Saturday, July 12, 2008

Speaking of Initiatives

Going pro-active.

I have to admit that Chris Nicoll’s initiative has been an inspiration. So much so that the Pueblo Neighborhood Partnership (PNP) is going to emulate it as part of its efforts to improve the quality of living in the city and county of Pueblo.

Last Tuesday, I proposed five possible items to put forward as citizens’ initiatives for the city ordinances on the 2009 odd-year City-County election. These were:

[1] Require the city to provide public notices and publish all documentation relating to a proposed action 45 days prior to any hearing on such actions on their web-site.
[2] Establish a sidewalk utility for the regular maintenance of sidewalks in the city limits.
[3] City recognition and work with organized neighborhood associations, requiring that changes in statutes or zoning or other activities that impacted on neighborhoods would have to have said neighborhoods input.
[4] Oaths at Meetings would require Staff as well as citizens to swear to the honesty of their report under pain of perjury at meetings where witnesses are required to swear or affirm such.
[5] That the city’s legal department should be employees of the city government and not a private firm contracted to do such work for the city.

This list is not locked in concrete. I invite any other possible ideas to modify the City Ordinances or City Charter that would improve our governance by making it more open to the citizens and/or provide better service to them. If you think you have a good idea, let’s hear it. Just click on the word Comments in the box immediately below and say your piece.

Over the course of the next few months we’ll discuss each of the options provided to thrash out their advantages and disadvantages.

Next entry: Governor’s Commission on Community Service (GCCS) Previous entry: In Praise of Small Cities I

1. Chuck’s Quote: Just click on the word Comments in the box immediately below and say your piece.

   That was bait, wasn’t it . . you knew I would . . Heh, heh . .

   Some great ideas. Some greater than others . . but all required thought and initiative . . Thanks Chuck . .

   Regarding [2], concerning Sidewalk repair. Up til a couple of years ago, wasn’t the city using both CDBG and the grants for handicapped crossing modification for that? Could be wrong there but that was my impression.

   And re:[5] This is one of those “Be careful what you wish for” deals . . Logically, you have a point, in most cities, there’s an attorney with office, employed by the city . . but then, anything out of the normal advisory status is assumed by a consultant(s) who . . cost a lot and often have no responsibilities for the outcome of their involvements (or advice, as case may be) . . or . . a bureaucratic agency that envelopes the office and becomes more costly than an outside hire . . look at our D.A.‘s Office . . It’s become a partisan rathole that the county throws money into, and for the first two years in office, we had to bring in outside prosecutors or change the venues . . and once in a while something still jumps up and bites ole Bill (and the taxpayer) in the hind quarters . .

   I’m not being a grump about the last one, but I will say, I know and like both Tom and Bob Jagger. I’ve known Tom for years, and as a planner for the PCOG, worked with him on many occasions . . And I can’t cast any negatives on their office. On the other hand, just as I advocate term limits on all our legislators, I’ll say the same thing about all Offices of bureaucratic management and oversight, like underwear, they need to be changed frequently . .

   .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/13  at  09:59 AM

2. TO: Large
   RE: Ideas

   Some great ideas. Some greater than others . . but all required thought and initiative . . Thanks Chuck . .—Large

   You’re welcome.

   But don’t let that stop you from offering some options of your own.

   Regarding [2], concerning Sidewalk repair. Up til a couple of years ago, wasn’t the city using both CDBG and the grants for handicapped crossing modification for that? Could be wrong there but that was my impression.—Large

   Only at street intersections. And only as far as CDBG funding would go.

   With this approach ALL sidewalks are covered, where people didn’t ‘opt-out’ of the program.

   And re:[5] This is one of those “Be careful what you wish for” deals . . Logically, you have a point, in most cities, there’s an attorney with office, employed by the city . . but then, anything out of the normal advisory status is assumed by a consultant(s) who . . cost a lot and often have no responsibilities for the outcome of their involvements (or advice, as case may be) . . or . . a bureaucratic agency that envelopes the office and becomes more costly than an outside hire . ....—Large

   The big point here, as I stated is the avoidance of conflicts of interest. However, over the time that I’ve been involved with the Zoning Board of Appeals and, more recently, the Planning and Zoning Commission, I’ve noticed that people who wish to take the City to task on a matter in the courts seem to have to go outside the city in order to find an attorney that will champion their cause before the local bench. The implication is that local attorneys do not want to get on the city’s hired attorney’s bad side as it might impact on their cash flow.

   This, if accurate, in my honest opinion, is not the way the legal system should be working in our City.

   ....look at our D.A.’s Office . . It’s become a partisan rathole that the county throws money into, and for the first two years in office, we had to bring in outside prosecutors or change the venues . . and once in a while something still jumps up and bites ole Bill (and the taxpayer) in the hind quarters . .—Large

   That could be true, but I’ve not looked into it deeply enough to say I agree with it.

   But I AM disappointed that all the offices of the County are locked into a one-party system. There is no oversight. I’d feel a LOT more comfortable with a system of checks-and-balances brought on by the DA and the Sheriff being from a political party other than that of the other offices.

   I’m not being a grump about the last one, but I will say, I know and like both Tom and Bob Jagger. I’ve known Tom for years, and as a planner for the PCOG, worked with him on many occasions . . And I can’t cast any negatives on their office. On the other hand, just as I advocate term limits on all our legislators, I’ll say the same thing about all Offices of bureaucratic management and oversight, like underwear, they need to be changed frequently . .—Large

   I’ve had a number of encounters with Tom Jagger, esq. Most of them have shown him to be a professional. However, some of them have shown something else. It seems to have depended on the particular issue and the stance of the City Council on said issue. This is one of the the reasons for option #4.

   Regards,

   Chuck

   .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/14  at  08:41 AM

3. A big part of the “Conflict of Interest” deals comes from the fact that although Pueblo has a Population of 110,000, it’s still a small town in a lot of ways . . and there’s several “Good Ole Boys” who still call the shots . . and although that particular Hierarchy has changed names, the lineage and methods are about the same . . and any lawyer or other Professional associated with development or it’s associated vocations, learns real quick which toes are in $3000 shoes . . wayback when, it was certain people buying in the path of progress . . now, they demand subsidies for their developments, whether it’s good for the community or not . .

   P’ Springs Ranch is one of those . . They’re going to develop it in “Partnership” with the City and the Water Board . . How the hell is that going to work? I can bet there’ll be the same transparency that was exhibited on the LDM deal East of USC . . I don’t agree with that one either . . Basically because tax dollars are being used in lieu of “Developer’s Risk” . .

   Apparently that’s a thing of the past . . Now the taxpayer gets to pick up the bill for the infrastructure up front, whether the developer is successful or not . .

   That’s kind of how the USA got in the financial condition it is now . . making the Government assume the risk for someone else’s investments . . Or did I miss something back when?

   .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  07/14  at  09:30 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Smileys

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below: