 |
Given the present condition of the state and local economy, wouldn’t you think the City of Coeur d’Alene might be able to come up with more appropriate ways than this to spend $100,000? Then again, the City and the LCDC happily spent about $50,000 on a hot dog stand in city park and called it a public safety substation. |
January 10, 2009
What?
13 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Wait until you see the tacky pole barn that will replace the existing storage shed in city park. Why the city has a design review commission is beyond me. (City park is outside their area.)
Comment by Susie Snedaker — January 10, 2009 @ 7:49 am
Susie,
The specifications for the pole barn are General Services Committee packet for Monday’s General Services meeting.
Speaking of the General Services Committee meeting, I see that the City wants to adopt a code of ethics and code of conduct for the Planning Commission. It was unsurprising to see the City wants to delete the clause which should have forced the Mayor and City Council to remove Brad Jordan from the Commission for his excessive absences. Other than that, it’s the City’s version of CYA while maintaining business as usual.
Comment by Bill — January 10, 2009 @ 8:25 am
I am surprised the city would go to all the bother of changing the P&Z ordinance, only to edit the attendance requirement for meetings. They’ve ignored that rule for years. Brad Jordan, now the commission chair since John Bruning moved to the city council in ’07, has always had spotty attendance.
Why not take the time and effort to update the actual land use ordinances that are essential to good development planning? Many of our ordinances are very old and inadequate.
Comment by mary — January 10, 2009 @ 10:01 am
There are several out-of-date city ordinances badly in need of updating. But in the City of Superficiality, appearance is more important than substance.
Comment by Bill — January 10, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Fitting, it is right next to a cemetary. Nancy Sue Wallace is the Godmother of this goofy idea if memory serves. CDA ‘dedicates’ a special fee or set aside (can’t recall which) from certain projects to fund ‘public’ art. Gack what a waste.
Comment by Pariah — January 10, 2009 @ 1:18 pm
Paraih, You are correct. The 1% of public projects for art was brought forward by Nancy Sue.
Bill, I saw the photo of the pole barn at the Park and Rec Commission meeting. It was at that meeting that I requested that they encourage the city to enter into an agreement with the school district to purchase the district’s half of Person Field in accordance with the long range parks plan recently adopted by the city.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — January 10, 2009 @ 1:43 pm
John Bruning cited Brad’s excessive absences at Steve’s inquisition. The city refused to enforce its adopted policy with either Brad or Gordon Longwell.
Speaking of conduct, the council meetings are run like a house party with council members leaving from time to time to get liquid refreshment, etc.. It is never acknowledged, however. Personally, I find it inexcusably rude for a member of the council to simply leave the meeting while people are testifying.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — January 10, 2009 @ 1:55 pm
If the City could set aside 1% from public projects to fund public art, why didn’t it set aside ? % for sidewalks? There’s something inherently wrong when a City sends letters threatening lawsuits to people demanding they spend thousands on sidewalk repairs, yet the same City spends tens of thousands on art.
If the City has $100,000 for another fiberglass moose or aluminum feather project, why did it have to beg the LCDC to fund the supposedly essential, gotta have it right now, hot dog stand in the park?
Cultural luddite that I am, it sure looks as if Jimmy Barona got it right. Yeah, I know — I lack “vision.”
Comment by Bill — January 10, 2009 @ 3:30 pm
Susie, I have only appeared once in many, many years before the city council to testify. But I’ll tell you this. If anyone walked out while I was making a presentation, I would simply stop, inform the presiding officer, that I will continue upon the return of the walkouts, step back from the lectern, look at my watch, make a verbal note of my time remaining and wait.
Comment by Gary Ingram — January 10, 2009 @ 5:09 pm
Susie, when you and I were on the Planning and Zoning Commission (I for 6 years, you for 11 years), we never left during public testimony or any other part of the meeting unless it was a dire emergency. If we needed a break we would properly ask the chairman to call a brief recess at the next convenient moment.
I have to agree with both you and Gary: It is rude for any member of the council to leave during public comment. The mayor should put an immediate stop to such inappropriate behavior.
Comment by mary — January 10, 2009 @ 5:58 pm
When the Hastings Avenue issues were heard by General Services only Ben Wolfinger and Deanna were present. Council chambers were packed with concerned citizens and representatives from both papers as well as a KHQ reporter and camera operator. While I was speaking, Deanna chose to have a private conversation with Ben (complete with covered hand.) I stopped my testimony and waited until they settled back in their seats and figured out what had happened. I continued after it appeared that I might have secured their attention. Need I add the comments I received from the audience?
Comment by Susie Snedaker — January 11, 2009 @ 10:22 am
Bill, I agree with you on the public art funding. I believe that the city could rescind the ordinance and write a new ordinance for 1% for maintenance of sidewalks. I wonder what the city could do with funds collected under the present ordinance other than apply it to public art. The sidewalk issue must be addressed. The 1% method certainly makes more sense than utilizing foregone taxes.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — January 11, 2009 @ 10:28 am
Susie,
I think there are ways the City can support and encourage the arts and humanities without spending public money either directly or indirectly. Maybe the Mayor ought to exercise some of her “vision.” I’m not real thrilled with taxpayers having to pay for “vision” that may be nothing more than the by-product of a bad burrito.
Comment by Bill — January 11, 2009 @ 1:31 pm