OpenCDA

September 17, 2014

Coeur d’Alene: Most Dangerous City in Idaho?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , — Bill @ 11:45 am

violentcrimeIs Coeur d’Alene, Idaho really the most dangerous city in Idaho?  Could be.

Last night on KREM2 news out of Spokane, reporter Shawn Chitnis reported on a recent analysis of  FBI violent crime statistics.  His story was headlined Spokane and Coeur d’Alene rank high on dangerous city list.

We contacted KREM2 reporter Shawn Chitnis this morning, and he responded very promptly to provide the online source for his story.

A group called Law Street Media did a 50-state analysis of the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report information for 2012, the most recent year for which complete data was available.

Here is a link to Law Street Media’s state-by-state slideshow:  America’s Safest and Most Dangerous States 2014.  It is important to read LSM’s introductory material to understand some of the factors that can sometimes skew the figures.

But a review of the LSM’s data for Idaho leaves little doubt that Coeur d’Alene could certainly be considered Idaho’s most dangerous city.

March 5, 2013

The Buck Stops … Where?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , , — Bill @ 7:57 am

TrustMeIf you believe Coeur d’Alene Mayor Sandi Bloem, Coeur d’Alene City Administrator Wendy Gabriel, Deputy Finance Director Vonnie Jenson [sic],  and others cited in US Attorney Wendy Jo Olson’s Response to Objection to Impact Statements filed for the March 4, 2013, sentencing hearing of convicted former City employee Sheryl Carroll, the aforementioned Mayor, Administrator, and Deputy Finance Director were all victims themselves of Carroll’s larcenous cleverness.

Quoting character Al Borland, comedian Tim Allen’s reserved and always skeptical straight man in the 90’s television series Home Improvement, “I don’t think so, Tim.” (more…)

March 1, 2013

Is Sandi At It Again?

Filed under: Probable Cause — Tags: , — Bill @ 12:08 pm

Bloem

Read this Legal Announcement from today’s local skewspaper.  Pay particular attention to the highlighted portion of the Announcement.  Now, compare the wording of that Legal Announcement with the wording of this particular item in the online agenda for the March 5 Council meeting.   If that agenda item is for the Legal Announcement item, and it’s certainly not clear that it is, then it sounds to me as if the decision to approve the Supplemental Ordinance has already been made!

If you had only read the agenda item and had not read the Legal Announcement, would you associate the agenda item with the content of the Legal Announcement?  I don’t know if they are associated or not.  If they are not associated, then the $12,149,284 item from the Legal Announcement is not even on the Tuesday meeting agenda!

 

ADDENDUM AT 2:19 p.m. on Friday, March 1, 2013:  The City has just posted online this Agenda Addendum and this Council Packet Addendum addressing the deficiencies noted in my earlier post.

Powered by WordPress
Copyright © 2014 by OpenCDA LLC, All Rights Reserved