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.
Friday, January 25, 2008
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.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
Tech Regents contact info
Keeping to our mission as a source of information above opinion, interest has been shown in contact info for the Texas Tech Board of Regents. Any use of eminent domain would need their approval. This has been posted on the S-T site, but seems more ephemeral there.
Locally, Dr. Joseph C. Rallo, e-mail is Joseph.Rallo@angelo.edu
Christina Martinez, Executive Sec. to the Board, christina.martinez@ttu.edu or 806-742-2161, PO Box 42011, Mail Stop 2011, Lubbock, Texas 79409
F. Dueser
400 Pine St. Abilene, Tx. 79601
(325) 627-7155
Bob L Stafford
1600 Wallace Blvd.
Amarillo, Tx. 79106
Windy Sitton
9204 Utica Av
Lubbock, Tx. 79424
Larry K. Anders/ NA
(972) 247-5300
Mark Griffen
4601 10th St.
Lubbock, Texas 79416
(806) 791-5713
Daniel Serna
6031 Interstate Hwy. 20, suite # 251
Arlington, Tx
Diane S Turner
PO Box 249
Blanco, Texas 78606
In view of the announcement Wednesday, I will withhold most comments, in hopes this all works out. In the meantime, it cannot hurt to let ASU's new regents feel a little of the community's opinion on this closing.
One thing I will say, in my opinion, the "safety of students" issue is bogus cover. Were it not, someone would be out there with a list of deaths, injuries and near misses. I pointed out during the school bond debate that much younger Central students negotiate 8 lanes of Bryant Raceway going to McDonalds every lunch period. These young adults are considerably brighter and more agile than Dr. Rallo wants to give them credit for.
If it is determined that the value of an undivided campus is greater than the inconvenience to 10,000 drivers a day, so be it, but I am glad to see the city at least nominally involved in that decision again.
Don't forget the meeting Dec. 13, 7:30 PM, I believe City Auditorium.
Locally, Dr. Joseph C. Rallo, e-mail is Joseph.Rallo@angelo.edu
Christina Martinez, Executive Sec. to the Board, christina.martinez@ttu.edu or 806-742-2161, PO Box 42011, Mail Stop 2011, Lubbock, Texas 79409
F. Dueser
400 Pine St. Abilene, Tx. 79601
(325) 627-7155
Bob L Stafford
1600 Wallace Blvd.
Amarillo, Tx. 79106
Windy Sitton
9204 Utica Av
Lubbock, Tx. 79424
Larry K. Anders/ NA
(972) 247-5300
Mark Griffen
4601 10th St.
Lubbock, Texas 79416
(806) 791-5713
Daniel Serna
6031 Interstate Hwy. 20, suite # 251
Arlington, Tx
Diane S Turner
PO Box 249
Blanco, Texas 78606
In view of the announcement Wednesday, I will withhold most comments, in hopes this all works out. In the meantime, it cannot hurt to let ASU's new regents feel a little of the community's opinion on this closing.
One thing I will say, in my opinion, the "safety of students" issue is bogus cover. Were it not, someone would be out there with a list of deaths, injuries and near misses. I pointed out during the school bond debate that much younger Central students negotiate 8 lanes of Bryant Raceway going to McDonalds every lunch period. These young adults are considerably brighter and more agile than Dr. Rallo wants to give them credit for.
If it is determined that the value of an undivided campus is greater than the inconvenience to 10,000 drivers a day, so be it, but I am glad to see the city at least nominally involved in that decision again.
Don't forget the meeting Dec. 13, 7:30 PM, I believe City Auditorium.
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Thanks for so Much
If it seems that all anyone does here is gripe, well that goes with the territory. If we didn't love San Angelo, we wouldn't have taken up the hobby of trying to improve things around the edges of an essentially very nice small city. Indeed, one of the things to celebrate about San Angelo, we have a government so open that from time to time a truck driver and a computer geek can actually get the city's attention and have some measurable effect.
Just a few musings on a day of Thanksgiving. We live in wonderful times. Don't let the media drumbeat of this that or the other crisis get you down. Bad news sells papers. I have lived long enough to get a little perspective on all this.
Chicken Little squawks the price of oil will ruin us all, drive us into bankruptcy, crisis! Right, and we are setting records this year for holiday travel by car, air, whatever moves people. Anybody seen a gas line lately?
Income disparity is growing, there are more poor than ever before, woe is us, Squawk! I seem to recall an itenerent prophet out of the Middle East a couple millenia back said something like "The poor will be with us always". A lot of this is definitional, in that whoever is at the bottom of the heap will be poor by that day's standards. For the first time in human history, a major problem amongst our poor is obesity. For virtually all of history, and in 90% of today's world, making that statement would convince a listener that one was delusional, a crazy man, yet that statement is very much true by American standards of poverty.
As never before, Chicken Little tells us the environment is on the brink of failing, we are raping the planet on an unprecedented scale, Squawk! I remember my first airplane trip, Atlanta to Dallas, north window seat. It was an unending view of visible smokstack plumes, each a hundred miles long and overlapping. Major rivers literally caught fire, they had so much gunk floating on them. Only loons ate fish caught in most Eastern domestic waters. I don't say forget environmentalism the job's all done, but I can tell you, we live in a vastly cleaner America than I was raised in.
Locally the San Angelo Foundation just received a headliner of a donation, and that's great. One of the things I am impressed by is the smaller scale, but still stunning in aggregate generosity of San Angelo's people. People give their volunteer time to a host of causes, from feeding the elderly, to rebuilding and building houses, helping children, name a cause, our citizens open their pocketbooks and give of their time.
Personally, I am thankful for a day of nearly complete sloth. With luck my high point of activity will come when I leap up to celebrate one of many Dallas touchdowns. However you spend yours with whomever, have a good Thanksgiving.
Just a few musings on a day of Thanksgiving. We live in wonderful times. Don't let the media drumbeat of this that or the other crisis get you down. Bad news sells papers. I have lived long enough to get a little perspective on all this.
Chicken Little squawks the price of oil will ruin us all, drive us into bankruptcy, crisis! Right, and we are setting records this year for holiday travel by car, air, whatever moves people. Anybody seen a gas line lately?
Income disparity is growing, there are more poor than ever before, woe is us, Squawk! I seem to recall an itenerent prophet out of the Middle East a couple millenia back said something like "The poor will be with us always". A lot of this is definitional, in that whoever is at the bottom of the heap will be poor by that day's standards. For the first time in human history, a major problem amongst our poor is obesity. For virtually all of history, and in 90% of today's world, making that statement would convince a listener that one was delusional, a crazy man, yet that statement is very much true by American standards of poverty.
As never before, Chicken Little tells us the environment is on the brink of failing, we are raping the planet on an unprecedented scale, Squawk! I remember my first airplane trip, Atlanta to Dallas, north window seat. It was an unending view of visible smokstack plumes, each a hundred miles long and overlapping. Major rivers literally caught fire, they had so much gunk floating on them. Only loons ate fish caught in most Eastern domestic waters. I don't say forget environmentalism the job's all done, but I can tell you, we live in a vastly cleaner America than I was raised in.
Locally the San Angelo Foundation just received a headliner of a donation, and that's great. One of the things I am impressed by is the smaller scale, but still stunning in aggregate generosity of San Angelo's people. People give their volunteer time to a host of causes, from feeding the elderly, to rebuilding and building houses, helping children, name a cause, our citizens open their pocketbooks and give of their time.
Personally, I am thankful for a day of nearly complete sloth. With luck my high point of activity will come when I leap up to celebrate one of many Dallas touchdowns. However you spend yours with whomever, have a good Thanksgiving.
Monday, November 19, 2007
Thanks for the warm welcome
Dr Joe Rallo has a strange idea of how to get off on the right foot in a new town. He is proposing to exercise eminent domain in order to close down Johnson St. through campus. Never mind negotiating with City Council, forget taking community comment or inconvenience into consideration. Dr. Rallo has decided that since he can, he will.
No one has bothered to justify this in terms of cost/benefit. If there has been a rash of student pedestrian injuries, no one has made that case. The inconvenience is undeniable. Johnson is described by the city as a level F feeder and handles over 10,000 vehicles a day. Parents of Crockett students, residents of the area, anyone wanting to get from Knickerbocker to Av N, all that traffic will either go to Bryant on the east, the construction constricted Sherwood, or jam up residential streets never designed for heavy traffic.
Turns out, city has looked into this possibility. Seems that if ASU exercizes eminent domain, as a state entity, ASU wins. Dr. Rallo may be feeling a bit bullet-proof, with good reason. He can't be voted out, no one in the city has any authority to dismiss Rallo. Winning hand all the way 'round, trump suit. Pardon me if I ask, does he really want to play it?
Dr. Rallo might want to check with Mayor Lown about the trash can episode from Lown's first term. Lown had supported a plan by Trashaway to go to an automated pickup system, would have saved gas, money, time, looked great on paper. Problem was, San Angelo residents were unexpectedly proud of their private trash cans. San Angeloans are some of the most welcoming people on the planet, ask the veterans who recently were feted to a parade and deer hunt. Still, those warm hearted folks keep a handy supply of the metaphorical pitchforks and torches if one crosses them. I was most recently on the wrong end of that when I supported an appointed Police Chief.
Dr. Rallo, ASU is a real jewel-in-the-crown asset for San Angelo, no one doubts that. When ASU desired the change to the Texas Tech system, the almost unanimous public support helped our State Rep. Drew Darby make it happen. I'm here to tell you, if you do this folks will still be cussing you ten years from now.
There are alternatives. You could add to freshman orientation a short course folk in my generation learned in kindergarten; Look Both Ways Before You Cross the Street. Seriously, some have suggested a pedestrian overpass, but I counsel against that. Look at the one on S Bryant. By the time one adds the ADA serpentine ramps on either end, it is a huge time-waster, all the healthy kids still cross the street and jump the low median fence. One I have seen is a pedestrian tunnel. It's as quick as crossing the street and by nature ADA friendly.
Hold off until Rosemont can be opened as a detour, briefly close Johnson, build the tunnel. The students are safer, the short inconvenience is quickly forgotten, the pitchforks stay in the closet, everybody's friends and we all live happily ever after.
I live on the other side of town. I think I have used Johnson St maybe 4 times in the last year. When I first heard about the eminent domain plan, it hit me as arrogant, autocratic, pick an unpleasent adjective. I can only imagine how people who actually depend on Johnson feel. Friendly advice to a newcomer; San Angelo is chock full of great people, it's easy to make friends for life, folk who will watch your back when you need them. Leave them feeling like you have crossed'em and gotten over on them, they will never trust you on anything. Real sure you want to go there over a glorified crosswalk?
No one has bothered to justify this in terms of cost/benefit. If there has been a rash of student pedestrian injuries, no one has made that case. The inconvenience is undeniable. Johnson is described by the city as a level F feeder and handles over 10,000 vehicles a day. Parents of Crockett students, residents of the area, anyone wanting to get from Knickerbocker to Av N, all that traffic will either go to Bryant on the east, the construction constricted Sherwood, or jam up residential streets never designed for heavy traffic.
Turns out, city has looked into this possibility. Seems that if ASU exercizes eminent domain, as a state entity, ASU wins. Dr. Rallo may be feeling a bit bullet-proof, with good reason. He can't be voted out, no one in the city has any authority to dismiss Rallo. Winning hand all the way 'round, trump suit. Pardon me if I ask, does he really want to play it?
Dr. Rallo might want to check with Mayor Lown about the trash can episode from Lown's first term. Lown had supported a plan by Trashaway to go to an automated pickup system, would have saved gas, money, time, looked great on paper. Problem was, San Angelo residents were unexpectedly proud of their private trash cans. San Angeloans are some of the most welcoming people on the planet, ask the veterans who recently were feted to a parade and deer hunt. Still, those warm hearted folks keep a handy supply of the metaphorical pitchforks and torches if one crosses them. I was most recently on the wrong end of that when I supported an appointed Police Chief.
Dr. Rallo, ASU is a real jewel-in-the-crown asset for San Angelo, no one doubts that. When ASU desired the change to the Texas Tech system, the almost unanimous public support helped our State Rep. Drew Darby make it happen. I'm here to tell you, if you do this folks will still be cussing you ten years from now.
There are alternatives. You could add to freshman orientation a short course folk in my generation learned in kindergarten; Look Both Ways Before You Cross the Street. Seriously, some have suggested a pedestrian overpass, but I counsel against that. Look at the one on S Bryant. By the time one adds the ADA serpentine ramps on either end, it is a huge time-waster, all the healthy kids still cross the street and jump the low median fence. One I have seen is a pedestrian tunnel. It's as quick as crossing the street and by nature ADA friendly.
Hold off until Rosemont can be opened as a detour, briefly close Johnson, build the tunnel. The students are safer, the short inconvenience is quickly forgotten, the pitchforks stay in the closet, everybody's friends and we all live happily ever after.
I live on the other side of town. I think I have used Johnson St maybe 4 times in the last year. When I first heard about the eminent domain plan, it hit me as arrogant, autocratic, pick an unpleasent adjective. I can only imagine how people who actually depend on Johnson feel. Friendly advice to a newcomer; San Angelo is chock full of great people, it's easy to make friends for life, folk who will watch your back when you need them. Leave them feeling like you have crossed'em and gotten over on them, they will never trust you on anything. Real sure you want to go there over a glorified crosswalk?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)