Saturday, December 17, 2016
Oh, Yeah. That.
Today, Tracy Truppman held what she called a workshop to discuss the Village's police function, and "Codes." The latter was more broadly a discussion of the general condition, and the visual impression, of the Village and its properties.
Tracy organized the event for today, and it appears enough of her colleagues knew in advance about it that she didn't have to ask them if they liked the idea, and if they were available for today. Only Roxy Ross and David Coviello had to check their schedules, to see if they were free. How all that was known by two of Tracy's colleagues, before the meeting at which it was announced, is a mystery.
The meeting was Tracy's solicitation to her neighbors, to find out what they thought, and what they wanted. And the answer was various, as it always is. The meeting was divided into sections in which the police were discussed, and Code was discussed.
There were lots of thoughts, ideas, and wishes regarding the various domains of enforcement, but the bottom line of each consideration was the same: we have limited resources. We can wish for all the police, and all the Code compliance, we want, but if we can't afford more officers, or speed bumps or humps or tables, or more coordinated Codes, or a new Code Officer vehicle (ours is now out of commission, and we temporarily rely on a loaner from Sunny Isles), we really can't move forward with anything.
And that's the way it always is around here. Even during the Meet the Candidates event, each and every candidate identified as our biggest problem our fiscal limitation. But instead of a real effort to solve that problem-- our acknowledged biggest problem-- we give ourselves over to fantasizing about how we'd like it to be. In the ways it can't be. Because we can't afford it to be that way.
Barbara Kuhl made a point Janey Anderson also makes: the Village as a municipal entity should lead the way, if not at least play by the same rules, regarding an adequate standard of order and visual appeal. And that point was indirectly reinforced by the police-related concern regarding people who cut/drive across our medians. They're not supposed to, but they do it anyway, and they don't get caught. The concept during that part of the discussion was that our meager police force should, in addition to all the other places two officers should simultaneously be, always be there to catch and ticket people driving across the medians. Or parking on them.
I had nothing to do with this. I didn't say a word. It was one of our newer 117th St. neighbors who seemed to put two and two together, and hit upon what seemed to be the kill-two-birds-with-one-stone logic that if we planted in the medians, people wouldn't park or drive on them. They couldn't, if the medians were occupied with trees and shrubs. From the mouths of "babes," it would seem. The poor man had in mind that we should have beautiful medians, as they do in other municipalities nearby. Like it would be a good thing for us somehow, to have our medians look better. So he simply thought... Oh, never mind.
If, in the future, Dan Keys is remembered for anything in BP, I suspect it will be for his unflinching intransigence regarding improving the medians. As much as he possibly can, he refuses to see it done. And he spoke against it again. If he hasn't got a half dozen reasons why not, he's got a full dozen. He rotates them around, depending on the conversation. Today's convenient excuse was that specimens should not be planted simply according to the whim of the resident. Dan carefully stayed away from adding something like "without a real plan," because he knows very well who has worked hard and tirelessly against providing that plan. But there he was again. Good old Dan Keys.
So we had a fun time imagining all the improvements we can't afford to make. Although... A minute or two before one of our neighbors said it, I sent an e-mail to a guy who has access to low-priced electric cars. He's got some new vehicles, made in China, and he can add enough batteries to get the range to 30-40 miles per day (more than enough for us), with AC. I'm waiting to hear back. I asked Heidi Siegel about this, but she wasn't receptive. Sharon Ragoonan seems to be.
By the way, regarding our discussion about speeding, one of our neighbors, Ernesto Ortiz, said he would donate $1000 for speed bumps/humps/tables. A bunch more gestures like that, and it's something to think about. Assuming you agree with the concept of speed bumps/humps/tables. Absent that, we're still stuck on having the right Commission at the right time to do something meaningful to get us a better revenue stream. Then, we're not preoccupied with wouldn't-it-be-greats, and this, that, or the other, but not all or both, or maybe not any of them. Our three new Commissioners did agree it was our biggest problem. Let's see how motivated and creative they are to try to solve it. Not easy? Yeah, I know.
Not sure if we were at same meeting, but fiscal resources was never an issue. I t was a lack of policy and direction set by the commission
ReplyDeleteHarvey,
DeleteYou and were indeed at the same meeting. I saw you there. I heard you comment two or three times, mostly, as I recall, about traffic-related issues.
You and I heard together when Sharon said, at the very end in her comments, that she functions at the discretion of the Commission, and what it wants to accomplish for the Village.
So if you and I were at the same meeting, and I heard what you said, and we both heard what Sharon said, I am perplexed that you remember nothing said about our fiscal limitations. Perhaps if you ask around, or maybe even find a recording of the meeting, you will hear what you somehow didn't hear during the actual meeting, when you and I were both there, and one of us was listening carefully.
Fred
If our problems were a lack of money, no one has to take any responsibility for them.
DeleteAs Sharon said. the manager functions at the discretion of the commission. Weren't you on the commission.(total of 38 words)
Harvey,
DeleteI don't know what point you're intending to make. Yes, our problem is a lack of money. As I pointed out, during the Meet the Candidates event this year, when each of us was asked what we thought was the Village's biggest problem, every one of us cited our limited finances as the biggest problem. So, good, we all agree. So if that's our biggest problem, which I think it is, Dan Samaria thinks it is, and all three of the candidates who won think it is, then that's the problem we need to solve. Thinking of things that cost more money, when our biggest problem is that we already don't have enough money, is useless.
Of course I was on the Commission. I recognized what our biggest problem was, and I did what I could, and what I could think of, to try to solve it. Anyone who thinks they can do better than I did ("anyone but Fred") should have as their mission to do what I couldn't do. And they should expect to succeed. "Anyone but Fred" is so glib and dismissive that I'm thinking maybe they should not only be able to do it, but maybe it should even be easy. So, great, go for it. Show all of us, all of their neighbors, how they're going to improve Village finances.
I'm really sorry you didn't hear it said twice that our imagined efforts to have more police, and more Code compliance, are limited by our fiscal status. I feel like you and I can't have this conversation, if you really didn't hear this said, twice. And I do want you to try to find someone other than me who heard it, twice, or a recording of the meeting. Part of your argument with me now is that you don't think this was said. Twice. I'm thinking maybe you wouldn't be arguing with me, if you heard it. It doesn't seem as if you disagree. Just that you, and Milt, didn't hear what I heard. Maybe you can ask Sharon. It was she who said it, at least the second time. Maybe both times.
I don't take responsibility for our failure to annex. I did the best I could. It was the fault of the previous Commission. I do take responsibility for our tax rate. I argued for a higher rate, but I failed to be persuasive. I don't take responsibility for our having not enough donations. I made as much donation as I could, even though it's not my job single-handedly to support the Village, even if I could, which I can't. It was my idea to have the walkway to the log cabin made of bricks, which we could sell, and I donated $1000 to buy a brick. But Heidi did not use a brick walkway (I'm told Dan Keys convinced her to use the stuff that's there instead), and Sharon has not (yet) replaced that gunk with bricks. I hope she will. I just don't know what else to do. And if there's something to do to raise revenue, and I can't think of it, then that's my fault, too. As I said, anyone who's better at this than I am, which all three of our new Commissioners believe they are, and have convinced people like you that they are, great. Succeed where I failed, to solve what we all agree is the Village's biggest problem.
Fred
The point I am trying to make and you just don't seem to understand is that these 2 issues had nothing to do with money. It was a lack of leadership.
DeletePerhaps it's a vicious circle. Perhaps it will turn out that the best of ideals and attempted plans will falter on the lack of a way to pay for them. Perhaps you'll find that that's why each discussion was punctuated by a comment that we have fiscal limitations, even though you say you didn't hear that.
DeleteHarvey,
DeleteLet's take one step back. Let's assume that you're right, and the failing was a failure of leadership. Let's also recognize not only that the Village has a fiscal problem, but that each of the recent candidates, including all three of the ones who won election, consider the Village's fiscal problem to be its biggest problem. That's what each of us/them said. Publicly.
So if what we need is better and more effective leadership, then it appears to be universally agreed that what we need that better leadership to do is improve Village revenues.
No one said they thought our biggest problem was inadequate police or policing. No one said they thought our biggest problem was poor Codes or poor enforcement. All of these may be problem areas, but no one, including not one of the new Commissioners, thought they were our biggest problem.
And if we solve what we all agree is our biggest problem, then we can afford all the police presence we want, we can afford to update our Codes, and we can afford two Code officers, or eight of them, if we think that will help.
But the leadership you should want, and the leadership failure of which you should be complaining, is the failure to improve Village revenue. If I was one of those who failed, I'm sorry I failed. And if you or anyone else thought "anyone but Fred" would succeed better in finding a solution to the problem we all agree is our biggest problem, I hope you're right. I just haven't heard a word about it since all three of them declared it our biggest problem. They're talking about other things: things that don't matter until we solve our biggest problem. I'm again reminded of the joke of the woman looking for her lost earring.
Fred
True to form, your pettiness and miserable malignancy of attitude is fully transparent. This workshop was announced during the last Commission meeting in full view of all elected officials and all were given notice at the same time. Oh, but then again, you weren’t there to hear it. There is no smoking gun you continually refer to… it’s just your usual nasty and empty complaints.
ReplyDeleteVery little of what was discussed involved spending money. It was primarily policy and priorities. But… why stick with the facts when you can demean and attempt to undermine.
Milton,
DeleteWhat seems to be truest to form is your "petty" and "miserable" sniping at me. You seem so devoted to it, that you are unable to comment on this post about much of anything except me. But the post wasn't about me. It was about a meeting.
Now, there are two exceptions to your otherwise single-minded preoccupation with me. You do confirm that the meeting was scheduled. So you and I agree here. But I never said it wasn't scheduled. So a straw man there for you. What I said was that when it was scheduled, at the first, typically non-business, meeting of the new Commission, Tracy said she wanted us to have a workshop, on this date, and she specified what she wanted the workshop to be about. But Maria had to remind her that she should make sure the other Commissioners (yeah, them, the other Commissioners) could make it on that date. Roxy said she might not be able to make it, and David said he thought he could. (As you say, I had to leave this meeting before this, but I listened later. I have no doubt at all that I heard all of it, perfectly well.) But Jenny and Will didn't even have to check. They seemed to know all about this, including the date, in advance. Are you disagreeing with me here, or are we on the same page? (Except you're not asking the obvious questions.)
Did you and Harvey tune out together when the matter of our limited finances was raised? It came up twice, in connection with each issue (police and Code). The two of you might do well to find a recording of this meeting, and listen carefully this time. (I think you personally don't like anything that involves spending money, so it may be understandable that you were unable to hear that part.)
By the way, Milt, you were a supporter of mine when I ran for Commission the first time. You were supportive of me when I advocated (and voted) to outsource sanitation. You supported me when I joined the effort for the Village to annex. Can you tell me, and other readers of this blog, when, and most especially why, you no longer felt supportive of me?
Fred
Fred,
ReplyDelete2 people heard the same thing . You heard something different.
You are in denial.
Let me add to my post We all heard the same thing. To most people money was a side comment because it was not the cause in this two issues. You chose to fixate on it because it proved your point.
DeletePolice not enforcing traffic laws either, same budget, same number of officers, same village, same driving habits is not a money issue, but lack of proper direction from
leadership
Harvey,
DeleteYou mean two people DIDN'T hear something. Either I was hallucinating, or those two people were not paying attention, or maybe they didn't want to hear what was said. I will urge you again to ask around, or, best yet, get a recording of the meeting. And listen carefully.
It's not that it proved "my" point. It IS the point. And if you will likewise review the recording of the Meet the Candidates event, you will find that all five of us, including the three who won, identified as the Village's biggest problem its fiscal limitation.
The problems you cite are partially money issues (as was stated twice during the workshop you tuned out of), and partially issues of what you call leadership. The money issues are our limitation in terms of hiring as many police officers as anyone might want (this was the comment you and Milt failed to hear), and our limitation in terms of having updated Codes (it would cost $30K the last Commission, except me, decided we couldn't afford) and, in the opinions of some, more Code officers. Again, if you check around, you will find that this observation was made during the workshop.
I'm a bit reluctant to discuss the leadership issue, because it's in the past, and I don't need to cast those particular stones. Suffice it to say that we had a Chief who was not as activist as some, and we had a Manager who did not ask that of the Chief. You can rest very much assured that at least some of the immediate past, and partially present, Commissioners, present company included, asked the Manager to take a different approach to policing, but she didn't. Now, that Manager no longer works for the Village, and neither does that Chief. The current Manager seems much more activist regarding things like policing, and it remains to be seen whom she will hire as a Chief.
Not that it matters, but since you seem to be in some sense singling me out for criticism regarding leadership, I should tell you that although I was not then a Commissioner, and therefore I had no vote, our most recent past Manager did not happen to have been my first choice. I don't know whose first choices she was, but it was at least three of the then Commissioners. They were Jacobs, Watts, Cooper, Ross, and Anderson. If you want to know who thought she would be the best of the three finalists, you can ask them.
Fred
Fred,
DeleteNone is as blind as he who will not see. Or in this case hear.
Fred,
ReplyDeleteYou are purposefully selective in your recall and in cases you are still ignorant of facts. I, with much help and cooperation of other members of the Parks and Parkways Board and its predecessor, the median review committee and several various and diverse Village Commissions and administrations have systematically been improving our medians for many years. We have all done this as volunteers, not indentured servants or slaves as you seem to believe we are. Over the years working on this issue, we have studied existing conditions and planned and executed activities that have moved the Village forward. There have been false starts that overreached and numerous and ongoing success.
During the meeting in question here, I expressed my opinion that we shouldn't try to solve one problem (residents crossing medians with their vehicles), by planting in the median. I suggested as did others at the meeting that the Police Department should be tasked with solving this easily solvable problem. I further clarified that should the Village Commission desire to further beautify the medians, then I and many well informed residents that have been involved with these efforts over the years, feel that it is necessary to have a dialog regarding the issues involved with doing so. This is not an impediment to progress, this is a path to progress and it has always been on the table.
When you were on the Commission, you never gained the support of any of you colleagues for moving forward with a comprehensive median landscape plan as you envisioned it. This is because the Commission was well informed as to the plans and projects initiated by and or fostered by the Parks and Parkways Board, that were both attainable and valuable in the process of greater beautification efforts. These efforts have resulted in the removal of dead or ill placed plantings in the medians and a well thought out tree canopy plan and subsequent planting of over 300 trees. With, in great part, the help of dedicated residents, our Village has implemented plantings of small parks, plantings at our recreation center, plantings in the 6th ave median, the bridge approach and entrance area, the log cabin, and Village entrance signage areas including the design and construction of the signs themselves. All of these efforts were and still are precursors to broader development of the medians, and your colleagues saw that as reality. You failed to recognize that in you incessant hammering of me and denigration of my work and that of other residents involved with the processes to date.
On the general subject of the meeting, I thought it was a valuable exercise and in general those present were not dismissive of the need for funding, but rather the need as well to prioritize the funding already available. I believe that when properly implemented, your goal of more funding will be realized through increased property value in our community.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteNeither I nor the recent Commissions have asked you to improve the medians. I only asked you for a scheme. You have had a variety of reasons you rotate around not to offer us one. You even agreed 2-3 years ago to do a demonstration improvement on one or two blocks of the 10th Avenue medians, but you never did anything.
I'm sure your crack about indentured servants is intended to be about something, but I have no idea what it is. If you feel mistreated or unappreciated as a member of P&P, please have enough self-respect to resign, so someone else can do something, and not feel put upon about it.
I know what opinion you expressed at the meeting. Which excuse was that one, number 8 or something?
It is impossible for the police to be monitoring all the streets and avenues, and all the medians, in the Village. We have two officers per shift. If we had 12 officers per shift, we would still miss infractions. Dan, give us a median plan, or get out of the way, and the plantings will do 24/7/365 what a whole battalion of police officers can't do.
I couldn't get support from my Commission colleagues, because they all assumed I was asking for money to be spent. Or set aside. Which sometimes I also did. But we don't have much money, and no one, except me, wanted to earmark any, even as a token. But again, that has nothing to do with P&P or with you. What I asked you for doesn't cost money. It costs your dedication to the task of improving the medians. I'm still waiting.
As for prioritizing, we already prioritize. We do it every year. Every Commission and Commissioner prioritizes. You can say your personal priorities would be different from someone else's. They probably are. Of five Commissioners at a time, their five lists of priorities are different from each other. But all we're doing, every year, on every Commission, is taking limited money from one thing, and dedicating it elsewhere. And at the end of this exercise, both areas wind up inadequately funded. Because of our biggest problem.
And I agree in part with you. It will help Village coffers, when property values are higher. (With the understanding that we come to be in the unenviable position of hoping that what are the reasons for the improvement will be realized, but they only fully are when the old-timers leave. So we have to hope the longer-term neighbors move away. That's not what anyone wants to want.) But the other thing is that one of the things that will improve the look, and the values, of the Village will be better medians. But since you refuse to do it, we're stuck. We could work around your obstructiveness by hiring a landscape architect, but we can't afford one.
Fred
FRED, I'm not in the way and never have been. There have always been 5 people on the board and it only takes 3 to make a change.
ReplyDeleteYou absolutely got voted down on the issue - the scheme as you put it. Could have been a lack of a second which is even more telling.
The P and P has long discussed plans for the medians and has actually made progress with those tree plantings and general cleanup that I mentioned - hard fought progress I might add. That's in addition to the other progress we have made. We have discussed how the Village might move forward on the medians in addition to tree planting, but the Village hasn't made good on he plans already out there - some due to lack of funds, but some due to poor management. Most importantly, the Village Commission and previous administrations haven't had the opportunity yet to engage itself enough in the issues involved with infilling the medians. Something necessary to insure success for the long term. You and some of the other Commissioners have been at meetings where we gave the reasons, not the excuses that we have given for taking the path we are on. When the Commission decides that a given project is a priority, we on the P and P will fulfill our duty as per our codified charge. We, as a board or individually, may go further to volunteer our time and talent in excess of that expectation, as has been the case many times before,
As to the median crossers, it doesn't take anything other than common sense and guts to deal with median crossers. If the ruts across the median lead to your house, your going to get questioned about it. If the ruts continue to be formed after that, then we are going to pay a little more attention to your street. Simple solution that except for when Anna successfully did it a few years back, hasn't been implemented.
It also doesn't take a lot to reprioritize police efforts at traffic enforcement to times and places where traffic violations are actually occurring. If the neighbor at 119st and 7th knows that traffic and traffic violations increase at her intersection at a certain time, why didn't the police chief know it and take appropriate action. That's what people were saying at the meeting while you were wasting time formulating this initial post.
FRED, you missed a good thing on Saturday morning, even though you were present. What a shame. I really do think it is a shame that you are making yourself irrelevant, because you can if you so choose continue to positively impact our Village. You decide how you want to articulate your wishes. Your current method isn't working for me and many others who previously supported you.
Dan,
ReplyDeleteThe more times you explain it, the more confusing it gets. Sometimes, you say P&P did make a median plan (or scheme, or design), but you either can't find it, or you can't be bothered to look for it. Then, you say P&P has an ongoing discussion of the matter. (Why are you discussing it, if you've already accomplished the task of formulating a plan?) But then, you say the matter was not discussed, because there wasn't even a second to a motion.
As for what you view as progress you say you've made, you've made no real progress regarding median design. You do nothing unless someone donates trees, which you then dutifully plant. But you either plant whatever trees anyone donates, which you would presumably do without a plan, or you have a way of selecting what trees get donated, on the basis of some plan you have. But since you won't tell anyone what the plan is, it's hard to make any real use of this. And even if trees were part of the plan, and even if you had some role in selecting which trees get donated, we're still left with medians that have nothing in them except trees, and the ground cover is a mix of ratty grass, weeds, and dry dirt. It's that configuration that appears to be so inviting to people who can't be bothered to drive to the end of the block, or who want some place to dump their garbage.
The person who at the meeting you say I missed tried to make this point to you (he didn't know he was talking to you) suggested our medians don't look very good, but medians in other municipalities do look good. He thought maybe ours could look good, too. There wasn't one word he said that was wrong.
As for the median crossers, it's only insult added to injury that they leave ruts. Even if they didn't cut across the medians, the medians still look bad and are embarrassingly spare. As I said, they're used for what they look like. I don't want our police to occupy themselves snagging people cutting across medians. I want medians that no one would want to drive over, and that no one could drive over. It's exactly like the issue of locking car doors, so someone doesn't open them and take stuff. We could have a cop on every block, or we could just have Village residents lock their doors. My preference is the latter.
Fred