility officials would go ahead and implement the change when they clearly are not ready to go live with their new parking system. The city laid off two employees who worked at the ramp as parking lot attendants. Why not keep them on until the new system actually goes live so you can still collect the daily parking revenue? Someone doesn't have their eye on the ball. People can say what they want about the previous director, but I doubt seriously that he would have let this snafu happen.
Oh well, park for free at the 1st Avenue Parking Ramp, people! A little present from the City during the Christmas holidays. And maybe it will continue into 2012? I wonder when it is actually going to go live? November 30th and December 5th have come and gone.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Changes In the Newspaper World
Rumor has it that the ARGUS LEADER will be moving towards Gannett's goal to reduce free on-line access to its newspapers in 2012. According to a Gannett blog dated December 7, 2011, the largest newspaper publisher in the country will reduce it's free for all access online and begin charging for digital access. Gannet started its paywall test in July 2010 with three of its newspapers, one being the Chicago Sun Times which has already begun charging for online access.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the business model of the print media needed to change in order to survive. Newspapers are losing money. Not a big surprise and I, for one, don't think they can blame it totally on the digital explosion. Have you looked at the local newspaper lately? The actual pages of news have been reduced to a couple of thin pages. The local news content leaves something to be desired with articles lacking investigative depth while basically regurgitating bland information with no hard line questioning.
There are always going to be people who want to get that newspaper delivered to their home. Where you once had to only open your front door and pick up your newspaper, you now must get dressed, put some shoes on and go hunt for it somewhere out on your front lawn, on the boulevard, or down your driveway close to the street, buried in the bushes or in your neighbor's yard. That is if you get the newspaper delivered that morning at all.
With the digital explosion, a lot of people are now choosing to get their news off their computers, through their smart phones or their iPads, Nook or whatever other tablet is now available. Gannett CEO Gracia Martore said the newspaper publisher needs to "capture revenue and profitability from our newspapers."
That from the newspaper giant who, in 2011 laid off over 700 employees nationwide while Bob Dickey, Gannett’s U.S. newspapers division president, was paid $3.4 million last year, up from $1.9 million the year prior. In the memo announcing the 700 nationwide layoffs, Dickey wrote, “While we have sought many ways to reduce costs, I regret to tell you that we will not be able to avoid layoffs.”
If you access the Chicago Sun Times link above, they were not immune to layoffs either. One day after the layoffs, the Sun Times announced their new paywall policy. The newspaper giant is no different than Wall Street and other big corporations who continue to pay their executives exorbitant salaries and bonuses at the expense of the people who are the backbone of their companies and who are obviously dispensable in their new business model to improve profitability.
The fee model for online access will be interesting to watch. If you want to subscribe to electronic access only, the ARGUS LEADER will charge you the same monthly amount that you would pay for a 7 day subscription of the print copy delivered to your home. I hope they rethink that price model when they introduce their new paywall policy in 2012. After the first 20 page views every 30 days, Chicago Sun Times readers will be required to pay $6.99 a month (or $77.87 a year) for continued access. I think the ARGUS LEADER could charge half that amount since we probably get half the newspaper news the readers of the Chicago Sun Times gets in their newspaper.
I am a user of the online access of the ARGUS LEADER after giving up on the dismally poor home delivery service and the inability to get satisfaction from customer service calls. When I do pick up a print copy laying around the salon or a restaurant, I am thankful I am not paying $18.89+tax per month for such a flimsy newspaper. I am willing to pay something for full on-line access but the newspaper needs to do its part too by providing me something newsworthy to read instead of bland stories and no investigative reporting.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that the business model of the print media needed to change in order to survive. Newspapers are losing money. Not a big surprise and I, for one, don't think they can blame it totally on the digital explosion. Have you looked at the local newspaper lately? The actual pages of news have been reduced to a couple of thin pages. The local news content leaves something to be desired with articles lacking investigative depth while basically regurgitating bland information with no hard line questioning.
There are always going to be people who want to get that newspaper delivered to their home. Where you once had to only open your front door and pick up your newspaper, you now must get dressed, put some shoes on and go hunt for it somewhere out on your front lawn, on the boulevard, or down your driveway close to the street, buried in the bushes or in your neighbor's yard. That is if you get the newspaper delivered that morning at all.
With the digital explosion, a lot of people are now choosing to get their news off their computers, through their smart phones or their iPads, Nook or whatever other tablet is now available. Gannett CEO Gracia Martore said the newspaper publisher needs to "capture revenue and profitability from our newspapers."
That from the newspaper giant who, in 2011 laid off over 700 employees nationwide while Bob Dickey, Gannett’s U.S. newspapers division president, was paid $3.4 million last year, up from $1.9 million the year prior. In the memo announcing the 700 nationwide layoffs, Dickey wrote, “While we have sought many ways to reduce costs, I regret to tell you that we will not be able to avoid layoffs.”
If you access the Chicago Sun Times link above, they were not immune to layoffs either. One day after the layoffs, the Sun Times announced their new paywall policy. The newspaper giant is no different than Wall Street and other big corporations who continue to pay their executives exorbitant salaries and bonuses at the expense of the people who are the backbone of their companies and who are obviously dispensable in their new business model to improve profitability.
The fee model for online access will be interesting to watch. If you want to subscribe to electronic access only, the ARGUS LEADER will charge you the same monthly amount that you would pay for a 7 day subscription of the print copy delivered to your home. I hope they rethink that price model when they introduce their new paywall policy in 2012. After the first 20 page views every 30 days, Chicago Sun Times readers will be required to pay $6.99 a month (or $77.87 a year) for continued access. I think the ARGUS LEADER could charge half that amount since we probably get half the newspaper news the readers of the Chicago Sun Times gets in their newspaper.
I am a user of the online access of the ARGUS LEADER after giving up on the dismally poor home delivery service and the inability to get satisfaction from customer service calls. When I do pick up a print copy laying around the salon or a restaurant, I am thankful I am not paying $18.89+tax per month for such a flimsy newspaper. I am willing to pay something for full on-line access but the newspaper needs to do its part too by providing me something newsworthy to read instead of bland stories and no investigative reporting.
Sunday, December 18, 2011
The New Hot Spot in Town
The Mayor held his latest Listening and Learning Session at the Moose Lodge on Burnside Avenue this past week and he predicted what will soon become some of the most valuable real estate in town.
The ARGUS LEADER reported: Huether acknowledged property along Burnside is on a new course for development as hotels, bars, restaurants and retail expected to grow up in the shadow of the events center will need building sites.
“Your property is going to be a lot more valuable,” Huether said.
The Mayor's latest prediction regarding the area surrounding the new Event Center is contrary to what everyone else has been saying about the area. What does the Mayor know that most everyone else says probably isn't going to happen?
This very area was highlighted in a SF Business Journal article back in December, 2010:
One Developer’s Perspective of the Arena Site: An Area 'Still Kind Of Limping Along' -- Doug Brockhouse grew up in the neighborhood, which has been known through the years as West Sioux. He also owns a business, Arena Storage, on West Second Street. Some of the streets are at unusual angles - such as the diagonal Burnside Street - because they were built around a huge military base. Remains of some of the barracks still are visible in the neighborhood. Today, the area "is still kind of limping along and nothing has really ever taken flight out there," said Brockhouse, a principal with Bender Commercial Real Estate. Brockhouse doesn't envision much more development if an events center is built there. "I really don't see much growth out there because of it," he said. "I really don't." (Sioux Falls Business Journal, Dec. ’10)
This is the very area that was embroiled in a controversy back in June of this year related to an ethics complaint against Councilor Entenman regarding his ownership of property near the Event Center location.
Back in June, 2011 the Ethics Board rendered its decision regarding a conflict of interest complaint filed against Councilor Entenman regarding his building on Burnside Avenue and whether he should be allowed to vote on the Event Center location due to a financial interest.
The Ethics Board ruled there was no conflict of interest and Ethics Board member Bill O'Connor stated, "Whatever we've done in that area hasn't necessarily had a good financial outcome for areas businesses. Even the ARGUS LEADER reported the board based its decision in part on the fact that land values didn't go up after the SF Convention Center was built in the mid-1990's and after upgrades were made to the SF Stadium in 2000.
Councilor Entenman was cleared of a conflict of interest so he could vote with the mayor on placing the Event Center in a place that even the Ethics Board saw as having no land value potential - at the time.
In a November 29, 2011 article in the SF Business Journal, two local developers talked about that area as well in terms of investment predictability.
I think the new events center will add a whole new dynamic to the area because of its massiveness and newness,” said developer Craig Lloyd of Lloyd Cos. “Will that attract development and entrepreneurs to go out there? I don’t know."
According to the article, AECOM estimated the events center could attract $6.7 million in new investment, which would result in $30,000 in additional property taxes. “The existing visitor-serving facilities within the complex have had little impact on business attraction to the area,” the report concluded, noting that financing projects might be difficult because the area has not shown a record of many successful developments. “It’s all true,” Lloyd said. “You’re not surrounded by residential. Rooftops drive restaurants, retail and offices. It’s just going to be tough to go out there. The first couple people are going to have to be real pioneers.”
Developer Jim Dunham of The Dunham Co. agreed. “I think the events center, long term, will be good for Sioux Falls and good for the economy,” he said. “But it’s unfortunate that due to the location it will not drive other development. It will have no impact on the immediate area. It’s not an area where you’d go build a spec strip mall or office building because you’re not going to get anybody to move out there.” The former Oaks hotel site along Russell Street might be redeveloped, but other opportunities are minimal, Dunham said. “It’s just an area nobody drives on a daily basis,” he said. “I can’t imagine what you would build out there, maybe a convenience store, maybe a liquor store. I can’t imagine what you can add that would survive on just the events center alone.”
Just give it a little time. The story keeps changing. Now we know that the property out there is going to be a lot more valuable. The mayor said, “I’m not telling the Moose to sell or put up a for-sale sign, but property around here, as the events center gets built, you will see for-sale signs going up.”
Councilor Entenman said his property was not for sale. He said he was optimistic about the investment possibilities in that area. I guess we should wait and see if a For Sale sign goes up on his property out there because, after all, it's going to be a lot more valuable out there according to the Mayor. Who knows, maybe the Mayor knows something the local developers don't know.
The Northwest is the new hotspot.
The ARGUS LEADER reported: Huether acknowledged property along Burnside is on a new course for development as hotels, bars, restaurants and retail expected to grow up in the shadow of the events center will need building sites.
“Your property is going to be a lot more valuable,” Huether said.
The Mayor's latest prediction regarding the area surrounding the new Event Center is contrary to what everyone else has been saying about the area. What does the Mayor know that most everyone else says probably isn't going to happen?
This very area was highlighted in a SF Business Journal article back in December, 2010:
One Developer’s Perspective of the Arena Site: An Area 'Still Kind Of Limping Along' -- Doug Brockhouse grew up in the neighborhood, which has been known through the years as West Sioux. He also owns a business, Arena Storage, on West Second Street. Some of the streets are at unusual angles - such as the diagonal Burnside Street - because they were built around a huge military base. Remains of some of the barracks still are visible in the neighborhood. Today, the area "is still kind of limping along and nothing has really ever taken flight out there," said Brockhouse, a principal with Bender Commercial Real Estate. Brockhouse doesn't envision much more development if an events center is built there. "I really don't see much growth out there because of it," he said. "I really don't." (Sioux Falls Business Journal, Dec. ’10)
This is the very area that was embroiled in a controversy back in June of this year related to an ethics complaint against Councilor Entenman regarding his ownership of property near the Event Center location.
Back in June, 2011 the Ethics Board rendered its decision regarding a conflict of interest complaint filed against Councilor Entenman regarding his building on Burnside Avenue and whether he should be allowed to vote on the Event Center location due to a financial interest.
The Ethics Board ruled there was no conflict of interest and Ethics Board member Bill O'Connor stated, "Whatever we've done in that area hasn't necessarily had a good financial outcome for areas businesses. Even the ARGUS LEADER reported the board based its decision in part on the fact that land values didn't go up after the SF Convention Center was built in the mid-1990's and after upgrades were made to the SF Stadium in 2000.
Councilor Entenman was cleared of a conflict of interest so he could vote with the mayor on placing the Event Center in a place that even the Ethics Board saw as having no land value potential - at the time.
In a November 29, 2011 article in the SF Business Journal, two local developers talked about that area as well in terms of investment predictability.
I think the new events center will add a whole new dynamic to the area because of its massiveness and newness,” said developer Craig Lloyd of Lloyd Cos. “Will that attract development and entrepreneurs to go out there? I don’t know."
According to the article, AECOM estimated the events center could attract $6.7 million in new investment, which would result in $30,000 in additional property taxes. “The existing visitor-serving facilities within the complex have had little impact on business attraction to the area,” the report concluded, noting that financing projects might be difficult because the area has not shown a record of many successful developments. “It’s all true,” Lloyd said. “You’re not surrounded by residential. Rooftops drive restaurants, retail and offices. It’s just going to be tough to go out there. The first couple people are going to have to be real pioneers.”
Developer Jim Dunham of The Dunham Co. agreed. “I think the events center, long term, will be good for Sioux Falls and good for the economy,” he said. “But it’s unfortunate that due to the location it will not drive other development. It will have no impact on the immediate area. It’s not an area where you’d go build a spec strip mall or office building because you’re not going to get anybody to move out there.” The former Oaks hotel site along Russell Street might be redeveloped, but other opportunities are minimal, Dunham said. “It’s just an area nobody drives on a daily basis,” he said. “I can’t imagine what you would build out there, maybe a convenience store, maybe a liquor store. I can’t imagine what you can add that would survive on just the events center alone.”
Just give it a little time. The story keeps changing. Now we know that the property out there is going to be a lot more valuable. The mayor said, “I’m not telling the Moose to sell or put up a for-sale sign, but property around here, as the events center gets built, you will see for-sale signs going up.”
Councilor Entenman said his property was not for sale. He said he was optimistic about the investment possibilities in that area. I guess we should wait and see if a For Sale sign goes up on his property out there because, after all, it's going to be a lot more valuable out there according to the Mayor. Who knows, maybe the Mayor knows something the local developers don't know.
The Northwest is the new hotspot.
Friday, December 16, 2011
A Deficit Staved Off by Football - Go Team!!
The Bismark Tribune wrote a short article that the winning Bison of NDSU have saved the Fargodome from a deficit in 2011. Actually, the Tribune called it a financial boon.
The Fargodome which sits on the NDSU campus, is home to NDSU's Bison Football team. It has seating capacity for 19,000 for football games and 25,000 seats for concerts. It was financed in part by a half cent sales tax approved by the taxpayers.
It seems the Fargodome would have had a deficit had it not been for NDSU's football team playing in the Football Championship subdivision playoffs. The Fargodome estimates it nets $30,000 off of each game played at the Fargodome. Three home playoff games are turning an expected budget deficit into an anticipated surplus of $20,000.
Isn't that interesting? The Fargodome is home to a Division 1 football team which is a big draw for the facility. Even with the anchor tenant of a big Division 1 football team, this facility was heading towards a deficit in 2011. Even with those 3 playoff games, it will only push it to approximately $20,000 over expenses. That is not very comforting news.
SMG reported to the city council that the Arena netted about $700 per Skyforce game in the 2009-2010 season and that the overall revenue was up a little more in the 2010-2011 season. So the mindset seems to be "no big deal" that the Skyforce is leaving the Arena and going to the Sanford Pentagon to play. Even if the Storm and Stampede agree to "anchor" at the Event Center, it might not guarantee the facility a surplus. It depends on what kind of a "deal" they negotiate in their contract.
The fact is there are no guarantees when operating an event center. It's going to take more than two semi-pro teams to push the event center to a surplus. Maybe the mayor can get the USD and SDSU presidents to sign on the dotted line since they stood before the bright lights of the media to say they supported the building of the event center.
Then we can hope they get into the Football Championship subdivision playoffs and stave off a deficit. Go Team!!
The Fargodome which sits on the NDSU campus, is home to NDSU's Bison Football team. It has seating capacity for 19,000 for football games and 25,000 seats for concerts. It was financed in part by a half cent sales tax approved by the taxpayers.
It seems the Fargodome would have had a deficit had it not been for NDSU's football team playing in the Football Championship subdivision playoffs. The Fargodome estimates it nets $30,000 off of each game played at the Fargodome. Three home playoff games are turning an expected budget deficit into an anticipated surplus of $20,000.
Isn't that interesting? The Fargodome is home to a Division 1 football team which is a big draw for the facility. Even with the anchor tenant of a big Division 1 football team, this facility was heading towards a deficit in 2011. Even with those 3 playoff games, it will only push it to approximately $20,000 over expenses. That is not very comforting news.
SMG reported to the city council that the Arena netted about $700 per Skyforce game in the 2009-2010 season and that the overall revenue was up a little more in the 2010-2011 season. So the mindset seems to be "no big deal" that the Skyforce is leaving the Arena and going to the Sanford Pentagon to play. Even if the Storm and Stampede agree to "anchor" at the Event Center, it might not guarantee the facility a surplus. It depends on what kind of a "deal" they negotiate in their contract.
The fact is there are no guarantees when operating an event center. It's going to take more than two semi-pro teams to push the event center to a surplus. Maybe the mayor can get the USD and SDSU presidents to sign on the dotted line since they stood before the bright lights of the media to say they supported the building of the event center.
Then we can hope they get into the Football Championship subdivision playoffs and stave off a deficit. Go Team!!
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Gridlock Once Again
Congress is once again holding America hostage. Tiresome politics on both sides of the aisle in my opinion. This whole payroll tax cut extension is an interesting fight between Republicans and Democrats and each side is pandering to their base.
I understand that the Social Security payroll tax cut approved a year ago was done to stimulate the economy but I wonder if this payroll tax should continue to be extended again. These temporary fixes are just that - temporary. Pretty soon, this temporary Social Security payroll tax cut will be considered permanent and then the Social Security fund will be in really big trouble.
The Democrats talk about this temporary tax cut as a tax increase if it's not extended. How long has the Social Security payroll tax been in place? A long time. Letting this temporary payroll tax cut lapse is not a tax increase. This tax has been in place for a very long time. Does Congress think the American people are simple minded?
I hate all this pandering to the base in each political party. Instead of worrying about stimulating the economy through these temporary fixes, why not get some substantial work done like actually creating jobs through legislation. The Keystone Pipeline has been controversial to the states of Nebraska and South Dakota and the jobs it will create are temporary, not permanent jobs. Once again, a temporary mentality that holds the American people hostage to party ideology.
I don't think the temporary cut in the Social Security payroll tax should be extended. Fix the tax code so the 1% can't get out of paying their fair share of taxes. Think big picture instead of piecemealing the American people to death with one issue at a time. All this small minded politics does is create gridlock. I am sick to death of it.
I understand that the Social Security payroll tax cut approved a year ago was done to stimulate the economy but I wonder if this payroll tax should continue to be extended again. These temporary fixes are just that - temporary. Pretty soon, this temporary Social Security payroll tax cut will be considered permanent and then the Social Security fund will be in really big trouble.
The Democrats talk about this temporary tax cut as a tax increase if it's not extended. How long has the Social Security payroll tax been in place? A long time. Letting this temporary payroll tax cut lapse is not a tax increase. This tax has been in place for a very long time. Does Congress think the American people are simple minded?
I hate all this pandering to the base in each political party. Instead of worrying about stimulating the economy through these temporary fixes, why not get some substantial work done like actually creating jobs through legislation. The Keystone Pipeline has been controversial to the states of Nebraska and South Dakota and the jobs it will create are temporary, not permanent jobs. Once again, a temporary mentality that holds the American people hostage to party ideology.
I don't think the temporary cut in the Social Security payroll tax should be extended. Fix the tax code so the 1% can't get out of paying their fair share of taxes. Think big picture instead of piecemealing the American people to death with one issue at a time. All this small minded politics does is create gridlock. I am sick to death of it.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Naming Rights Ordinance - I Think You Should Draft It.
I watched Darrin Smith's presentation regarding the Naming Rights ordinance to the Public Service Committee on Monday, December 12th. I found it quite amusing. Here stood a director of a city department and he was asking part-time councilors for language change suggestions on drafting new ordinance language. He cited problems with the current ordinance but offered no solutions, no ideas for change. Clearly, he had not done his homework. He wanted someone else to do it, namely the Public Services Committee.
Obviously, the naming rights ordinance needs some major overhaul. It's great to ask for input but you would think that a city director would at least do some research and come forward with some substantive information instead of standing before a city council subcommittee thinking out loud about all the problems with the current ordinance without direction or concrete solutions.
The naming rights issue was generated out of the mayor's administration as part of the revenue package for the Event Center. It is the administration's job to research the naming rights issue and present a draft ordinance based on research and sound analysis. It's not the councilors job to do research for Smith. It's their job to finalize the policy ordinance for adoption. I think Director Smith forgot he is no longer a city councilor. He is a city director now. He has to actually do the work. He doesn't get to ask someone else to do it for him, especially city councilors.
When Councilor Brown asked Director Smith if he was going to bring a draft for the Council to review and comment, Director Smith said "Yup." That just about sums up the depth of this discussion.
Obviously, the naming rights ordinance needs some major overhaul. It's great to ask for input but you would think that a city director would at least do some research and come forward with some substantive information instead of standing before a city council subcommittee thinking out loud about all the problems with the current ordinance without direction or concrete solutions.
The naming rights issue was generated out of the mayor's administration as part of the revenue package for the Event Center. It is the administration's job to research the naming rights issue and present a draft ordinance based on research and sound analysis. It's not the councilors job to do research for Smith. It's their job to finalize the policy ordinance for adoption. I think Director Smith forgot he is no longer a city councilor. He is a city director now. He has to actually do the work. He doesn't get to ask someone else to do it for him, especially city councilors.
When Councilor Brown asked Director Smith if he was going to bring a draft for the Council to review and comment, Director Smith said "Yup." That just about sums up the depth of this discussion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)