Once again the AL ED Board says too little too late when weighing in on the city budget;
Given that, it’s disappointing that the Sioux Falls City Council has approved a resolution that supports a 2010 general fund budget that’s based on questionable economic expectations.
Well, great-almighty and all-knowing editorial board, this budget has been around for weeks, it would have been nice to say something about it before the council voted on it. Of course, then you couldn’t come back and rip on the councilors for doing nothing, could you? Take for instance this stab at Kermit while seeming to compliment him;
Councilman Kermit Staggers says he’s worried about the message that city officials are sending residents with the budget. Staggers has established an unfortunate record of resisting most progressive ideas, but at least this time he’s right.
What freaking planet have you been living on? If anything, Kermit is one of the most progressive (citizen wise) councilors we have. But not according to the dear old AL who have had a hardon over Kermit for years. According to dictionary.com this is the definition of a progressive;
–adjective
1. favoring or advocating progress, change, improvement, or reform, as opposed to wishing to maintain things as they are, esp. in political matters
In the years I have known Kermit he has advocated change more then any city official. He has been an advocate of more open government, he has asked the city reigns in spending by getting more competitive bids on projects, he has asked the city to responsible for their own property such as trees and sidewalks which would save taxpayers millions, he has asked the city to suspend some construction regulations while older neighborhoods be rebuilt so the projects get done faster and more economically. Kind of sounds like a progressive to me. In the AL’s ED Board eyes a progressive politician is someone who borrows money that has to be paid back with interest to buy monkey crappers and build roads for developers on the edge of Tea, SD. Sorry, spending taxpayer money recklessly to benefit the HAVES and special interests doesn’t make you a progressive, it makes you a big-government greedy Republican.
And Councilman Greg Jamison – saying that city employees should “fix the problem later if it becomes a problem” – definitely did residents no favors by abdicating his responsibility in holding the mayor’s budget accountable ahead of time.
Is Greg Jamison a progressive in your eyes? I could have sworn you have praised Greggo in the past for having ‘progressive’ ideas. Doing nothing but maintaining the status quo doesn’t make you a progressive. Progressives are people who encourage change and moving forward, changes and progress that affect all the citizens of a community. Kermit has done nothing but that.
Grow a f@#$ing brain already!
I favor Kermit only because he’s a man of the people. He has been getting positive media attention. He could be a good mayor. What bothers me is that Munson will be leaving a huge mess of litigation (camera case, due process, sidewalk liquor), ill will (homeless funding, infrastructure), and budget bankruptcy. It will take the new mayor at least 1 term to clean this up. He will not be popular at the end of his term. Is there a good clean-up candidate available for one term only?
Kermit introduced an amendment to get rid of the redlight cameras. Did you know the city didn’t make nay money on them. The contract with the camera company basically takes all the money made, I think it was around 300,000 dollars. We could have a cop sit there 24/7 and it would be cheaper, and legal.
There was a class action of camera tickets (Mr. W). Was there a settlement or is it pending? Go Kermit, one win for democracy. Now, how about restoring city council checks & balance structure so that the dictator mayor can be overruled.
That is still pending. I have a feeling if Kermit becomes mayor, that contract won’t be signed again.
The Argus story from a while back discussed the split in funding from those cameras. The city basically splits the revenue with the vendor (Redflex), but Redflex has to handle processing etc.
I don’t think the city is getting rich from it, but it sounded like it was at least something, and it is a heck of a lot cheaper than paying a cop to monitor that intersection 24 hours a day like the cameras can.
Then again the goal isn’t to make money as some suggest – the goal is to enforce the law and reduce red light running.
I think the next step should be to install spikes that shoot up from the road one second after the lights turn red. That way instead of paying a fine people can just be left with flat tires. The inconvenience of it would be enough to prevent people from running the light, and as a bonus Goodyear and Firestone along Minnesota Ave. would see a huge surge in business.
Damn… my “snark” tags didn’t show up.
In any case I think our next mayor will experience the same thing as our current President. It is difficult to remain popular in the public eye when you walk into the job and find yourself knee deep in $hit. Even if you manage to send a few loads off to the sewage treatment facility and buy a new set of boots, in the public eyes you still smell bad.
I’d really like to see Kermit give it a shot, but I’m not sure he can win it.
He can, if he emphasizes the positive. But we both know, the AL will continue to stab him in the back.
I heard Kermit is going to spin the wheel of justice tonight on KSFY.
Then again the goal isn’t to make money as some suggest – the goal is to enforce the law and reduce red light running.
~Costner
Enforce the Law? Reduce red light running? Not hardly. The camera is a scam, and the traffic study done to warrent the damn thing verifies that FACT. The city had to manipulate the timing of the lights at 10th & Minnesota to make it “appear” like the damn thing is actually serving it’s purpose. The city is full of dangerous controlled intersections and all they did was make a number of intersections even more dangerous than they already were with light timing manipulation.
The city of Sioux Falls is well aware of the safety improvements made by extending the yellow times at ONE 30 mph controlled intersection from 3 to 3.5 seconds. With SAFETY in mind, why are the yellow times at ALL other 30 mph intersections STILL AT 3 SECONDS? Why did the city lower the yellow times along 41st street knowing violations would go up?
I think it is funny that Costner still believes those cameras are a good thing. Like I have said in the past, if I run a redlight, I want a ticket written to me by a PO so I can contest it in traffic court, not small claims. Get a clue already Costner.
Get a clue because I don’t agree with you? Sure thing pal.
I don’t give a shit if it is a camera or a police officer – those cameras don’t issue tickets to people who know how to drive and read signs and lights. If you run a red light, it will bust you. End of story.
I’ll reserve my sympathy for those people out there who are falsely accused by an officer since it is their word against the police, and in court it seems clear who the judge will believe. At least with a camera there is photographic and video evidence proving guilt or innocence.
I’d like to see more of those cameras installed – it keeps people honest and I don’t have to sit at a green light while 10 cars cross in front of me because they all felt they could squeeze in through that yellow. 41st and Marion would be a whole different experience with a red light camera sitting on the curb.
Costner-
You seem to think that I am encouraging people to run red lights, not at all, I don’t like it either. But if I believe I am innocent, I should have the right to fight it in court.
I’m not suggesting you want people to run red lights, but you seem to feel those cameras are somehow unfair or that an office would be more worthwhile.
Let me be clear – I have no problem with allowing people to fight their citation in court – hell that should be understood and the city should be held accountable to trying to circumvent the system.
However the cameras themselves are not to blame for city policy. The cameras do exactly what they are designed to do, but it seems to be the humans who always have to screw things up.
Thus I don’t want to get rid of the cameras…they just need to change the policy so they can allow people to appeal their citations just as easily as they would appeal a speeding ticket. Honestly how hard could this be? It seems the city would rather spend tens of thousands defending itself in a lawsuit instead of just doing what is right in the first place.
I might not agree with Staggers view that the cameras should come down, but I do agree with his views on due process. I’d still vote for the guy in a heartbeat.
“Honestly how hard could this be?”
Very hard, because they would have to eliminate Home Rule.