barry liss on 
Kathy Tepsa on 
clhughes on I want to be up front about this. I have very little knowledge about the budget processes of government agencies. We are in the midst of some hand wringing at the federal level, and being a fan of the local budget, I was looking through the local meeting minutes regarding the 400 Block.
So, I started asking some questions. I really was unsure of the nature of the 400 Block anymore, and as such, I needed to revisit it. I first had to remember how long ago this all started. Did you know the first submission of a plan was three years ago? This plan was put together for the city, by the city, and THEN sent out to consultants. A Common Council subcommittee that worked with the Parks Department put together a plan for the block. A proof of working concept.
I want to state that again. The subcommittee worked with employees of the City of Wausau, people who are professionals in the park and recreation area, who work here, who are already on the city payroll, and they all put together a plan. In that, they had a plan, a vision, a goal, an idea, a concept of what people who live in the city would want, drafted by people who live and work in the City of Wausau. According to a source within the Park and Rec department, the rough cost of said design was between 600 and 800 grand. For sake of discussion here, let us put a thumbtack in 800 thousand dollars, simply for discussion sake.
After that, the City sent the design that our in-house parks professional did out to consultants. It is fair to say that this consultant or firm got paid for their work. To reiterate, it appears that someone, an employee of the city, worked with the City Council to come up with a plan for the 400 Block. The Council Subcommittee was involved, and they approved it. Then, the Council approved it. So there was a lot of approval by this point. Then, after this wave of approval, it went to a consultant. Sure, we can use the word CONCEPTUAL DESIGN all we want, like they do in the minutes, but it appears that everyone liked the idea. The plan seemed to go to a consultant to get polished, maybe transferred into a technical rendering. I trust that there must be concrete reasons like liability or something for a design to be sent to others, a design agreed on by the council and developed by the people who would be building it.
So, it is my reading of this story that now the plan has once again returned. This time the price tag is $907,500. This comes from a man named Terry Kittson from Becher-Hoppe. According to minutes from a committee meeting, Mr. Kittson says that the cost could go to $1,357,500 with improvements.
I asked the source at the Parks department what these additional costs were. They made mention of a cover for the stage, a sound system and other items. So, it is my understanding that when the media talks about pork in appropriations bill, it comes down to adding items into a useful and needed appropriation bill that might be seen by some as extra spending. Bridges to nowhere towers to celebrate obscure historical figures.
I am sure that someone needs all these items that have been added. But without a proper accounting of them, as they do not appear in the minutes of the committee meeting, how are we to know what they are? Are we to take it on faith that the committee is not buying a Corvette or espresso makers for their whole family? One of the ideas brought forth in the video played at City Council meetings is transparency, and this seems to be a little bit foggy.
I also have a question about the representation on the Ad Hoc committee. It is my understanding the largest use of the 400 Block is the Concerts on the Square that are put on by the City Pages. Yet, no one from the City Pages is represented at these meetings. In full disclosure, I do freelance for the City Pages, but am not a staff member. Would it not make sense to include the largest user of the square?
In a personal note, it appears that Sherry Abitz has reversed her “supporter of the teens” role. In this meeting she highlights a need to have anti-skateboard measures on the railings. In fairness, most skateboarders are teens. I question if this is another way for the committee created by Janet Herring to ban downtown skateboarding to revitalize itself. I surely hope not. There is no need to single out a group, skateboarders, in advance and design something with anti-skateboard measures. It is less than inviting to read a city councilperson make such a point. What shall be done to ban fast moving bicycles? Or skydivers from landing here?
The 400 Block is a community gem. The Concerts on the Square are the shining beacon showing the true nature, and openness of our community. Nice people and families getting together, sitting around talking and laughing with kids playing, and some folks playing music. This is the utopian idea that we need to keep going. This is the best of Wausau.
This long, drawn out process is painful to read about, painful to listen to, and even more painful to think about. No one will ever make everyone happy, no governing body could ever achieve that, but what they can achieve is inclusion and transparency. In this case, a little explanation and frugality would not hurt. We have gone from $800,000 to over $1.3 million. In today’s world, we need to pursue the answer as to why. Are we spending ourselves into a hole? Should we not put money into the bank, instead of taking it out?
my next front page topic I was hoping to get to this week (but with rents coming in, and move outs to process, this week is quickly getting away from me) was to give my views on the Third Street reconstuction project.
It appears that what the “final plan” for the 400 Block is has some impact on some of the work done on Third Street, and I got the feeling from reading the minutes, that this plan has to be finalized and approved so that we don’t spend money on Third Street that we will just have to undo and rebuild once we have a 400 Block plan.
It just seams that those people whom we entrust to spend our tax dollars have somehow developed this mindset that the pot of money from which they spend is unending.
For many many years, I managed someone elses company before starting my own. We used to laugh that he liked the way I managed his company because I treated his money as if it were my own. However, I always told him that wasn’t true. I have been known to make not wise decisions with my money… emotional decisions.
I would manage his money like it was NOT my own…
Please, city leaders. This is NOT your money! It is our money. Treat it like it is our money. How would you feel if I had a pet project… and YOUR checkbook with which to do it?
“We have gone from $800,000 to over $1.3 million. In today’s world, we need to pursue the answer as to why. Are we spending ourselves into a hole?”
* * *
No, we haven’t gone anywhere. We haven’t spent, budgeted or committed to spend anything toward accomplishing that plan. What has been discussed has been discussed in open meetings with posted agendas. If the committees HAD decided to do that block of Third Street and one stage of the 400 block this year and the council would have approved it — which nobody did — the cost for that portion could have been around $292,000. We have that much in the bank for this project. The process has been completely transparent.
Any particular reason you’re hauling this pretty much dead-for-the-moment horse out for another beating today?
* * *
“It just seems that those people whom we entrust to spend our tax dollars have somehow developed this mindset that the pot of money from which they spend is unending.”
“Please, city leaders. This is NOT your money! It is our money. Treat it like it is our money. How would you feel if I had a pet project… and YOUR checkbook with which to do it?”
* * *
As to the first part, I don’t know anyone who feels that way and I certainly don’t feel that way myself. It’s fine to disagree on priorities, but to imply that the attitude of others toward taxpayer resources is somehow less ethical than your own is a little much.
When the snow melts over the coming weeks, the pretty much vacant lot of the 400 Block will re-emerge again as a monument to frugality and the paralysis that has been successfully kept in place by constant acrimony over most of the past decade. For some, that is far as the vision goes. And for others, that is as far as the vision has ever been allowed to go.
Jim,
I am sorry you feel that public comment on this is flogging a dead horse. At an official meeting of the city government, what it is fair to assume are paid consultants from Becher Hoppe once again stepped forward to provide further information regarding this public program.
This was a recent meeting. This is recent information. Hence, it is not a dead horse.
Publicly, and acocuntably asking questions of taxpayer funded do not appear to be flogging of a horse.
I am sorry you feel that way.
Can I ask where the number $292,000 comes from?
You read some minutes and then you go off in a column about pork when nobody voted a dime, but that’s just the beginning:
“Are we to take it on faith that the committee is not buying a Corvette or espresso makers for their whole family? One of the ideas brought forth in the video played at City Council meetings is transparency, and this seems to be a little bit foggy.”
Heck, I don’t know why suggesting there is no particular reason to believe that the people who have been working on the project aren’t planning to steal things for personal gain would be any kind of red herring, but maybe it’s just me.
No, I’m sure this is just an honest attempt at a discussion concerning current events being sincerely pursued by someone who happened to title it “Bacon on the 400 Block” and concluded with the word “Oink.” No fog there, by golly! But is this really the best way to foster mutual respect, build consensus, build community, ensure honest government and ultimately, to get things done? I mean, who wouldn’t want to just jump it and collaborate with someone like that?
(By the way, City Pages is the founding sponsor of Concerts on the Square, but they are staffed and funding for them is secured by Wausau Area Events, which the largest user of the block. Wausau Area Events has a seat on the ad hoc committee.)
Thank you Jim, I did not know about that arrangement for the 400 Block concerts. That is good to know. Thanks
When dealing with a finite resource like money, and tough economic times, we need to separate needs from wants.
There are two issues making the headlines in one form or another.. the 400 Block and the Swimming Pools.
The swimming pools are a more difficult issue. They are a “quality of life” issue. You can’t expect them to make money, because if they were profitable, private for-profit companies would be in the pool business. The current problem is that this “quality of life” amenity is hemoraging cash each year, they require millions of dollars in updates, and the number of people actually using the amenity goes down each year. Something needs to be done. I don’t know the answer… but I think discussions on that topic are timely and important.
The 400 block is also a quality of life issue. However, the amount of money this amenity costs taxpayers each year is only a fraction of the pools. Also, those people who “use” this amenity are actually increasing each year. Although I don’t attend most events on the square, when there is an event and I drive past, it sure looks like standing room only.
Needs vs wants. Something needs to be done about the pools. I don’t know what. However, when it comes to the 400 Block. Are the improvements a “need”? Or are they a “want”? To me, it looks like what we have now is working with more events each summer and more people being brought downtown for those events.
Need or Want
Differentiating between needs and wants can be a useful exercise, but you will inevitably end up at a point where you’re making subjective judgements and people are arriving at different conclusions. The reason? Because some of what you need will rest on what kind of community you want to live in.
In Green Bay, did they need or want to renovate Lambeau Field? If it made sense in pure economic terms, then why tax widows, orphans and everyone else for a few decades to pay for it? It’s because many of the benefits are intangible, indirect and unequally distributed — but it’s also an important part of that community’s identity. Drive down the road south of Milwaukee and you’ll end up in the district of a former state senator who was thrown out of office for supporting a new stadium for the Brewers. More than four times as many people went to see the Brewers last year and they ran more than 80 events. Many more people can afford to go to the games, instead of the mostly country club ticketing system of the Packers that excludes enough people to support a thriving scalping industry. The sales tax is one-fifth as much.
People draw different conclusions and the outcomes aren’t always so black and white either. I can show you bare bones communities that you don’t want to live in who do a great job of separating needs from wants (they think.)
Jim,
With all respect due, can you please explain the accounting that leads you to the $292,000? That number appears no where in the agendas or minutes I have read from this committee?
In regards to my building consensus. While you might not like the language, or the sense of humor I was going for (as explained in the opening paragraph), I ask if this is something that I need to build consensus for? Is that my role? I am not on the ad hoc committee, no one has asked my opinion, I am not on the council. I would think the ad hoc group would build internal consensus, then come to the Committee, then build consensus there, then the Council, and build consensus there. At some point in this process, you would bring the idea to the public, and build consensus with you as the leaders. Convincing me that this is the best idea.
There by making me a sort of recipient of consensus building, and when I am in the wings of hte project, then I become a consensus building advocate for the project. Until then, I think it is fair for me to ask questions in whatever manner I seek to.
It is unfair, and a form of pressure, to claim I am not building consensus for a project I have questions about. I think the pressure is unfair.
This is not a dead horse either. The minutes here, are recent. The committee spent almost the whole time talking about it. The City Pages reported it. This is the current business of the city.
Given the work on the blocks on third will be changed, and one of them is the 400 block it is even more timely. Will that money be affected? It appears that the budget for that, and the timeline for that work has been approved. How does it work that the 400 block will be changed by the money for the street work, and it has this amount of dissent about it.
How does the city approve part of a budget?
Did the paid consultants from Becher Hoppe provide a detailed accounting of the increase in costs? In the minutes they were vague, and there might have been a handout given, but that was not avaialble online anywhere.
Will this detailed accounting of increased costs be made available to the public?
I think the charecterization of beating a dead horse is very unfair. A committee of elected officials had this on the agenda, it is the city’s business. It is clearly an active process.
We have heard of private donations and corporate giving, but no group has stepped forth publicly to hand Mayor Tipple a check. There has been no Rothschild Pavillion like groundswell of grassroots support. Maybe a call on the public to do that very thing would be a great step.
A design exists, and not all the work is engineering, at some point dudes and dudettes with shovels and mulch will be needed. Why not accept this design that was created internally as the skeleton, and then open it up. Bring the town together with a few weekends of construction. Hire some contractor to lead the way, and have sign ups and the like. Like Habitat for Humanity, like many community gardens all over the world.
Yes, the hard stuff like electrical or whatever, will need tradesmen and the rest, but give the city the chance to do the work, to own it. Like Weston did with bringing in the skateboard kids for the skateboard park. No matter what a certain committee wants to do with skateboarding, kids can do it succesfully.
I do not like this process, but I like the 400 Block design. Get us to believe in the process, and we become consensus building advocates. Like Weston, bring people into the porcess, and you have foot soldiers for progress. But telling me my questions are not helping, well these are my questions.
There is sufficient money between what we have set aside from room taxes in prior years and money in the Community Foundation for this purpose to complete the phase that was presented (or nearly so — I’m not counting pennies here.) Beyond the minutes, there were handouts at the meeting that detailed the estimated costs of various things involved in the plan. All of it is pretty much a moot point for the time being because it’s not happening this year. If it happens next year, rest assured that it will appear on a few agendas and there will be votes required beforehand to make that the case. I’ll save any specific discussions for the meetings because I appreciate the context, the input of others and the TRANSPARENCY of doing things that way.
There have been zero closed sessions and all of the committee members have been open to input, too. (It’s also probably the third or fourth attempt at a process that we’ve had, but who’s counting?) This is the song that never ends.
Look, you can say whatever you want to. You can call it a pork project. You can call it humor. You can cast aspersions on the people and the process. You can say it isn’t transparent and inclusive enough. You can try to get everyone to start at the beginning again — that’s worked for others before. You can rag about costs and never talk about value. Do whatever you want. There is no pressure at all — and that’s some of the beauty of negativity. There is no need to show up at meetings, make phone calls, review documents or talk to anybody involved. And against that backdrop, you can just do your interviews here with your questions, right? Nothing could be more fair and efficient.
The documents that are handed out at the meeting are not available anywhere else. Can you point to someplace that I could get that information, or the public could get that information?
In regards to making phone calls, I did make phone calls. I did talk to people in two city departments. According to publicly available information, the description of the process is accurate.
Again, you make the claim that this will cost $292,000. I do not understand the connection to room tax, or the Community Foundation at all. Could you explain that? How much money will come from room tax?
How does it work that money is saved for a unapproved (since it is an ad hoc committee, and as you claim you have not voted on or approved anything) project? You claimed earlier that this is not voted on, this is not approved. How has the money been allocated then from room tax funds?
How does the Community Foundation allocate funds for something, that as you have said, is not approved, not voted on?
Are room tax dollars and Community Foundation funds being set aside for projects that have not been given the go ahead?
I do not understand how that works at all. What are the mechanisms that allow that to happen?
Tell me if I am close…Years ago the city council decided to make the changes to the 400 Block. Makes sense. We need it. It is important to the larger vision for central Wausau progress. Progress is good.
At that time, the rough sketch was done. Rough funds came through. At that time did the council vote to set aside money from the room tax money? Put it in another account shall we say. I am not familiar with governmental processes, so I am asking.
Is it like we have this income, and we have this upcoming project, so we metaphorically redirect a percentage each time to another saving account or something?
Let us bring it simpler. I know I need new tires on my car. But I do not have the money now. But, I have a job, so each pay check I put some money in a shoe box for my tires. After a while that money builds up, and I buy the tires.
I do not understand the process, am I close? That seems like a reasonable idea. I have been a part of several cities raising funds for their skateparks that way.
that would be reasonable. But no one has said that to anyone.
How will a 1.3 million dollar submitted plan cost the tax payers $292,000?
I have said this before Jim, you are under no obligation to respond to any of this. In fact is has seemed like a mistake for you to do so. You are one of many. You step forward, and you take these public lashing sessions with dignity, and often times great aplumb (I think that is a word). But, it is not fair for you to assume all the burden of being the only one.
We have a mayor, we have a council, we have a committee, we have an ad hoc committee. These people can all step forward and answer, can all reach out to provide information.
You should not be the only one. I respect you for doing so.
I will ask again…(for all city council members)
How will what was submitted by Becher Hoppe at 1.3 million cost the taxpayers 292,000 dollars?
Why did this project go from an initial 800,000 to the 1.3 million it is now?
And I will ask…
At what point will someone just say, thats the plan, lets move forward? Is the process at a point where the ad hoc committee is bringing plans to the committee, and the committee is unstaisfied and as such does not bring a full plan to the council?
How does that work? What is left to do before as they say, you can break ground? Why does this keep going round and round?
Are the votes not there?
Just build it. Vote on a plan, allocate the funds you have, and hand some guys shovels. Why can this not happen?
All along in this process of the 400 Square project, the problem I’ve had with it is simple. I believe that this project’s cost is too high and reaches too far to provide esthetics that are not actually essential to beautify this area..
I’ve had these questions for a while now:
1. Why is there a need for a permanent stage? Who is going to use it except for the Concerts on the Square people 10 days of the year? The temporary stage usage seems to be fine with the citizens, then why is it actually needed? City Pages is a for profit business, how much will they contribute towards a stage that essentially is only for their use?
2. The walls. 400 Square is not a huge parcel of land and building those, albeit small, walls will shrink the area that at times seems to be too small to carry the amount of people there. I doubt most people are under equipped with something to sit on when they go to the Square, so the bench seating isn’t really needed in my estimation. Common planting beds would be much less expensive and easier to maintain.
3. Brick walkways. An added expense to the project that is not essential nor cost effective. The city believes that common sidewalks and walkways made with cement are good enough, then why not use this same material? The look? Serviceability should be more on the program than esthetics. Is it to keep the skateboaders and bike riders off of them?
4. Fountain. Definitely not cost effective nor essential. It wouldn’t cheapen the feel of the Square if there were less instead of more.
We are talking about a lot of money here, but sometimes less is more.
Tim,
Like Jim said, the process has been open, and you have been available to submit your ideas.
Thank you for making your ideas known here. Maybe those reading it will take that into consideration.
I think we should erect a giant concrete (ahem) penis in the middle of the square. I’m talking bigger than the Dud Tower, maybe twice the height. Just think of the publicity! There could be stairs and stuff to walk up it, landings with the little viewfinder things, and a festival every year. We’ll call it the “Sit and Spin, Taxpayers” Festival.
Dino, I have the documents and you are welcome to look them over. I would prefer to go over them with you briefly because it will make them easier to understand.
We set aside some room tax money toward to the 400 block in several budget years, beginning when Mr. Baumgardt chaired the Finace Committee and it continued for several years while I have been chairing. The Community Foundation money is conditional upon a plan that the donor(s) find acceptable. (This is not unique. There is currently a $1 million gift toward completion of the downtown loop of the River Edge Trail and there is a time limit during which that would have to be completed.)
“How will a 1.3 million dollar submitted plan cost the taxpayers $292,000?”
It won’t. The FIRST PHASE of the plan involves the western side of the block that would best be accomplished in conjunction with the Third Street work. In looking at the Minutes of the 1-21-09 meeting again, I see that the estimate for Phase 1 is $280,500 (so I was a little high above.) There is plenty of pressure by some to use NO property tax levy money for this project and instead rely entirely on private donations for the remainder. (I don’t necessarily agree, but it’s a nice thought.)
Regarding Timothy Pickett’s questions, we are in a conceptual stage and I’m not sure that everyone agrees on everything in the plan. Concerning “walls,” they are more properly viewed as informal, permanent seating. (I’m not saying they’re necessary, but they aren’t non-functional. They weren’t my idea to add, but I’ve seen this kind of thing work well in other settings.) I tend to agree with an approach that makes use of existing perimeter walkways as much as possible, but I’m not sure what that consists of because the plan anticipates some grade changes in the block. The fountain is seen as optional, but water features are attractive from a number of different perspectives including visually and as “white noise” in an urban setting.
Okay, that’s it on this one for now.
If I remember the minutes right, the $1.3 M price tag did NOT include the fountain.. or did I read that wrong. This is my most stressful time of year, so I have been known to miss details.
My recollection is that the fountain is not included. The thinking on that is that a fountain would likely be something that is particularly well-suited for some kind of fundraising effort.
Then I shall follow up with this…Mayor Tipple, at several council meetings, discussed private donations for the construction of the 400 Block. What has come of that? Is there a list somewhere of those who have donated? Is there a campaign under way that is soliciting private funds?
There is not a campaign underway currently. There is a chicken & egg aspect to this kind of thing and you need to be able to show people — as specifically and clearly as you possibly can — exactly what they are contributing to. There should be a firm timetable. (The completion of Phase 1 might take things a good way toward much of this.) Continuing controversy is probably counterproductive to this kind of fundraising process. We will never get EVERYONE to agree on this project or its individual elements, but there should be some level of agreement among most about the general improvement that the project would represent.
Jim,
With respect, and I hate to beat a dead horse, but I have some questions. I am not sure I understand this, and since I do not, I think it is fair that others might not as well.
1. It has been said in meetings, by city staff, that the concept was approved. Is a final design complete?
2. If a final design is complete, does it have the votes to get out of committee?
3. If it has votes to geet out of committee, what prevents it from going to the whole council?
In these comments you have said that the principal was agreed on, and during Mr. Baumagardt time, funds were redirected. So, a long time ago, an agreement was come to.
4. What prevents this from going from this stage, to a vote on the council floor?
It is my reading of this, and information from sources, that the city council approved the first rendering. The 800,000 dollar one.
Can you break down the process in which it went out for public discussion, and when pieces began being added?
5. Where are the private funds, commitments of said funds, from people that Mayor Tipple has talked about? Without a campaign, or a finish and approved plan, what would people be writing their checks to support?
6. When do you think construction will take place?
7. How does one the third street project inlfuence the outcome of the 400 Block?
The practical aspect is essentially that you can do Third Street reconstruction without doing “the 400 block,” but you can’t do the 400 block without doing Third Street reconstruction. What the ad hoc committee recommended was that Third Street reconstruction be delayed and not done in 2009. They further recommended that WHEN Third Street reconstruction is done in the 400 block of Third Street, that Phase 1 of the current 400 block plan be completed at the same time (because that makes sense.)
Since there is likely no construction of either the 400 block of Third Street or “the 400 block” this year, there really is no issue that is ripe for council approval at this time (other than perhaps to formally delay Third Street, which seems like it should be a done deal.)
“It is my reading of this, and information from sources, that the city council approved the first rendering. The 800,000 dollar one.”
Numbers at this stage of the game are estimates, not hard numbers. You get hard numbers when you go out for bids and you go out for bids when you’re ready to do the work. We’re not. The earlier design approved by the council was an earlier stage of the process. The later drawings are based on those concepts and they give a more realistic picture of what is involved in executing that design. The earlier in the process somebody throws out a number, the softer it is. Numbers will continue to change going forward. That’s the way it is; it’s not a matter of “bait and switch” or anything else.
At this stage of the game, I don’t think the project is at a point where people would want to be making contributions. I have no idea when construction will take place. It is possible that construction could occur in 2010. It is also possible that it won’t because, after all, it never has. The political landscape for this particular project for years has been there is little punishment for not acting and plenty of ready criticism for attempting to advance the project. Trust me. I know.
I understand that this was an estimate.
Why then is a committee in existence, and why are consultants being paid by the city?
Unless it is your claim that Beceher Hoppe are doing this for free. I do not want to put words in your mouth.
So, to sum up then…some want this, some do not. The city paid for the first concpet from an employee. Then a committee thought that was a good idea.
Then a consultant was hired.
Now the plan is somehow lost in the mire of council politics.
Has someone like Mr. Duncanson come forward and said that this work should be done?
Has an urban or civic planner been called upon to offer suggestions?
Is there an accounting of what the city has paid so far on this issue?
If there is not, why not?
At what point is the idea just put down?
Like you say, it has come and gone and come again. what brought it to this committee meeting this time?
Why can the committee not take it to the council? Why can this not get out of committee, get finished so we can stop paying Becher Hoppe, and pay someone with a shovel, and a bulldozer?
This is just the process on this one. I’m not interested in lists of questions. It was appropriate for the committee to meet and view the plans that Becher-Hoppe was asked by the Park Dept. to put together. B&H brought in a specialist to do that. The committee made a recommendation that I have explained to you.
So far, I see no wasted effort or money on the part of this committee, the Park Department, B&H or the city. No, it’s not free to draw up plans. The 400 block being in a mire of politics is not a new development, nor is it unique to this council or this committee. Here’s what I said about it more than two years ago:
http://tinyurl.com/ywglhp
If and when enough people are willing to commit to completing the process and coming up with the resources required, it should happen.
I have read your blog about this, and many other civic issues.
You are not interested in a list of questions.
These are questions asked in the light of day, in public, and you can in fact choose to answer them if you want to.
How about this one, and this is a direct politic one…given the trend on the council to be more conservative over the past few elections…lets say since Linda Lawrence because that is when I started paying attention…given the trend toward the right, how in gods name is this ever going to get through?
We have heard about the voting block, we have heard about all of it. Its fair to say that we are moving that way on the council, and given the bleak outlook economically, will voters vote that way in the future?
Dear God…don’t you all have to run next year?
How hard will it to be to run with this, and the move to put the pool discussion in an ‘ad hoc’ committee?
Are these initiatives dividing the council further, and making candidacy tougher?
I just realize that the pools and this are a bad thing.
Personal opinion here…
Dividing the council further – YES.
Making candadicy tougher… technically no. The sad truth is that there are many voters out there who are single issue voters. So, identifying yourself as a clear PRO or CON against a specific issue can easily define your canidacy. You no longer need to have a good handle on all of the issues and problems facing the City, you only need to have a stand on one key issue that people care about.
I prefer to look at peoples personal philosphy when picking my favorate candidate. I will always agree on them with some issues and disagree with them on other issues… but it is silly to allow one issue to determine who I vote for… Yet – especially in local politics – that is what happens.
In my humble opinion, one would think defining yourself on a specific issue is more honest than parsing your words and trying to have your cake and eat it, too. As far as single issue candidates, have we had any since Neighborhood Schools? That was 15 years ago.
Also, I do not get how you seem to connect taking a stand on a subject somehow keeps you from understanding the big picture. One has nothing to do with the other, does it?