How the City of Dayton, Ohio educates people on how to buy city property:

Want to acquire a vacant lot? Check out "Lot Links 101" - July 15 at 6:00 p.m.
The City of Dayton will conduct a brief meeting on July 15 to educate the community on the facts, requirements and process for acquiring vacant and tax delinquent property in Dayton. Citizens interested in learning how to acquire properties through the City of Dayton’s “Lot Links” program should attend the 30-minute “Lot Links 101” briefing on Thursday, July 15 at 6:00 p.m. in the Dayton Convention Center, 22 East Fifth Street, Room 306.

Participants are encouraged to remain after the meeting to attend the HUD Consolidated Plan Town Hall meeting. The Town Hall begins at 7:00 p.m. and is sponsored by the Cities of Dayton and Kettering.
For the flier, click here.

Cities: Maywood council can't duck the blame or shame - latimes.com

Click title for link to LA Times Editorial. An excerpt:

"The Maywood City Council needs to accept a painful truth of American politics: Once you get elected, all the problems that came before you become your problems. You own them and all their stink.

You can't spend three years blaming your predecessors and then throw up your hands as the city collapses around you. But that's precisely what the council majority in Maywood has done."

ATTENTION COLLEGE PARK RESIDENTS

There has been a rash of incidences where cars have been stripped of their tires and rims. The sheriff has confirmed that it's happening in College Park from Dixie to the Intra-Coastal Waterway. Just this week, two cars were left on Coca-Cola crates with no tires or wheels. Also, at another property two tire stems have been cut, causing nearly $1000 in damage.

Late last night, neighbors were in their back yard and heard someone talking over the fence. They immediately ran over to the old Patio parking lot. Three young white males spotted the College Park residents and ran to a newer model, silver, S-type Jaguar with chrome rims and sped off.

The sheriff's office is on the detail, but keep your eyes and ears open and call the Sheriff's office if you see this car cruising around College Park, or any other suspicious vehicles/people for that matter.

Commissioner Mulvehill's Campaign Treasurer's Report - Q2

Click here for City website.  For others, go to City Residents, Elections, Treasurer Reports, 2010 Candidates.  It would be easier if they had a link directly for 2010 Candidates.

The Casino building tenants are weighing in already.

MinnPost - Cityscape: Recession recovery: Urbanist Richard Florida says it will mean huge changes in how we live

Click title to quick over of a new book by Richard Florida on his forecast of future urban life.  I just ordered it from Amazon and it is resting in my Kindle, which I will read during my summer travels.  What I think it will talk about is the need to pare down on transportation and housing costs - we will do this by reducing commuting distances, encouraging redevelopment of urban areas along railways and other mass transit corridors.  Where have we heard this before?  I think right here.

Announcement from City: Diabetes Healthfair

Diabetes Health Fair July 17, 2010
Diabetes March: 6:00AM 
Health Fair: 9:00 AM
Cultural Plaza: 414 Lake Ave, Lake Worth
Health Clinics Free T-shirts & Refreshments
Free Physicals Diabetes testing 21 Doctors 42 Nurses
Learn how to cook with Diabetes.

Political Divisiveness

This was posted on FaceBook by the group that calls itself the "Coffee Party Movement." It's a response to the more well-known "Tea Party Movement" that is primarily composed of extreme right-wing folks that carry around Sarah Palin idols, or so it seems.  The group's vision is stated as follows:

• Our Vision: Reason and civility in public affairs; A gov't of public servants accountable to the People; A People committed to the Common Good and Civic Virtue.  Here is a link to their website.

It says to me that we should be about good representative government.  There are problems that we should face together and not use issues to divide us.  We need to use the opportunity address our major societal issues by tapping the talents of all people, not just a select group and look out for the good of the "whole."  Special interests have taken over the debate in Washington and one can predict the vote on a particular item 50 miles out from the eventual outcome.  Here is one the Coffee Party group's recent status updates that immediately made be think of things the way they are in Lake Worth.

• The politics of division, fear and hatred reduce participation in the democratic process because many of us want to avoid conflict and negative emotions. With reduced participation, we're vulnerable to extremists dominating our gov't and bullying the public. To counter extremism, we must commit to increasing participation and engaging the majority in the political process.

We have seen this strategy play-out with successes at the ballot box, but little real success where it counts - on the streets, in the neighborhoods or in the city's financial coffers.  It seems that the "ruling party" in Lake Worth can get elected through these methods, but has difficulty governing in a way that addresses the needs of most residents in Lake Worth, rather than the extreme ideologies of a few.  By disenfranchisement of voters and, I believe, making things so intolerably difficult and expensive to live in Lake Worth that many pull up stakes and move out, leads to more victories at election time.  But what is left behind is a wasteland of missed opportunities for a better community that embraces and benefits everyone, not just friends of those who live and visit N. C. Street.

The most recent example of this is the use of the Save Energy Workshops as a "ruse" and a campaign tool for Commissioner Cara Jennings and her political allies.  Let's say that you believe that all the "i's" were dotted and the "t's" crossed, that Commissioner Jennings' left-over campaign funds are being used to "educate the people" on the benefits of energy conservation and that everything is on the up-and-up and it is o.k. that another elected official that is up for re-election leads a "workshop" while gathering voter information (which I have a hard time believing and all information gathered at these events in terms of voter identification should be available to anyone who asks for it.)

The issue, CONSERVATION, is not one that should be politicized!  We all are about conserving our resources and as the headline on the paid-for flier proclaims "LOWER YOUR ELECTRIC BILL."  And those that ARE NOT INCLUDED in this "campaign" I know are FOR lower electric bills, rebates on energy saving appliances, alternative energy technologies, etc. Whether we need a special tax for this on our utility bill, which hit lower income groups the hardest is another matter, but this is not Cara Jennings' issue alone - this is OUR ISSUE.  This is an issue for EVERYONE on the DAIS.  

What Commissioner Cara Jennings' disciples want to plant in people's minds is that Cara is for the Environment - with a capital "E" - and that anyone against Commissioner Cara Jennings' is against the Environment, so how could you vote for anyone else other than Commissioner Cara Jennings? Don't be fooled, this group's main and probably only goal is TOTAL victory and I shudder to think what that might mean when it comes to pass.

This is the politics of divisiveness in action.  It may win elections but it destroys communities - especially the sense of "community" that we need to succeed as we attempt to face our challenges together.

Timing is everything...

I find it interesting that Mayor Varela's discussion at the LW Playhouse will take place when these Commissioners are out of the country.

Audits, loose change and such...

Reading the following entry in the City Manager's report of July 2 led me to recall an anecdote told to me a few months ago.

And then I read this related entry in the July 9 report:

If you have been around Lake Worth long enough and have been paying attention, we have had a "speckled" history, and that is being kind, as it relates to audit reports on the city's financial reporting systems.  Each one seems to come up with a new list of "exceptions" to the audit reports that essentially says, "but for" these faults, we would issue a clean audit opinion.  In some audit reports, the list of faults can go on for 50 pages and it seems that the faults from previous years are not addressed and usually appear in following years audit reports.

The City has changed auditing firms, hired and fired an Internal Auditor - one that is supposed to report directly to the City Commission.  The last one dismissed due to the City Manager's conclusion that we didn't need anyone to point out more problems.

Given that as a backdrop, I found this story telling.  Earlier this year a Lake Worth resident, and one that most people would know, received a letter in the mail from the Finance Director.  It contained a copy of a check from 2005 in the amount of around $500 and it was made out in this person's name.  The letter essentially said that the city was going through its records and wanted to know the status of the check.  There was a multiple choice set of responses like "You received and cashed the check" or "You still have the check and have not cashed it" or "You did not receive the check but are still owed the money and would like a new one issued", etc.  The last example included a caveat that if you are issued a new one and it turns out not to due to the person in question, they could be held liable for return of the check and penalties.

First of all, this was about a check issued in 2005!  Checking the calendar today immediately points out that we are currently in 2010 - some five years after said check was or was not issued.  Second of all, the amount - compared to the $162 million total city budget - is de minimis at best.  It makes one wonder about the checks written for larger amounts than $500 since 2005, whether they should have been issued and if they were for some service the city and residents actually in some way benefited from.

So, during this budget season and while reviewing the document, it is difficult not to wonder about whether or not you are looking at the "real" picture of the way things are or are they a picture of the way someone wants them to be or if they are to be believed at all.  It does not give one the level of assurance that is expected of an organization in charge of handling the public's money.  Is anyone on the dais addressing this?

Regarding loose change, there was this entry in this week's City Manager report:

It is good to hear that we are assigning staff to repair meters "within a half hour during weekday hours and within one hour after 4 p.m." at the beach and at the boat ramp.  My question, does the broken meter send a signal to someone at the city that it's broken or does it have to be reported by someone?  I don't know if this is administrative "spin" given that the Finance Director reported  to the Financial Advisory Board (FAB) that we will need to replace the meter machines at the beach in the near future and they are looking at them for the downtown.  That last idea, parking meters in the downtown, is getting a chilly reception from the FAB apparently, but we will have to wait for their recommendation to come "out of the box."  It probably should be run by the Planning and Zoning Board too.  

The City Manager also made a big deal in her report about how the FAB should not be influenced by Commissioners during their budget review so that their recommendation is objective - good luck with that!

Copy of E-mail to Annabeth Karson re: Save Energy Workshops

Lake Worth property taxes: Larger property tax break devastating Lake Worth budget - South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com

Click title for link to article by Willie Howard.

Imagine the three hour existential discussions about...

...the difference between "like", "acceptable", "dislike" and "unacceptable."  For example, question #9 from the survey:

Generally speaking, if I dislike something, I find it unacceptable.  If I like something, I find it acceptable.  The discourse from the dais about the differences in these terms will fill volumes - and with this one you can't chose more than one option.  Imagine the potential results:  Like 10%, Acceptable 30%, Unacceptable 10%, Dislike 30% and No Opinion 20%.

So much for an unbiased survey on the Casino building....

The city added a link on their website late yesterday afternoon.  I provided a link from this blog to it at the top of the right-hand column.  There are 31 multiple choice questions, with some opportunity to enter original responses.  You also have to identify yourself, which may inhibit people from participating, but it will cut down on opportunities to stuff the ballot box.

Why is it biased?  Check this out - it's the paragraph after a recital of the architectural history of the building:

The building's location east of the coastal construction control line is a reason NOT to invest money in the existing building.  It is actually an argument for a new building that would be west of the coastal construction control line - meeting current construction standards.  Some of you may remember the dramatic Powerpoint presentation made by Commissioner Cara Jennings about the perils of coastal construction when another proposal was before the City Commission - complete with scenes of people running away from waves pounding the beach.  Here's one of them:

And, in her presentation, Commissioner Cara Jennings also talked about the importance of "managed retreat" from the ocean due to the threat of rising ocean levels.  Here is another image from that presentation:

You can review the entire presentation by our District #2 Commissioner by clicking here.  The point is that you cannot tell the public that since the building is seaward, or east, of the coastal construction control line, it's a reason to rehabilitate the building - unless you don't want to represent the facts the way they are and present a biased version to those that are taking the survey.

Let's go back to that paragraph, at the second point that is made:

Can someone show me a study that examined the costs of rehabilitating the existing building versus building a new building?  An accurate assessment was never done, but here the city is telling the public that due to the costs of the new building, the decision was made to rehabilitate the old.  Why are we lying to the public?  Is the community's attachment to the existing building due more to the fact that tenants of the existing building contributed to and promoted Commissioner Jennings' and Mulevhill's campaigns?

Menu board at John G's October 2008

What a wicked web we weave when we try to deceive...

It's only when we get to question #12 that the public is asked the following:

This is the question that should have been asked by the City Commission after it exited the contract with Greater Bay - with enough facts present to make an informed, impartial decision about the expenditure of public money.  

Remember too that people are asked to identify themselves as part of this survey - possible political retribution?  I wouldn't rule it out.

Lake Worth's beach casino consultant to seek public input this week

Click title for link to article in PB Post that appeared on Tuesday, after the Commission meeting, regarding the Casino building rehabilitation project and charette.  The headline is as it appears in the virtual paper. It mentions that the city will have a survey on their website "this week" to gather input on direction of the design for the rehabilitation.  Today is Thursday. This is a snippet from the article:

I was just there and there is a link to a reservation form for the charette that will take place on August 21.  This is what that form looks like:

Keep checking back to the city website's home page for a link or for some sign of a 30 question survey.  I heard  that certain members of the City Commission said that they will reserve the right to make their own decision regardless.  Did that even need to be said?

In brief, and to summarize what has been said before on this blog, the building that is there now, designed the way it is, would be eligible for placement on the National Register for Historic Places.  It is thought by some that this designation would unleash "pots o'money" from historic preservation grant programs.  Well there are few programs like that available now.  It is also widely acknowledged that most do not like the current design of the building and, for many, that has been true since the building was last re-done in 1949.

With any other design, you are taking your chances with historic designation - even if it "goes back" to the 1922 original design.  If done well, using the inspiration of the original design would be a good way to go.

However, I am not opposed to a more modern, 21st Century design that takes its cues from contemporary life and design influences.  Whatever is done needs to be done well, with quality at every corner.  It also has to be worthy of being called an ICON, now and for future generations.  If not, then it is worth asking the question if the project is worth doing at all.  The $6 to $6.5 million figure, reached through the city's own financial analysis, seems low in order to meet these goals.  

Any design should use state-of-the-art green building techniques, to the extent the budget allows, with an eye toward reducing maintenance and energy costs over the long term.

My worst fear is that we under-estimate the cost of the building rehabilitation, over-estimate the revenues coming from the parking lot to support a revenue bond issue, get half-way through the project and realize just that.  Don't think this scenario isn't possible.  According to a resident who attended the Finance Advisory Board meeting last night, Finance Director Steve Carr said that the current meters at the beach had to be replaced.  These might be two years old and, in my experience, worked sporadically at best.  I would hope that the manufacturer or suppler of these machines would not be our preferred supplier for the new machines.  The new machines should be designed to work in a salt-laden atmosphere and be able to be essentially maintenance-free, except for emptying the till by authorized personnel.  If this standard proves impossible, then the city should institute attended parking, with a gate, to ensure proper collection of parking fees at the beach.

Another concern is that the current proposal, in this year's budget, to begin "pay parking" in the downtown area is the camel's-nose-under-the-tent for "credit enhancement" to be used to support a revenue bond to re-do the Casino building, based on either over-projection of, or faulty collection of, income from the beach parking area.

As I said before here, our downtown is at such a fragile state economically now that the imposition of parking meters is too risky for the amount of "reward" the city would get in additional revenue.If we were to do it, and I don't think we should, we would need to have attended lots by real people that would be able to interact with people who are paying.  We could then have a "parking validation" system where the merchants would pay for parking if you bought something in their store, or ate something at a restaurant.

But, I feel like everyone in the chain of command has their finger on the "doomsday" button for the downtown and we are going to see this instituted this year, whether we like it or not.

It is just not worth the risk!