Too many times in Coeur d’Alene, our Mayor and City Council seem to sit on the “other side” of the people. That’s not the way I’d like to see my community, so I joined with local citizens to change how the City is planning to fix our sidewalks.
The article Sidewalks: No concrete answer in the CDA Press today says it all:
Everybody uses sidewalks and everybody should pay for them equally.
That quote is from Wendy Gallegos, who really deserves the credit for motivating her neighbors to meet and organize. I helped a teeny bit, but it was those citizens who affected the change needed.
Yesterday (4/21) I attended the Sidewalk Workshop. Like so many meetings at City Hall, the public was not allowed to speak. But we had our say a week ago at the April 15 City Council meeting. That action, a serial presentation, was more than enough to change the City’s direction on this issue.
Just a few weeks back, at the March 26 joint meeting of the City Council and the LCDC, the subject of sidewalks came up. The comments are better seen on Channel 19 than they are written in the minutes; on Channel 19, you’ll hear the question asked whether the LCDC could fund sidewalk remediation for the City. LCDC Commissioner Dave Patzer asks whether sidewalk remediation is a “priority” for the City. He’s told it is not. Patzer then replies that if it’s not a priority for the City why should it be a priority for the LCDC?
Compare that nonchalant attitude to yesterday’s Sidewalk Workshop: It was mentioned yesterday that the sidewalk issue was an emergency. It was mentioned several times, “emergency” again and again. I believe councilman Al Hassell said it, as did City Administrator Jon Ingalls. From “not a priority” to “emergency,” and the only catalyst to cause that reaction was a parade of homeowners at last Tuesday’s City Council Meeting, homeowners making salient and powerful points.
That is how you fight City Hall.
I’m not happy saying that we “won this battle.” In my vision of Coeur d’Alene, elected officials and the people are on the same side and work together. Sadly, that’s not the case. It shouldn’t take angry people to change things. But until we get better elected representation here in Coeur d’Alene, that’s unfortunately how things must work.
Good work, Dan! Your “teeny” bit of influence was paramount. You are too modest. Good to know city officials will respond even though it took a little turned up heat to do it. I had a turned up heated exchange with councilman Kennedy last week about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision against Sacramento’s trying to ding the property owners for sidewalk repairs. Kennedy argued that I was wrong in my understanding of the decision, but their (our) city attorneys were looking at it to see if it would apply in CDA.
Comment by Gary Ingram — April 22, 2008 @ 10:00 am
this is how government works in towns and cities and states all over this country. the city is following the statute on the books (how old is that statute?), concerns are voiced, elected officials listen, solutions are considered, pluses and minuses are weighed and a direction is determined. what is wrong with that?
Comment by reagan — April 22, 2008 @ 11:56 am
Not one thing is wrong with it, Reagan. I agree that it’s the way things should work and I give kudos to our council for taking action. The only part of the equation that is different in our local scenario is that our elected officials did not take the concerns seriously for more than two years. Only when riled up, angry citizens approached the podium in politically significant numbers did the elected ears perk up.
Comment by mary — April 22, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
reagan,
Nothing is wrong with it, except that in this case, that isn’t exactly what happened. In this case, the City made up its mind that it was going to compel property owners to comply. It sent out those threatening and intimidating letters. Some property owners began to comply immediately. Others protested instead. When the overwhelming groundswell of opposition surfaced, then and only then did the City decide to listen, consider solutions, weigh pluses and minuses, and consider directions.
Comment by Bill — April 22, 2008 @ 12:17 pm
Reagan,
By law there’s also supposed to be a separation of church and state. Can we get our tax $$$ back from the Salvation Army Worship center? That’s the telling tale of this city. When it comes to pet projects the rules get turned into pretzels and when it comes to the needs of everyday citizens the rules are black and white.
Comment by Wallypog — April 22, 2008 @ 12:54 pm
I might also add that at yesterday’s meeting it was mentioned that the people own the trees by the streets (in the “right of way”). The City, in fact, “owns” the trees, not the homeowner. City Attorney Mike Gridley, who was present, did not counter that statement, neither did any of the Council members say anything (or perhaps they don’t know). Again it’s an issue that will surface later and must be resolved.
Someday it is my wish that we have responsive leaders in City Hall. When that happens, the rest of the sidewalk and tree issues will be resolved.
Comment by Dan — April 22, 2008 @ 4:24 pm
According to an article in The Press last fall there are thirteen group homes here that house parolees. It appears that not one has a special use permit which is required by the zoning ordinances. Knowing that Idaho Code mandates the Sheriff to notify the city of the addresses of parolees, I requested the addresses on three occasions. The sound of silence from the city is no surprise.
I also wish for responsive leaders in city hall.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 22, 2008 @ 9:36 pm