At last week's Council session on the CG/CH zoning changes, I addressed Council asking once again for a zoning/permits/development ombudsman, something I have regularly advised for several years. Last week, in a comment to JWT's article, "What We Have Here", I said, "As JWT told you, I gave Mr. Lewis my card, asked him for some details, and promised that I was just as glad to give the city "attaboys" in public as to criticize. Have not heard yet, but if I do, and this is for real, I'll be the first to acknowledge it here."
I've been out of town this week and this is my first chance to follow up on that promise. I am here to give the city a big "attaboy", and eat a healthy portion of crow. If one looks to the comment following mine to last week's article, it is entered as anonymous, for ease of access I suppose, as it is signed at the bottom. I cannot recall when last I was more politely, thoroughly, and deservedly chewed out. For that matter, the embarrassment aside, I don't recall being so glad to admit, "Got me!"
The author of that comment, Amanda Fawver, is the city's Development Coordinator, a position created last April which comes so close to the "one person, one phone number" job description I have been requesting as not to be worth quibbling over details. The position she holds, complemented by the new Development Review Committee, will make the path from "bright idea" to final approval substantially smoother for business investors. As she points out, it has already helped 30-some projects.
Development Coordinator Fawver was so diplomatic, she even deleted from her public comment an especially embarrassing-to-me section of the e-mail she sent. I not only saw, and should have recalled, the April 21, 2007 Standard-Times article announcing this position, I commented favorably on the gosanangelo site. Not only do some folk downtown read my stuff, they sometimes remember it better than I do! Seriously, that was a deft touch which should serve well in a "first-contact" position.
This new approach is truly substantive. Unnecessary zoning/permits hoops to jump through are not only inconvenient for a prospective business, they cost real money in time and effort. To a business, the money saved on that end is just as real as the money on the cash-payment economic incentive end. From this forgetful author, a great big "attaboy" all 'round to staff and Ms. Fawver in particular. Talk about your economic multipliers, whatever the pay scale for this position, it is money well spent.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Sunday, February 03, 2008
What We've Got Here
- One of the most memorable lines ever from a movie was delivered by Strother Martin in Cool Hand Luke. That line started playing over and over in my mind last Tuesday, because “What we've got here is failure to communicate.” By the end of the day, I was convinced that City Hall continually fails to communicate.
- The most obvious example was in Rep. Darby's statement to the joint City Council / Planning Commission meeting. His first words were about how few people in the Real Estate community knew about the meeting or what was being proposed. This was shortly after Planning Staff had asserted they physically visited every property affected by the CG/CH rezoning plan. How can you have City Staff visiting hundreds of properties and not have the owners and tenants know why?
- The movie line was again brought to mind as Jim Ryan and I were leaving the meeting. Jim had made another of his periodic calls for an Ombudsman to serve as a single point of contact between city hall and people trying to navigate the red tape involved in any business and construction venture. Shawn Lewis, director of the development services department, wondered why we were still asking for an Ombudsman, when that position was now in existence and had been since a recent reorganization. Neither Jim nor I could remember hearing that, and we both try to pay attention, but we could have missed it. Just to make sure, I asked one of the council men later if he was aware of the Ombudsman, and he was as surprised as I was. We also gave Mr. Lewis a business card and asked for more information. Nothing yet. Look at the development services web page, and find the Ombudsman. The job title is less than informative. I also wonder why neither the City Manager or Mr. Lewis took the opportunity to point out this long needed addition to the city organization chart. Deja Vu. What we've got here is failure to communicate.
-
- City Hall, like most government bureaucracies, needs an effective communications strategy. This strategy needs to be grounded in the basics. First they need to know that effective communication isn't in just one direction. You need to put the information out but there has to be feedback. Every time you put out a message, you need a way to ensure it was received. In radio communication, you have the ”rodger” acknowledging success. In personal communications, there are active listening techniques. In public speaking, there are ways to judge the crowds response. If the snores are getting annoying, you might not be communicating. City Hall can and must employ feedback techniques in any communications strategy. They must identify and actively use feedback mechanisms.
- Personal contact is also part of an effective communications strategy. Any time a city employee comes in contact with the public, something is communicated. Everyone realizes that work crews, whether busily fixing a water leak or lazily leaning on a shovel, communicate an image of the City Hall. We must remember that every time a staff member interacts with the public, that is communications. The planning staff was in the field for considerable time studying the CG/CH rezoning. What an opportunity for communication. What would have happened if they had taken the time to hand a one or two page letter to available business and property owners while they were there. Such communications with businesses and property owners would have been a giant positive leap.
-
- In conclusion, it is time for City Hall, and all local government organizations, to develop a communications strategy. “Failure to communicate” needs to be relegated back to movie trivia.
Saturday, February 02, 2008
To Dr. Bonds on the Bond (corrected)
The following was originally sent to Dr. Bonds, Dr. Brian May, chair of the new Facilities Advisory Committee, and SAISD Board members. The magazine mentioned is "District Administration. The article url is http://www.districtadministration.com/viewarticle.aspx?articleid=119&p=1#0 I held this to allow for comment by any recipient to be included. I have received polite "Thanks for the input" from Dr. Bonds and Dr. May.
We publish this in the hope it will encourage others to offer their opinions to the Committee. This Committee met last Wednesday, I do not have their next meeting date yet. For those unable to take off workdays, Chairman May's e-mail is brian.may@angelo.edu mail is Box 10888, ASU Station, San Angelo, Texas 76909, Phone: 942-2027 x 283.
Open Letter to Dr. Bonds;
The link here is to an article from an educrat (pardon the term, I do not intend it to be negative) trade magazine we forwarded to the Board last time around. In case it has been forgotten, I think it worth another look. Mr. Vogel makes some great points and a lot of his advice carries over into ANY election, I pass this to candidates I support.
Point Four, the new Facilities Committee is a good start. The last one self-destructed publically and cost that bond more votes than our underfunded S-PAC dreamed of. I remember telling our first STEER meeting that defeating the bond would be a good start, but "if we knock it back by 10 points or more we will have the Board's undivided attention when we next speak to them." As I later said in my post-election autopsy of the bond published May 24, S-T "Doomed to fail", our opposition S-PAC was so much "flatulence in a hurricane", the voters simply were not going to buy that lump of coal. Dr. May's committee is small enough to be functional; I know many members by reputation, if not personally, strikes me as a good, representative body.
I think the decision not to hire another consulting firm is wise. Huckabee came in with a perfect track record, but frankly, looking over their prior clients, they had mostly represented districts where the bond would have passed with or without them. Presented with the company's first real challenge, they were, if anything, counter-productive. The Bond Awareness Survey poll was so transparently a "push-poll" that it worked against the bond. You may recall, I warned the Board about push polls, told them they resulted in candidates waking up on the first Wednesday past the first Monday in November and wondering "How did I lose?"
On the other hand, going back to the "How to Get Your Bond Passed" article, it emphasizes repeatedly, do polling. If you recall, when you met with Mr. Turner and myself, as we were walking from your office to your "wall of comments" I suggested that if you could convince the Board to fund it, you should put a genuine poll in the field ASAP. I repeat that now. Turner and I were discussing this yesterday, what about a joint venture having a good poll be a class project for some bright ASU statistics class? It is not that hard to put together an honest opinion-gathering poll. The tricky part the pros get paid mega-bucks for is "spinning" or "shading" polls tailored to the candidate paying the bills. Ask Hillary how much bang-for-the-buck she got out of South Carolina polling.
Point Three of the article; Motivate Your Friends, Ignore Your Enemies (and BTW I hope you know I am really not your enemy; more on that later). as this has wound out, SAISD is proposing to put this on ballot in November. I can hope this is not a fatal mistake, but politically, demographically, Poli-Sci 101, this is bad timing. Unfortunately, unless we can afford to wait for May 2009, it is what it is, no way we can be ready for this May. November is going to be unique in my lifetime. For the first time since 1952, we have a Presidential election with no incumbent, no heir-apparent VP running. I was on record six years ago predicting this as the most "interesting" election of my life. Now we are facing an economic "hard landing" (aside here, I think San Angelo will fare better than much of the country), never mind this little war in Iraq, forget the feminist/race split which may yet allow the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, for purposes of this bond we will probably see the highest turnout of my life INCLUDING a lot of, pardon me, geezers looking to protect their often fixed incomes. The money, the ads, the attention will be on anything BUT this bond...which should be the headline driver in its election cycle.
Who told you this was a good date? Gallegos, who still thinks more voter education and higher turnout would have sold the last Edsel? I play politics at at least a semi-pro level. I tell you now, the election date itself puts us in a 5-10 point hole before the starting gate opens, and I don't need a poll to tell me that. It can be overcome, but only if we are selling the customers (voters) something they are inclined to buy.
Going back to the Bond Awareness push poll; the last legitimate question on it was money, question 9. The breakdown was b) $100 million to $125 million, then c) $125 million to $150 million, then d) $150 to $175 million. The break point was (d) at which point the approval line graph glides like a brick into single digits. If you recall, I told the Board money was not the problem, recession or not, I don't think it will be the big item on next bond. Angelo voters are not that stingy, they had never turned down a bond before. Remember that old promo we dug up originally promoting Central as "America's First Ageless, Campus Style High School"? A visionary Board sold that bond in the middle of drought and hard times. Dr. Bonds, Dr. May, I tell you now, present a vision the voters will see as a good plan for the next 50 years, it can be sold, I'd love to get in there and help you sell a $140+ million bond. And yes, I remember, as Phase One.
I give you a couple other points I get from the last true poll, I think we called it an "election" . Board did at least break the issue into elementary and secondary spending. I knew the latter was dead, but I thought the elementary bond had a chance. Oops! It is obvious voters prefer the smaller, neighborhood model elementary school. The Holiman/San Jacinto/Bradford consolidation model did as much as the Crockett proposal to kill that Prop. Lamar works, the population there is dense enough it is still "neighborhood" at 600+, but when it comes down to shipping 6 year olds half way across north Angelo to Bradford, thank you very much, we'll pay a bit more to keep the kids in walking range. San Jacinto is my area, I am old enough to remember when that field on Pulliam was "Bobcat Stadium". I remember when Holiman was a state-of-the-art new school. BTW, the feature there of every classroom opens to the outdoors was a selling point used all over America then, it was going to make evacuation easier in case of fire or nuclear attack! Of course these schools need money and work, let's make sure we get it done.
I don't know the range of Dr. May's committee. I hope it is open to more than putting a new shine on the boots that got so badly booted last election. For a start, I advise you set up a link on the SAISD website for voters to offer their opinions to the committee. For the next few months, make a point of emphasizing at every opportunity that this is a committee open to public comment and make it easy for the public to comment. Yes, you will hear from all the tinfoil hats still camping out on the grassy knoll, but you will also hear from the good people whose wallets you are asking them to open. Remember the first point in my "Doomed to fail" autopsy; trust, the two edged sword. More than anything else it is incumbent on SAISD to regain that trust. Fail to do that, I don't care what the final package looks like, the voters are not going to trust you with 9 figures of their money.
It is not a deal breaker, but this Committee needs to give the three 4A high school model a good look. I'm far from the first person to suggest it, this has been out there for at least 20 years. Population has shifted southwest, that's definitely where young families and next generation's students will be coming from, we need to consider this demographic reality. The objection that 4A schools cannot offer the variety of courses available in a 5A school can be overcome IF we treat the district as a single entity rather than separate stand-alone campuses. One campus might offer the Voc-Ed curriculum, another perhaps the G-T program, perhaps Arts & Drama at Central with its lovely Bernhardt theater. Of interest to those who live and die by athletics, last year, UIL ruled that even if a student physically attends all classes in a "magnet" school outside the normal attendance zone, for extra-curricular purposes, that student may play football, tennis, swim or cheerlead or whatever where he/she lives.
OK, that ends my letter to Dr. Bonds. I have been promised the Committee is open to and desires public input. The schools still do need money for renovation and certainly some new construction. They will have to put together a proposal by August to make the November ballot, and the earlier they get it, the more likely any idea can be worked into that bond. Voters and parents, the ball is in your court, speak up.
We publish this in the hope it will encourage others to offer their opinions to the Committee. This Committee met last Wednesday, I do not have their next meeting date yet. For those unable to take off workdays, Chairman May's e-mail is brian.may@angelo.edu mail is Box 10888, ASU Station, San Angelo, Texas 76909, Phone: 942-2027 x 283.
Open Letter to Dr. Bonds;
The link here is to an article from an educrat (pardon the term, I do not intend it to be negative) trade magazine we forwarded to the Board last time around. In case it has been forgotten, I think it worth another look. Mr. Vogel makes some great points and a lot of his advice carries over into ANY election, I pass this to candidates I support.
Point Four, the new Facilities Committee is a good start. The last one self-destructed publically and cost that bond more votes than our underfunded S-PAC dreamed of. I remember telling our first STEER meeting that defeating the bond would be a good start, but "if we knock it back by 10 points or more we will have the Board's undivided attention when we next speak to them." As I later said in my post-election autopsy of the bond published May 24, S-T "Doomed to fail", our opposition S-PAC was so much "flatulence in a hurricane", the voters simply were not going to buy that lump of coal. Dr. May's committee is small enough to be functional; I know many members by reputation, if not personally, strikes me as a good, representative body.
I think the decision not to hire another consulting firm is wise. Huckabee came in with a perfect track record, but frankly, looking over their prior clients, they had mostly represented districts where the bond would have passed with or without them. Presented with the company's first real challenge, they were, if anything, counter-productive. The Bond Awareness Survey poll was so transparently a "push-poll" that it worked against the bond. You may recall, I warned the Board about push polls, told them they resulted in candidates waking up on the first Wednesday past the first Monday in November and wondering "How did I lose?"
On the other hand, going back to the "How to Get Your Bond Passed" article, it emphasizes repeatedly, do polling. If you recall, when you met with Mr. Turner and myself, as we were walking from your office to your "wall of comments" I suggested that if you could convince the Board to fund it, you should put a genuine poll in the field ASAP. I repeat that now. Turner and I were discussing this yesterday, what about a joint venture having a good poll be a class project for some bright ASU statistics class? It is not that hard to put together an honest opinion-gathering poll. The tricky part the pros get paid mega-bucks for is "spinning" or "shading" polls tailored to the candidate paying the bills. Ask Hillary how much bang-for-the-buck she got out of South Carolina polling.
Point Three of the article; Motivate Your Friends, Ignore Your Enemies (and BTW I hope you know I am really not your enemy; more on that later). as this has wound out, SAISD is proposing to put this on ballot in November. I can hope this is not a fatal mistake, but politically, demographically, Poli-Sci 101, this is bad timing. Unfortunately, unless we can afford to wait for May 2009, it is what it is, no way we can be ready for this May. November is going to be unique in my lifetime. For the first time since 1952, we have a Presidential election with no incumbent, no heir-apparent VP running. I was on record six years ago predicting this as the most "interesting" election of my life. Now we are facing an economic "hard landing" (aside here, I think San Angelo will fare better than much of the country), never mind this little war in Iraq, forget the feminist/race split which may yet allow the Democrats to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, for purposes of this bond we will probably see the highest turnout of my life INCLUDING a lot of, pardon me, geezers looking to protect their often fixed incomes. The money, the ads, the attention will be on anything BUT this bond...which should be the headline driver in its election cycle.
Who told you this was a good date? Gallegos, who still thinks more voter education and higher turnout would have sold the last Edsel? I play politics at at least a semi-pro level. I tell you now, the election date itself puts us in a 5-10 point hole before the starting gate opens, and I don't need a poll to tell me that. It can be overcome, but only if we are selling the customers (voters) something they are inclined to buy.
Going back to the Bond Awareness push poll; the last legitimate question on it was money, question 9. The breakdown was b) $100 million to $125 million, then c) $125 million to $150 million, then d) $150 to $175 million. The break point was (d) at which point the approval line graph glides like a brick into single digits. If you recall, I told the Board money was not the problem, recession or not, I don't think it will be the big item on next bond. Angelo voters are not that stingy, they had never turned down a bond before. Remember that old promo we dug up originally promoting Central as "America's First Ageless, Campus Style High School"? A visionary Board sold that bond in the middle of drought and hard times. Dr. Bonds, Dr. May, I tell you now, present a vision the voters will see as a good plan for the next 50 years, it can be sold, I'd love to get in there and help you sell a $140+ million bond. And yes, I remember, as Phase One.
I give you a couple other points I get from the last true poll, I think we called it an "election" . Board did at least break the issue into elementary and secondary spending. I knew the latter was dead, but I thought the elementary bond had a chance. Oops! It is obvious voters prefer the smaller, neighborhood model elementary school. The Holiman/San Jacinto/Bradford consolidation model did as much as the Crockett proposal to kill that Prop. Lamar works, the population there is dense enough it is still "neighborhood" at 600+, but when it comes down to shipping 6 year olds half way across north Angelo to Bradford, thank you very much, we'll pay a bit more to keep the kids in walking range. San Jacinto is my area, I am old enough to remember when that field on Pulliam was "Bobcat Stadium". I remember when Holiman was a state-of-the-art new school. BTW, the feature there of every classroom opens to the outdoors was a selling point used all over America then, it was going to make evacuation easier in case of fire or nuclear attack! Of course these schools need money and work, let's make sure we get it done.
I don't know the range of Dr. May's committee. I hope it is open to more than putting a new shine on the boots that got so badly booted last election. For a start, I advise you set up a link on the SAISD website for voters to offer their opinions to the committee. For the next few months, make a point of emphasizing at every opportunity that this is a committee open to public comment and make it easy for the public to comment. Yes, you will hear from all the tinfoil hats still camping out on the grassy knoll, but you will also hear from the good people whose wallets you are asking them to open. Remember the first point in my "Doomed to fail" autopsy; trust, the two edged sword. More than anything else it is incumbent on SAISD to regain that trust. Fail to do that, I don't care what the final package looks like, the voters are not going to trust you with 9 figures of their money.
It is not a deal breaker, but this Committee needs to give the three 4A high school model a good look. I'm far from the first person to suggest it, this has been out there for at least 20 years. Population has shifted southwest, that's definitely where young families and next generation's students will be coming from, we need to consider this demographic reality. The objection that 4A schools cannot offer the variety of courses available in a 5A school can be overcome IF we treat the district as a single entity rather than separate stand-alone campuses. One campus might offer the Voc-Ed curriculum, another perhaps the G-T program, perhaps Arts & Drama at Central with its lovely Bernhardt theater. Of interest to those who live and die by athletics, last year, UIL ruled that even if a student physically attends all classes in a "magnet" school outside the normal attendance zone, for extra-curricular purposes, that student may play football, tennis, swim or cheerlead or whatever where he/she lives.
OK, that ends my letter to Dr. Bonds. I have been promised the Committee is open to and desires public input. The schools still do need money for renovation and certainly some new construction. They will have to put together a proposal by August to make the November ballot, and the earlier they get it, the more likely any idea can be worked into that bond. Voters and parents, the ball is in your court, speak up.
Friday, January 25, 2008
1 2 3 Red Light
Lubbock is giving us some interesting insights on how many cities view red light cameras. They recently received a report on the first 6 months of operation. The results are so bad, the committee charged with overseeing the program is recommending it be discontinued. It is apparent that the cameras are not really improving public safety. Accidents at intersections with cameras are up by 52% while accidents at other intersections are down by 2.7%. The number of injuries is down, but one commenter on the study said that could be due to a number of factors, including the number of passengers in each vehicle. Right out of the gate, their program seems to be failing, and deserves to be discontinued. The problem is that they will discontinue it for the wrong reasons.
It was obvious from the start that Lubbock did it for the money. They ignored re-engineering an intersection (which includes adjusting yellow light timing) as an option. When they found that only 4 of the 14 most dangerous intersections would have the needed 20 citations per day to be profitable, they looked at 12 additional intersections with no real history of accidents. This was put on hold after it was found out that 8 of the twelve intersections had yellow lights shorter than they should be, with one being shorter than legal minimums. Recent changes in Texas law derailed Lubbock's original plans.
With 7300 citations per intersection a year needed to be profitable, I have to wonder what the costs of installation and operation for such a system must be. At the State mandated maximum of $75 per citation, that means each intersection would generate a gross revenue of $547,500.00 per year. With 14 "profitable"intersections, that is a total revenue of $7.66 million per year. Lubbock anticipated a net revenue of $2 million per year, which meant that $5.66 million a year were needed to run the operation and pay the vendor $3.3 million in five years.
Update: After reading some of this material again, I find that the 20 citations/day may not be per intersection, but the total break even point, where the city isn't making money yet. With the cities goal of $2 million in "revenue" (i.e. profits), that is still around 36,000 citations per year, or roughly 7 per intersection at 14 intersections. That still amounts to a $2.5 million a year hidden tax. This is basically the old speed trap dressed up in high tech and automated.
I hope we can avoid Lubbock's approach to public safety and revenue. So far, our city council hasn't been swayed by the prospect of easy money. We need to keep vigilant to make sure it never happens.
It was obvious from the start that Lubbock did it for the money. They ignored re-engineering an intersection (which includes adjusting yellow light timing) as an option. When they found that only 4 of the 14 most dangerous intersections would have the needed 20 citations per day to be profitable, they looked at 12 additional intersections with no real history of accidents. This was put on hold after it was found out that 8 of the twelve intersections had yellow lights shorter than they should be, with one being shorter than legal minimums. Recent changes in Texas law derailed Lubbock's original plans.
With 7300 citations per intersection a year needed to be profitable, I have to wonder what the costs of installation and operation for such a system must be. At the State mandated maximum of $75 per citation, that means each intersection would generate a gross revenue of $547,500.00 per year. With 14 "profitable"intersections, that is a total revenue of $7.66 million per year. Lubbock anticipated a net revenue of $2 million per year, which meant that $5.66 million a year were needed to run the operation and pay the vendor $3.3 million in five years.
Update: After reading some of this material again, I find that the 20 citations/day may not be per intersection, but the total break even point, where the city isn't making money yet. With the cities goal of $2 million in "revenue" (i.e. profits), that is still around 36,000 citations per year, or roughly 7 per intersection at 14 intersections. That still amounts to a $2.5 million a year hidden tax. This is basically the old speed trap dressed up in high tech and automated.
I hope we can avoid Lubbock's approach to public safety and revenue. So far, our city council hasn't been swayed by the prospect of easy money. We need to keep vigilant to make sure it never happens.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Another Sunday Rambling
Well, the Cowboys are out, Al Gore let me down on Global Warming, no suntan today, I might as well pass on a few thoughts while I casually watch my NFL investments.
It has been an interesting week. Last week at their "this one doesn't really count" pre-agenda meeting, SAISD reviewed Superintendent Bonds' performance, but more importantly, we heard our first inkling of what might lie in store for us as relates to a bond issue. Last year, I served as treasurer for the SPAC opposing the last bond. As I later said in both the Standard-Times and here, our involvement was not truly necessary to the defeat of that bond. A city which had never befrore declined to support school bonds kicked this one back by over 2 to 1.
Last week, Trustee Gallegos opined again that he felt the bond failed due to lack of voter education. Others have claimed it failed due to "low" turnout. In fact, for this type election the turnout was unexpectedly high. Voters understood the bond all too well, they just plain did not like it. Hiring a better salesman is not going to sell bagged ice to the Eskimos.
Our SPAC agreed the district needs money, and by law, school districts can only raise major infrastructure money by a voter-approved bond issue. I told the Board we could sell a bond for the amount of the last one, maybe a bit higher, IF a proposal were put forth in line with what voters want. I don't second guess the decision not to hire another consultant firm. I do have concern about the charge given the new citizens' advisory committee. If the S-T is accurate, they "will study the same information a larger facilities task force used" last time. A point we raised last time was the relatively subjective standards used by Huckabee to evaluate facilities. In that Huckabee only got the big payday if the bond sold, they had about 7.5 million reasons to exaggerate structural problems and lobby for new construction as opposed to refurbish/remodel. Is the Huckabee evaluation going to serve as a base for this committee's deliberations?
Will the new advisory committee look at all options? With new population growth going southwest, does it make sense to lock into existing attendance districts? Will this committee at least peek at a three 4A high school model? Are the meetings of this committee open to the public? The City Charter Committee I served on was.
From a purely political strategy view, SAISD has already burned too much daylight. A "hot" Presidential election guarantees a high turnout, especially in the precise demographic one does not want for school spending; lots of older voters with less involvement in schools and a high interest in keeping their often fixed incomes safe from any additional levys. I still believe SAISD can sell a bond in the $130-140 million range, I'd love to be able to help support a good bond for our future, but it had best be a bond pitched at what the buyer (taxpayer) has in mind for policy.
I will be on hand Tuesday evening, join me if you can.
On the really good news front, the new library finally got close enough to full funding to approve actual construction. After all the wrangling, the old Hemphill-Wells Bldg. will finally get a new start as the jewel in the crown of downtown revitalization, and do so at minimal taxpayer cost. Kudos to Ralph Hoelscher for sheer dogged determination on this issue. I take a wee bit of pride remembering when Mayor Fender chided me for being unrealistic, "Don't you know the H-W Bldg is structurally unsuitable for a library? Do your homework before you waste our time." Thanks Fender, seems Ralph didn't know it either.
There's been a lot of flack over the "new" $25 fire inspection fee. This is more a problem of failure to communicate than actual money. Pretty much all the public representation stuck with this $25 bit, and that is misleading at best. Most businesses will pay at least $50-$100, some $300, plus whatever upgrades the inspection mandates. The new ordinance, Sec. 12.100 does gather fees from all over the code into one place, a legitimate housekeeping function. There really is an upside, if the more aggressive inspections result in raising the city's ISO compliance, we could see lower, or at least not higher, insurance rates and deductibles.
Problem is, these inspections have not been aggressive in the past, they were not well communicated to the businesses affected, and in some particulars, it appears the fees target "who can pay" more than the actual cost of inspection. For instance, Alcoholic Beverages Licensed Establishments (this includes the corner grocery selling beer as well as bars) gets a $100 fee. Expolsives; Hazardous Materials: Flammable and combustible liquids; etc. get a $50 fee. I didn't know beer was that big a fire hazard, in fact at least once in my life I have used a well shaken beer as an emergency fire extinguisher. One neighborhood retailer I know got hit for $1,800 total costs, and the way it was presented to him, I can see why he feels as if he has been blind-sided.
This is one more aspect of a long standing peeve I have with the city's relations to small business. We tax ourselves for economic development, but the business too small to appear on COSADC's radar gets flack from the inspections/permits instead of help. From amusement parks to new retail, the prospective entrepaneur gets hoops to jump through. City should set this up such that a new business gets one person, one number to call, one helpful person to guide it through the thicket of regulation and ordinances. This is not to say give in on every point, but the entrepanuer should be able to get a clear answer as to what they need to do, what they can do, or even what they cannot do without spending all day on hold or playing "telephone tag". This is not just businesses, how long did we have to scrap for the right to build carports in a hail prone area? Have you tried to build a fence or get a driveway curb cut lately?
All too often, it doesn't matter if no neighbors object, or even are responding favorably to an idea, planning seems to take the attitude if they didn't think of it first, it can't be a good idea, burden of proof on the property owner.
Other news, the Police Chief race is plenty hot with 6 candidates. We may see a couple drop out, but it will decidedly be the headliner come May. With Councilman Cardenas electing to go for the better paying job of Precinct One Commissioner, SMD 3 Council seat is wide open, SMD 1 &5 are also up, but with incumbents. As mentioned, last May's election was high turnout. The November election on Charter Amendments, San Angelo had the highest percentage turnout for a city our size in the state of Texas. With a new elections administrator (congratulations Vona)and new faith in our voting system itself, I expect this high involvement to continue through the March primaries and the May city elections.
God knows, with the writers' strike going on, we won't be much distracted by the boob toob. This week I was treated to ads for a new "reality show", "Parking Wars", which promises to enthrall us with the travails of the meter maid as she goes about chalking tires and writing tickets. I am not making this up. I lack the imagination to make this up. Maybe that's why I drive a dump truck and do plumbing for a living and someone else gets rich on meter maids. Wait a minute; "Crack Wars; Plumbers at Work": how about it Hollywood?
Never mind, I'll settle for watching the Presidential silly season. Who knows? They may finally get around to actually examining what any of these candidates hold as policy instead of the "process" matters of who leads in which poll.
It has been an interesting week. Last week at their "this one doesn't really count" pre-agenda meeting, SAISD reviewed Superintendent Bonds' performance, but more importantly, we heard our first inkling of what might lie in store for us as relates to a bond issue. Last year, I served as treasurer for the SPAC opposing the last bond. As I later said in both the Standard-Times and here, our involvement was not truly necessary to the defeat of that bond. A city which had never befrore declined to support school bonds kicked this one back by over 2 to 1.
Last week, Trustee Gallegos opined again that he felt the bond failed due to lack of voter education. Others have claimed it failed due to "low" turnout. In fact, for this type election the turnout was unexpectedly high. Voters understood the bond all too well, they just plain did not like it. Hiring a better salesman is not going to sell bagged ice to the Eskimos.
Our SPAC agreed the district needs money, and by law, school districts can only raise major infrastructure money by a voter-approved bond issue. I told the Board we could sell a bond for the amount of the last one, maybe a bit higher, IF a proposal were put forth in line with what voters want. I don't second guess the decision not to hire another consultant firm. I do have concern about the charge given the new citizens' advisory committee. If the S-T is accurate, they "will study the same information a larger facilities task force used" last time. A point we raised last time was the relatively subjective standards used by Huckabee to evaluate facilities. In that Huckabee only got the big payday if the bond sold, they had about 7.5 million reasons to exaggerate structural problems and lobby for new construction as opposed to refurbish/remodel. Is the Huckabee evaluation going to serve as a base for this committee's deliberations?
Will the new advisory committee look at all options? With new population growth going southwest, does it make sense to lock into existing attendance districts? Will this committee at least peek at a three 4A high school model? Are the meetings of this committee open to the public? The City Charter Committee I served on was.
From a purely political strategy view, SAISD has already burned too much daylight. A "hot" Presidential election guarantees a high turnout, especially in the precise demographic one does not want for school spending; lots of older voters with less involvement in schools and a high interest in keeping their often fixed incomes safe from any additional levys. I still believe SAISD can sell a bond in the $130-140 million range, I'd love to be able to help support a good bond for our future, but it had best be a bond pitched at what the buyer (taxpayer) has in mind for policy.
I will be on hand Tuesday evening, join me if you can.
On the really good news front, the new library finally got close enough to full funding to approve actual construction. After all the wrangling, the old Hemphill-Wells Bldg. will finally get a new start as the jewel in the crown of downtown revitalization, and do so at minimal taxpayer cost. Kudos to Ralph Hoelscher for sheer dogged determination on this issue. I take a wee bit of pride remembering when Mayor Fender chided me for being unrealistic, "Don't you know the H-W Bldg is structurally unsuitable for a library? Do your homework before you waste our time." Thanks Fender, seems Ralph didn't know it either.
There's been a lot of flack over the "new" $25 fire inspection fee. This is more a problem of failure to communicate than actual money. Pretty much all the public representation stuck with this $25 bit, and that is misleading at best. Most businesses will pay at least $50-$100, some $300, plus whatever upgrades the inspection mandates. The new ordinance, Sec. 12.100 does gather fees from all over the code into one place, a legitimate housekeeping function. There really is an upside, if the more aggressive inspections result in raising the city's ISO compliance, we could see lower, or at least not higher, insurance rates and deductibles.
Problem is, these inspections have not been aggressive in the past, they were not well communicated to the businesses affected, and in some particulars, it appears the fees target "who can pay" more than the actual cost of inspection. For instance, Alcoholic Beverages Licensed Establishments (this includes the corner grocery selling beer as well as bars) gets a $100 fee. Expolsives; Hazardous Materials: Flammable and combustible liquids; etc. get a $50 fee. I didn't know beer was that big a fire hazard, in fact at least once in my life I have used a well shaken beer as an emergency fire extinguisher. One neighborhood retailer I know got hit for $1,800 total costs, and the way it was presented to him, I can see why he feels as if he has been blind-sided.
This is one more aspect of a long standing peeve I have with the city's relations to small business. We tax ourselves for economic development, but the business too small to appear on COSADC's radar gets flack from the inspections/permits instead of help. From amusement parks to new retail, the prospective entrepaneur gets hoops to jump through. City should set this up such that a new business gets one person, one number to call, one helpful person to guide it through the thicket of regulation and ordinances. This is not to say give in on every point, but the entrepanuer should be able to get a clear answer as to what they need to do, what they can do, or even what they cannot do without spending all day on hold or playing "telephone tag". This is not just businesses, how long did we have to scrap for the right to build carports in a hail prone area? Have you tried to build a fence or get a driveway curb cut lately?
All too often, it doesn't matter if no neighbors object, or even are responding favorably to an idea, planning seems to take the attitude if they didn't think of it first, it can't be a good idea, burden of proof on the property owner.
Other news, the Police Chief race is plenty hot with 6 candidates. We may see a couple drop out, but it will decidedly be the headliner come May. With Councilman Cardenas electing to go for the better paying job of Precinct One Commissioner, SMD 3 Council seat is wide open, SMD 1 &5 are also up, but with incumbents. As mentioned, last May's election was high turnout. The November election on Charter Amendments, San Angelo had the highest percentage turnout for a city our size in the state of Texas. With a new elections administrator (congratulations Vona)and new faith in our voting system itself, I expect this high involvement to continue through the March primaries and the May city elections.
God knows, with the writers' strike going on, we won't be much distracted by the boob toob. This week I was treated to ads for a new "reality show", "Parking Wars", which promises to enthrall us with the travails of the meter maid as she goes about chalking tires and writing tickets. I am not making this up. I lack the imagination to make this up. Maybe that's why I drive a dump truck and do plumbing for a living and someone else gets rich on meter maids. Wait a minute; "Crack Wars; Plumbers at Work": how about it Hollywood?
Never mind, I'll settle for watching the Presidential silly season. Who knows? They may finally get around to actually examining what any of these candidates hold as policy instead of the "process" matters of who leads in which poll.
Sunday, January 06, 2008
2008; Hope It's Great
For the third time, my offer of the year in review and prognostications for '08. Again, as last year, I first reviewed the same offering from last January. Football and oil prices aside, once again in utter lack of false modesty, sometimes I amaze myself. Where is that Karnak the Magnificent turban?
In this space a year ago I was glad to see a Charter Review Committee formed, had no idea I would be part of it. To be honest, I was second choice. True, there was much controversy, primarily on the elected police chief issue, but overall, we did well. By "we", I mean everybody; our committee, City Council, and above all, the record setting turnout of 11,000 who bothered to get out and decide the issues. For a city our size, that was the highest turnout in Texas by percentage. We passed 26 out of 29, not a shabby batting average. Notable here, there was, for a welcome change, no controversy concerning the election process or vote count. Well deserved congratulations to our new administrator, Vona McKerley. First prediction, the electorate having been stimulated, voters will continue to turn out for this year's elections.
Of those Charter issues, the one I am proudest of was the Capital Improvements Amendment. By forcing future Councils to follow the lead of the current one and look at infrastructure first, we should be able to avoid the collapse of water and streets we find ourselves digging out of now.
We didn't do nearly as much as I would have liked last year on traffic lights. I am a great fan of serendipity, and we are almost certainly going to see some in this area this year. ASU's proposal to close Johnson St. triggered a jointly funded traffic study of that part of town. Add the proposal for "red light cameras", which under a new state law requires its own set of studies, we may come out of this year with better data to work with than the city has had in, roughly, forever. Mind you, traffic flow and street quality is realistically an irritant here, not nearly a crisis. Think not? Try getting anywhere in the Metroplex at 5:00 PM.
Last year, I ventured that our serving City Council was as good as we have seen in my memory. No apologies for that. They took a daunting, to say the least, water crisis, and managed to come out with a reasonable funding plan that did not increase ad valorum taxes. Before you go ballistic over the new water bill, consider this; this year San Angelo will spend more money on pipes and streets than the entire ad valorem budget. Hint, hint, my Councilman, Daniel Cardenas has filed for County Commissioner, City SMD 3 is wide open.
Education: my webmaster beat me to this, but it is hard to say enough here. Last year's bond defeat was the first time San Angelo voters ever turned down a bond request. We were part of an opposition group, but even we agreed SAISD really needs a large bond infusion, just not the plan that was soundly trounced last May. I was not shocked to see the Board defer a new bond past the November election. What is astonishing is that no one seems to have woken up over on University Drive. The Board is still rollicking along with their only-every-other-meeting-really-counts format. We still have not seen so much as a rough sketch of a revised bond proposal. The school system not only still needs a ton of money, with escalating construction costs, they now probably need two tons of money. Dr. Bonds' wall of comments notwithstanding, SAISD should have had a genuine poll out there last spring to determine what voters will or will not support. Meanwhile, the board is bogged down deciding how to continue the practice of awarding contracts to the high bidder, and by how much higher, and we seem to have a big problem just how to do reasonable teacher evaluations. A hint on the latter, SAISD: your own bond committee's defection contributed big-time to the last loss, don't put another bond out without a united front.
One hopes all this is a result of mere incompetence rather than a plan to beggar the system into such penury voters will eventually pass whatever is before them, but this "one" is not sure anymore. I do hope the voter involvement I bragged on as to city elections will carry over to the school board, we desperately need new faces there, Cookie Roberts is bound to be feeling lonesome on the left end of the dias. Remember, SAISD spends more tax dollars than city and county combined.
Almost forgot, an issue I have been pushing for years; reform the zoning and permits section of City Hall. As much money as we spend on economic development and trying to attract new business, the single most common gripe I hear is how difficult the city makes it to open a new business. It is one thing to keep rendering plants out of residential neighborhoods, but when no one in the community objects, why should the city set up flaming hoops for entrepanuers to jump through? From car lots to amusement parks to retail outlets, zoning seems to take the position that if they didn't think of it first, it must be an inappropriate use, burden of proof on the landowner. Matter of fact, that mindset carries over to residential use. How long did we fight over carports to protect most families' second largest investment in a hail-prone area? Have you tried to build a fence or get a driveway curb-cut lately?
Let me say again, we should have an office in city hall where a small business start-up can go, detail the nature of their business, and get ASSISTANCE in making it happen, not bureaucratic flak trying to shoot it down. That hopeful capitalist should have one name, one phone number, one contact familiar with his plan to call every time a problem comes up. Not to say that person gives them everything they want, but they should be able to get a clear answer as to what needs to be done or even what can or cannot be done, without spending all day on "hold".
While on the subject of economic development, I don't look for the "candy store" mentality to vanish, but the concept of "economic gardening" was well received here. I hold out hope that long term, this could do us more good than all the corporate bribery we could finance. It boils down to nothing more complex than realistically assessing our strong points, forget about wishing for an interstate we will not see in my lifetime, throw in a little fertilizer (our Small Business Center for example) and move on from there. The signs are good.
One kudo to hand out; thanks to the dogged determination of Commissioner Ralph Hoelscher, we seem to have found a great use for the Hemphill-Wells Bldg. as a new library. At very little taxpayer expense this is about to become the jewel in the crown of downtown development.
Almost forgot football. New England withstood a great effort by the Giants to go undefeated. They have a much harder row to hoe to the Superbowl than Miami did, all due respect to that great team. There are at least five Superbowl quality teams this year; Colts, Green Bay, Dallas, San Diego, even Jacksonville, and who knows, the Giants may keep it up today. On this, I make no pretence of an unbiased view, GO COWBOYS!
In this space a year ago I was glad to see a Charter Review Committee formed, had no idea I would be part of it. To be honest, I was second choice. True, there was much controversy, primarily on the elected police chief issue, but overall, we did well. By "we", I mean everybody; our committee, City Council, and above all, the record setting turnout of 11,000 who bothered to get out and decide the issues. For a city our size, that was the highest turnout in Texas by percentage. We passed 26 out of 29, not a shabby batting average. Notable here, there was, for a welcome change, no controversy concerning the election process or vote count. Well deserved congratulations to our new administrator, Vona McKerley. First prediction, the electorate having been stimulated, voters will continue to turn out for this year's elections.
Of those Charter issues, the one I am proudest of was the Capital Improvements Amendment. By forcing future Councils to follow the lead of the current one and look at infrastructure first, we should be able to avoid the collapse of water and streets we find ourselves digging out of now.
We didn't do nearly as much as I would have liked last year on traffic lights. I am a great fan of serendipity, and we are almost certainly going to see some in this area this year. ASU's proposal to close Johnson St. triggered a jointly funded traffic study of that part of town. Add the proposal for "red light cameras", which under a new state law requires its own set of studies, we may come out of this year with better data to work with than the city has had in, roughly, forever. Mind you, traffic flow and street quality is realistically an irritant here, not nearly a crisis. Think not? Try getting anywhere in the Metroplex at 5:00 PM.
Last year, I ventured that our serving City Council was as good as we have seen in my memory. No apologies for that. They took a daunting, to say the least, water crisis, and managed to come out with a reasonable funding plan that did not increase ad valorum taxes. Before you go ballistic over the new water bill, consider this; this year San Angelo will spend more money on pipes and streets than the entire ad valorem budget. Hint, hint, my Councilman, Daniel Cardenas has filed for County Commissioner, City SMD 3 is wide open.
Education: my webmaster beat me to this, but it is hard to say enough here. Last year's bond defeat was the first time San Angelo voters ever turned down a bond request. We were part of an opposition group, but even we agreed SAISD really needs a large bond infusion, just not the plan that was soundly trounced last May. I was not shocked to see the Board defer a new bond past the November election. What is astonishing is that no one seems to have woken up over on University Drive. The Board is still rollicking along with their only-every-other-meeting-really-counts format. We still have not seen so much as a rough sketch of a revised bond proposal. The school system not only still needs a ton of money, with escalating construction costs, they now probably need two tons of money. Dr. Bonds' wall of comments notwithstanding, SAISD should have had a genuine poll out there last spring to determine what voters will or will not support. Meanwhile, the board is bogged down deciding how to continue the practice of awarding contracts to the high bidder, and by how much higher, and we seem to have a big problem just how to do reasonable teacher evaluations. A hint on the latter, SAISD: your own bond committee's defection contributed big-time to the last loss, don't put another bond out without a united front.
One hopes all this is a result of mere incompetence rather than a plan to beggar the system into such penury voters will eventually pass whatever is before them, but this "one" is not sure anymore. I do hope the voter involvement I bragged on as to city elections will carry over to the school board, we desperately need new faces there, Cookie Roberts is bound to be feeling lonesome on the left end of the dias. Remember, SAISD spends more tax dollars than city and county combined.
Almost forgot, an issue I have been pushing for years; reform the zoning and permits section of City Hall. As much money as we spend on economic development and trying to attract new business, the single most common gripe I hear is how difficult the city makes it to open a new business. It is one thing to keep rendering plants out of residential neighborhoods, but when no one in the community objects, why should the city set up flaming hoops for entrepanuers to jump through? From car lots to amusement parks to retail outlets, zoning seems to take the position that if they didn't think of it first, it must be an inappropriate use, burden of proof on the landowner. Matter of fact, that mindset carries over to residential use. How long did we fight over carports to protect most families' second largest investment in a hail-prone area? Have you tried to build a fence or get a driveway curb-cut lately?
Let me say again, we should have an office in city hall where a small business start-up can go, detail the nature of their business, and get ASSISTANCE in making it happen, not bureaucratic flak trying to shoot it down. That hopeful capitalist should have one name, one phone number, one contact familiar with his plan to call every time a problem comes up. Not to say that person gives them everything they want, but they should be able to get a clear answer as to what needs to be done or even what can or cannot be done, without spending all day on "hold".
While on the subject of economic development, I don't look for the "candy store" mentality to vanish, but the concept of "economic gardening" was well received here. I hold out hope that long term, this could do us more good than all the corporate bribery we could finance. It boils down to nothing more complex than realistically assessing our strong points, forget about wishing for an interstate we will not see in my lifetime, throw in a little fertilizer (our Small Business Center for example) and move on from there. The signs are good.
One kudo to hand out; thanks to the dogged determination of Commissioner Ralph Hoelscher, we seem to have found a great use for the Hemphill-Wells Bldg. as a new library. At very little taxpayer expense this is about to become the jewel in the crown of downtown development.
Almost forgot football. New England withstood a great effort by the Giants to go undefeated. They have a much harder row to hoe to the Superbowl than Miami did, all due respect to that great team. There are at least five Superbowl quality teams this year; Colts, Green Bay, Dallas, San Diego, even Jacksonville, and who knows, the Giants may keep it up today. On this, I make no pretence of an unbiased view, GO COWBOYS!
Thursday, January 03, 2008
New Addition to ConchoInfo
I have a late Christmas present for the readers of this blog. ConchoInfo now has Forums online. This is a bit different than this BLOG, as it groups posts under discussion boards and topics. I have added Water Issues, Public Safety, and Traffic & Transportation discussion boards and Water Quality, Water Sources & Distribution, and Red Light Cameras as starting topics. You can read anything in the forums, but must register to reply. I will be adding some forum admins as we go along as well. Enjoy.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Crystal Ball Time
For the third time, we will try to fire up the old crystal ball. You might enjoy looking at our previous prognostications here and here.
Infrastructure will be in the news frequently in the coming year. There will be continuing work on the water and sewer systems, and the roads might get the first serious traffic studies in decades. The city might even bring the traffic signals up to late 20th century standards. Expect heated discussions about the need for infrastructure improvements and its impact on private property and businesses. The inclusion of the Capital Budget in the city charter makes this an easy prediction.
Public safety will be a hot topic. First, we have both Chief of Police and the Sheriff up for election. All candidates will promise to "do something." It remains to be seen whether these will be new, creative ideas or just more of the same old same old. There will be heated discussions on introducing technologies that intrude on privacy in the name of public safety and security. Hopefully we will be able to have realistic and effective limits, checks, and balances in place. This won't happen if we don't get more private citizen involvement. This will have to come from all stakeholders (ie. citizens) in the city. Youth involvement will be especially critical. All aspects of public safety and the criminal justice system will have tough questions asked. I am cautiously optimistic that we can come up with some good answers, but it will take a lot of work.
One of the most critical youth issues, Education, is likely to show little positive progress. The problems that were there during the last bond election are still there, only worse. Inflation has increased the cost of all potential projects, but realistically money was not what caused the failure of the last bond election. Poor communication and bad information lost the last election. There has been no improvement there. If anything it has gotten worse. With all the fanfare of Dr. Bonds soliciting input and covering her office walls, there has been little real output. Poorly communicated management methods such as "sweeps" will add to the problems the school district has selling any bond package. The comments and discussions on Sweeps have not shown the openness or communications skills needed to sell anything to the voters. The slow pace of progress also makes it likely that the School Board will delay the bond issue till the November ballot. Unless they have a very compelling package and an excellent sales plan, they will not fare very well in the heavy voter turnout of a presidential election. If they don't have a package ready by May, they can probably forget a bond.
ASU will have a very good year. There will be lots of cussin' and discussion about Johnson street and traffic in the area, but in the end there will be the start of a plan to fix a long overlooked problem. With its first endowed chair, and an expanding curriculum, they will be on track for the growth they want. They will have to address space problems and that will be a long term challenge. Repairing bridges to the community will also have to be a top priority.
Business and economic development trends will not change very much. There will be a slow down in retail building, and some of the growth will move away for the southwest part of town. The TIRZ zone and the new Supercenter will both draw retail growth, but it will take a while to get any momentum. There will be new industries coming, but these will put the quality of our workforce to the test. The days of good paying jobs for unskilled labor are gone. If you happen to be looking for a job, be prepared to get training. We will start to see some upward movement of the average income. Expect major changes in grants and handouts to businesses. Expect the focus to shift more to homegrown, local businesses.
Expect changes in the cities approach to parks and recreation facilities. The candy store approach will not disappear, but expect to see changes. More creative involvement by all the groups concerned will be required to get anything positive done. Look for more multi-use facilities.
Energy will also start to have more of an impact on the local economy. The wind farms in the area will have spin off and positive collateral impacts. The cost of fuel will keep oil in the area booming, but will have a negative affect on other growth. The greatest impact will be on those with the lowest paying jobs.
Last prediction is that our election office and election workers will continue to do an outstanding job in the coming year. There will be some problems and issues, but they will be minor.
Infrastructure will be in the news frequently in the coming year. There will be continuing work on the water and sewer systems, and the roads might get the first serious traffic studies in decades. The city might even bring the traffic signals up to late 20th century standards. Expect heated discussions about the need for infrastructure improvements and its impact on private property and businesses. The inclusion of the Capital Budget in the city charter makes this an easy prediction.
Public safety will be a hot topic. First, we have both Chief of Police and the Sheriff up for election. All candidates will promise to "do something." It remains to be seen whether these will be new, creative ideas or just more of the same old same old. There will be heated discussions on introducing technologies that intrude on privacy in the name of public safety and security. Hopefully we will be able to have realistic and effective limits, checks, and balances in place. This won't happen if we don't get more private citizen involvement. This will have to come from all stakeholders (ie. citizens) in the city. Youth involvement will be especially critical. All aspects of public safety and the criminal justice system will have tough questions asked. I am cautiously optimistic that we can come up with some good answers, but it will take a lot of work.
One of the most critical youth issues, Education, is likely to show little positive progress. The problems that were there during the last bond election are still there, only worse. Inflation has increased the cost of all potential projects, but realistically money was not what caused the failure of the last bond election. Poor communication and bad information lost the last election. There has been no improvement there. If anything it has gotten worse. With all the fanfare of Dr. Bonds soliciting input and covering her office walls, there has been little real output. Poorly communicated management methods such as "sweeps" will add to the problems the school district has selling any bond package. The comments and discussions on Sweeps have not shown the openness or communications skills needed to sell anything to the voters. The slow pace of progress also makes it likely that the School Board will delay the bond issue till the November ballot. Unless they have a very compelling package and an excellent sales plan, they will not fare very well in the heavy voter turnout of a presidential election. If they don't have a package ready by May, they can probably forget a bond.
ASU will have a very good year. There will be lots of cussin' and discussion about Johnson street and traffic in the area, but in the end there will be the start of a plan to fix a long overlooked problem. With its first endowed chair, and an expanding curriculum, they will be on track for the growth they want. They will have to address space problems and that will be a long term challenge. Repairing bridges to the community will also have to be a top priority.
Business and economic development trends will not change very much. There will be a slow down in retail building, and some of the growth will move away for the southwest part of town. The TIRZ zone and the new Supercenter will both draw retail growth, but it will take a while to get any momentum. There will be new industries coming, but these will put the quality of our workforce to the test. The days of good paying jobs for unskilled labor are gone. If you happen to be looking for a job, be prepared to get training. We will start to see some upward movement of the average income. Expect major changes in grants and handouts to businesses. Expect the focus to shift more to homegrown, local businesses.
Expect changes in the cities approach to parks and recreation facilities. The candy store approach will not disappear, but expect to see changes. More creative involvement by all the groups concerned will be required to get anything positive done. Look for more multi-use facilities.
Energy will also start to have more of an impact on the local economy. The wind farms in the area will have spin off and positive collateral impacts. The cost of fuel will keep oil in the area booming, but will have a negative affect on other growth. The greatest impact will be on those with the lowest paying jobs.
Last prediction is that our election office and election workers will continue to do an outstanding job in the coming year. There will be some problems and issues, but they will be minor.
Monday, December 10, 2007
Traffic, Transportation, Studies and Plans
There are two real hot button issues out there right now: The future of Johnson Street, and red light cameras. These issues share two major components. They both show the need for realistic, thorough and comprehensive traffic studies, and they both should be addressed by the San Angelo Metropolitan Planning Organization.
According to their website, "SAMPO is the transportation planning body for the City of San Angelo and adjacent areas." They are responsible for the long range Master Traffic Plan and they are where all the different local groups working on transportation and traffic are supposed to come together to get things done. While I browsed the site recently, I noticed a couple of interesting things. First off, ASU is not represented in SAMPO, even by a non-voting member. This oversight is probably one of the reasons that Johnson Street is such a major issue right now. There has been no effort to coordinate the SAMPO Master Traffic Plan with ASU's Centennial Master Plan. SAMPO is still planning on routing 13,000 vehicles a day down a street that ASU is planning to close. A definite failure to communicate.
The second thing I noticed is that we are in the public comments period for revisions to the various plans that SAMPO uses. It is time to get in touch with them at by email or phone them at (325)657-4210. Do it quickly. The comment period ends on January 19th.
According to their website, "SAMPO is the transportation planning body for the City of San Angelo and adjacent areas." They are responsible for the long range Master Traffic Plan and they are where all the different local groups working on transportation and traffic are supposed to come together to get things done. While I browsed the site recently, I noticed a couple of interesting things. First off, ASU is not represented in SAMPO, even by a non-voting member. This oversight is probably one of the reasons that Johnson Street is such a major issue right now. There has been no effort to coordinate the SAMPO Master Traffic Plan with ASU's Centennial Master Plan. SAMPO is still planning on routing 13,000 vehicles a day down a street that ASU is planning to close. A definite failure to communicate.
The second thing I noticed is that we are in the public comments period for revisions to the various plans that SAMPO uses. It is time to get in touch with them at by email or phone them at (325)657-4210. Do it quickly. The comment period ends on January 19th.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Red Light (Camera) District
The best thing that can be said of SB1119, the statute on red light cameras, is that it at least regulates what had been a wide open race for the easy money. City Manager Harold Dominguez relates that various vendors had been beating a path to his door, trying to get San Angelo to rush into this before Sept. 1, when this statute took effect. A system adopted before that may well get a grandfathered escape from such regulation as Chap. 707 puts into law. Thanks for that, Harold.
Some of the provisions of Chap. 707 mandate that the city actually studies any intersection where they propose to install these money generators. They must include data for 18 months prior, they must study alternatives, specifically intersection design, synchronization of traffic signals, and perhaps most importantly, lengthening the yellow phase of the signal. The city must appoint a citizens committee, one appointee per Council member, and this committee shall study the question and alternatives.
The best thing that might come out of this proposal could be that the city will be forced to make an honest attempt to synchronize signals, something any driver knows we now rate an "F" on.
Key to the statute is designating the result of a red light camera as a civil matter. On the one hand, it allows the authority installing the cameras to sidestep some of those pesky "rights" granted to any criminal defendant. On the other hand, it means a camera generated "ticket" will not go on one's driving record, presumably would not affect insurance rates, but the bill leaves that to the discretion of your insurer. One cannot be arrested for failure to pay the "civil liability", but just to encourage payment, you won't be allowed to renew vehicle registration with an unpaid ticket, pardon me, "civil liability" out there.
One can contest such "notice of civil liability", but the deck is neatly stacked in the camera's favor. The city has to appoint a hearing officer to take up such contests, but they are free to designate as that officer an employee of the vendor operating the cameras. In such a hearing "Liability" (note: it is civil; guilt/innocence are irrelevant terms.) is established by the more lax "preponderance of evidence" common to civil cases rather than the "clear and convincing evidence" rule used in criminal matters. Reliability of the cameras is all but a given, may be established by "affidavit", said affidavit given by the vendor who probably employs one's hearing officer. The presumption that the owner was the driver is enshrined in statute, unless of course the "owner" is a rental/lease firm, or a car lot letting a driver take it for a spin, in which case they are compelled to rat you out.
From there, the "suspect" can appeal to municipal court, if one is willing to pre-pay costs of the court and take another day off work. With the charge limited to a $75 "liability" (remember, this is civil, "fine" is also an irrelevant term.) with a $25 late fee cap, the encouragement is going to be to just pay the damned thing and get it out of the way.
Looking at what is available in the way of "studies", can be confusing. As the Standard-Times notes, the National Motorists Association's lead guy on the topic, Greg Mauz lives just down the road in Christoval, I'm sure our citizens' committee will hear him, but NMA's bias is clear. Similarly, the Federal Highway Administration has embraced these devices as a matter of policy, so their data is similarly suspect. It's kind of like listening to a debate on global warming between Al Gore and the American Coal Council.
One thing that is crystal clear, safety issues are in dispute, but these suckers are one money generating machine. No debate about that at all. Under Chap 707, the money is split between the city and a regional trauma account, most of that half helps pay for uncompensated ER expenses. The city's half is limited to more or less traffic related use, but money is fungible, budget dollars replaced by red light camera income can be spent as the city pleases.
One provision of Chap. 707 requires any entity adopting these cameras to make annual reports to Texas DOT, which must publish same by Dec. 1 of each year. I submit, that San Angelo has lived without these things this long, we can hold off for a year until we have a relatively clean data base of real world use to judge them by.
To be honest, my opinion is similar to Councilman Morrison's, and the term "Big Brother" comes to mind. My impression is of a cash cow wearing a little "public safety lipstick". Whatever one's opinion, I do believe we ought at least wait on some less polluted data which will be available next year.
Some of the provisions of Chap. 707 mandate that the city actually studies any intersection where they propose to install these money generators. They must include data for 18 months prior, they must study alternatives, specifically intersection design, synchronization of traffic signals, and perhaps most importantly, lengthening the yellow phase of the signal. The city must appoint a citizens committee, one appointee per Council member, and this committee shall study the question and alternatives.
The best thing that might come out of this proposal could be that the city will be forced to make an honest attempt to synchronize signals, something any driver knows we now rate an "F" on.
Key to the statute is designating the result of a red light camera as a civil matter. On the one hand, it allows the authority installing the cameras to sidestep some of those pesky "rights" granted to any criminal defendant. On the other hand, it means a camera generated "ticket" will not go on one's driving record, presumably would not affect insurance rates, but the bill leaves that to the discretion of your insurer. One cannot be arrested for failure to pay the "civil liability", but just to encourage payment, you won't be allowed to renew vehicle registration with an unpaid ticket, pardon me, "civil liability" out there.
One can contest such "notice of civil liability", but the deck is neatly stacked in the camera's favor. The city has to appoint a hearing officer to take up such contests, but they are free to designate as that officer an employee of the vendor operating the cameras. In such a hearing "Liability" (note: it is civil; guilt/innocence are irrelevant terms.) is established by the more lax "preponderance of evidence" common to civil cases rather than the "clear and convincing evidence" rule used in criminal matters. Reliability of the cameras is all but a given, may be established by "affidavit", said affidavit given by the vendor who probably employs one's hearing officer. The presumption that the owner was the driver is enshrined in statute, unless of course the "owner" is a rental/lease firm, or a car lot letting a driver take it for a spin, in which case they are compelled to rat you out.
From there, the "suspect" can appeal to municipal court, if one is willing to pre-pay costs of the court and take another day off work. With the charge limited to a $75 "liability" (remember, this is civil, "fine" is also an irrelevant term.) with a $25 late fee cap, the encouragement is going to be to just pay the damned thing and get it out of the way.
Looking at what is available in the way of "studies", can be confusing. As the Standard-Times notes, the National Motorists Association's lead guy on the topic, Greg Mauz lives just down the road in Christoval, I'm sure our citizens' committee will hear him, but NMA's bias is clear. Similarly, the Federal Highway Administration has embraced these devices as a matter of policy, so their data is similarly suspect. It's kind of like listening to a debate on global warming between Al Gore and the American Coal Council.
One thing that is crystal clear, safety issues are in dispute, but these suckers are one money generating machine. No debate about that at all. Under Chap 707, the money is split between the city and a regional trauma account, most of that half helps pay for uncompensated ER expenses. The city's half is limited to more or less traffic related use, but money is fungible, budget dollars replaced by red light camera income can be spent as the city pleases.
One provision of Chap. 707 requires any entity adopting these cameras to make annual reports to Texas DOT, which must publish same by Dec. 1 of each year. I submit, that San Angelo has lived without these things this long, we can hold off for a year until we have a relatively clean data base of real world use to judge them by.
To be honest, my opinion is similar to Councilman Morrison's, and the term "Big Brother" comes to mind. My impression is of a cash cow wearing a little "public safety lipstick". Whatever one's opinion, I do believe we ought at least wait on some less polluted data which will be available next year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)