Things are buzzing right now, but most of the action is behind the scenes. On the surface there’s a sense of quiet, which is good. We can all use a break, especially during Easter week, when our focus is on spiritual connections, family and friends.
The City of CdA was busy last week, though. They held a public meeting to discuss the options for McEuen Field’s renovations. Good for them! And kudos to the 75 or so citizens who attended.
If you missed the meeting, don’t worry, the city says there will be more. Let’s all keep an eye on this process because, though I applaud the city’s efforts, they have a history of asking for citizen input then doing what they had planned anyway. And that’s not just my opinion, here’s an editorial from the Idaho Spokesman Review, way back in 2002, that points out the city’s “Committee of Nine”, who were in charge of this decision, were not listening to the public. The editorial states that “Coeur d’Alene’s Committee of Nine is off base again in its quest to revamp public McEuen Field…”
The newspaper goes on the say the City Council “ignored an apparent conflict of interest”. It reports that the Walker-Macy study cost the city more than $130,000, brought more than 2,000 citizens into the process then “concluded that the city wanted the current recreation facilities left on McEuen Field.” You can read the whole editorial by clicking this link: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1336&dat=20020404&id=DN0nAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fPIDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6267,2418796
The interesting twist in this story is that the 2002 editorial was written by D.F. Oliveria, who currently runs a blog for that newspaper where he now constantly defends the actions of the City of CdA. We’ll see if he stays true to his editorial opinion about McEuen Field from eight years ago or gives the city a pass on its responsibility to the citizens. As one citizen, quoted in the editorial, said, “You are battling an issue of trust.”
I was upset to learn, also last week, that the CdA City Council is refusing to put the garbage collection contract out for competitive bid. This contract has not been put out to bid for 22 years, and now that the current contract is coming to an end this summer, many people have asked for a competitive bid process. Shouldn’t ALL city contracts go out to bid? The city has said “no”, and has announced it will re-up the contract for 6 more years with the same company because they will offer single stream recycling, which is a new program that is not yet functional. No other company will get a chance to offer an option. The council will formalize the deal with a vote at their April 6th meeting.
Please remember that the city sets the price we pay for garbage service. We pay the city, then they pay the private company that picks up the garbage. The city keeps a significant chunk of money in the process. Whose best interest does our City Council represent, anyway?
You might recall that I wrote a newsletter about this garbage contract situation last September. You can re-read that newsletter, and the city’s response to it, by clicking this link: http://www.marysouzacda.com/NEWSLETTER/2009/Sept13_09.html
And, as a final note, please be aware that you can visit my archive web site anytime. You can find any column or newsletter I’ve written over the past 3+ years. The best part of the archive is that you just need to go to the “search” box in the upper right hand corner, type in any topic (like “garbage”) hit the “search” button, and it will bring up a list of any and all columns or newsletters that include that subject. It’s free, fast and easy. Just go to: www.marysouzacda.com
Thanks for all your support. Have a wonderful Easter! –Mary
“Our Lord has written the promise of the resurrection not in books alone, but in every leaf in springtime.” ~ Martin Luther
Did the garbage decision [sic] ever reach the council for a vote? Where is it in the minutes?
Comment by Dan — April 2, 2010 @ 11:24 am
It will be on their agenda for a vote on April 6th. They’ve already come out with public comments about it, though, which seems odd because they haven’t finalized it yet.
Comment by mary — April 2, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
Well, they’ve finalized it, they just haven’t rubber-stamped it.
Comment by Dan — April 2, 2010 @ 3:54 pm
I can’t help but recall our beloved county commish doing the very same thing when the refueling depot was being considered. In fact I recall the person they hired to “help” decide ruled against it and all that after testimony and what not from BNSF and the general public. So what did they, our fearless leaders, do, they have another round of hearing that they would host and decide. I was there I made open public statements and as I noticed Penabaker doze off during some of the proceedings it dawned on me that the decision was already made and the whole “hearing” thing was merely the rouge and lipstick to help heighten the look of public involvement. I sat through all that testimony both times and am still amazed that they let this thing happen, amazed.
Needless to say, the McEuen situation is different in many respects of course but, one can’t help but wonder. I knew one of the committee of nine and it was someone I trusted but not sure if they are still involved. I do recall going to the workshops back then and breaking into small groups. Saddly our group was overpowered by a Mr. Elder who virtually pooh poohed most of what everyone who had something constructive to add that didn’t coincide with his view. Interesting also that when the time came for our group to present who went up and did our talking, you guessed it. I got that same feeling then that I had at the depot hearings, predetermined destiny.
I suppose in the end, whatever happens to McEuen will be something nice. I just hate the feeling of being taken advantage of during the process.
“Is there a place for the hopeless sinner, who has hurt all mankind just to save his own beliefs?” “Bob Marley, One Love”
Comment by Eric — April 3, 2010 @ 9:20 am
Eric, I forget the name, but I’m familiar with what you described in your small group with Mr. Elder. It’s a common technique used by corrupt governments and other organizations to bend “consensus” toward a predefined conclusion. It works best when you break up the public into small groups, and ensure that each group contains one “facilitator” or an insider (Mr. Elder) and that no one else in the group knows each other. The facilitator then uses subtle psychology to bend the group’s decisions to the predetermined goal. And if that doesn’t work, then the facilitator presents the predefined goal anyway.
It’s sad that the City chose to use such an underhanded and unfair technique to drive public opinion to its predefined goals. Then again, it must not have been successful, because we’re more than 10 years on and they still haven’t done anything. Maybe their arrogance over “winning” the last election has emboldened them?
Comment by Dan — April 3, 2010 @ 11:36 am
What has emboldened them, as you say Dan, is that LCDC has “only” 10 years left on it’s Lake District, which included McEuen Field. They want to do something with the place soon. And Charlie Nipp (LCDC) and his business partner Steve Meyer (Mike Kennedy’s boss) own the half block facing McEuen’s current parking lot. I bet they want to pretty up their view before they build on that property.
The group technique you are describing, Eric, is very common in city and school district meetings. They break everyone into small groups, assign a “point person” from the city/school to each group to take notes. They record the mainstream opinions that agree with the preconceived plan, and leave out or sideline any challenging views. Then, when it’s time to report back to the big group, lo and behold, everyone agrees and it’s just what they wanted! Slick.
Comment by mary — April 3, 2010 @ 12:09 pm
Ack! I remember it now. The Delphi Technique.
The original purpose of the Delphi Technique was to arrive at a consensus among informed experts. The developers cautioned, however, that it can easily be abused, as Eric as witnessed and I have read about elsewhere. When you use the Delphi Technique or Delphi Method with non-experts, it’s easy to unethically manipulate the system to arrive at a predefined outcome.
Comment by Dan — April 3, 2010 @ 4:10 pm
If I remember correctly, Midtown property owners stated repeatedly that they didn’t want BID. A couple of meetings have been held to address the Midtown public relations/advertising issue. Are they discussing a BID? Terry Cooper of the Downtown Association and Tony Berns of LCDC appear to have given their blessing.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 4, 2010 @ 8:58 am
These BIDs and LIDs will be an issue. Labrador is right: They are a sneaky way for greedy governments to levy additional taxes on people without a vote. You’ll see more LIDs in Coeur d’Alene to cover the City and LCDC’s unbridled spending sprees in the future — as well as to deal with problems they are aware of now but refuse to address, such as the overcapacity of the sewer system in the city’s northwest corner.
Comment by Dan — April 4, 2010 @ 10:56 am
Will they increase all sewer rates to cover the expense of whatever is needed to increase the capacity in that quadrant? Or will they increase the impact fees for development in that quadrant? I do not recall reading or hearing anything about the issue after Sid addressed the council.
Comment by Susie Snedaker — April 4, 2010 @ 12:10 pm