I was Councilor Staggers guest for the first segment of ‘Inside Town Hall’ for the May edition. We talked about the upcoming vote on snowgates, how they work, and the petition drive. Stehly was supposed to do the show, but had a conflicting appointment.
It should start airing on CityLink on Monday or Tuesday. Not sure when it will be online.
I will admit, I was blindsided a little bit ago. During the LIVE meeting of the SF City Council informational meeting, councilor Staggers questioned why he could not access certain ‘blogs’ on his city computer. He iterated that it was perfectly acceptable for the administration to block certain sites from city employees. And I agree. While I would love it that people read my blog, I would prefer they DID NOT do it on the taxpayers dime. However, he brought up the topic of ‘research’ and they should be able to access it for that. He also reminded the ADMINISTRATION they are welcome to block their employee’s internet access, but they have NO RIGHT to block elected officials. And he is right.
I will also say this. Kermit and I had a splendid convo today about tonight’s city council meeting’s agenda. He never once brought up blocking blogs. (We were not in cahoots on this) Like I said before, people will still read my site. They will just have to do it with their morning coffee at the breakfast table or with their end of the day night cap.
I think they referred to my sites as ‘MSN’ and ‘Hotmail’, LOL!
Councilor Staggers grilled Darrin about the groundbreaking deadline and how it is nearing (FF 44:00). He asked if a contract has been signed yet on naming rights. Darrin told him he hopes to have one before the groundbreaking ceremony. Darrin also said to just ‘trust him’ because basically everything is being handled just fine by him.
I am wondering why the council has not been let in on these negotiations? At least before the public knows. We are a month away from groundbreaking and SOME councilors don’t have a clue who is being considered. This is uncalled for, especially for an administration that calls itself ‘open’ and ‘transparent’ and has launched a Facebook page (8 people as of today ‘LIKE’ the events center).
Huether basically backs up Darrin by saying negotiations are taking a long time because they want the best value for the citizens. I would agree about the value, but I think these negotiations could go a lot better if there was more transparency. The mayor seemed uncertain about whether or not a naming contract would be singed before August 30 but they were shooting for it.
Oh, boy.
Beware citizens of Sioux Falls with the final reading of a proposed ordinance at this Tuesday’s City Council meeting, the Sioux Falls Water Department wishes to increase water rates by 3% in 2013 and another 3% in 2014. Presented as bargain-basement rate increases in comparison to previous years of double-digit increases, these rate increases are justified as necessary to pay off the Water Department’s debt in a shorter time frame. These rate increases are actually part of a larger Department strategy to continue a policy of sustainability in which consumers get less water while at the same time paying more for the water. Wrapped in the cloak of conservation, the Department portrays itself as taking the moral high ground while at the same time the Department allows water to be wasted by going down the river system to the Gulf of Mexico to be mingled with salt water.
During the 1990s the Water Department operated under a different, pro-consumer philosophy of processing a lot of water for a cheap price for consumers, but since that time the Department has instituted an anti-consumer policy of sustainability by charging higher prices for less water. This is quite evident in the fact that with the additional water coming from the Lewis and Clark pipeline in a few weeks and increased production capability of the water plant, the Water Department will reduce the amount of water processed from the city’s traditional water sources instead of producing more water to be sold at lower prices
Because of the abundance of water available to the city because of the Lewis and Clark pipeline, it is foolish for the Water Department to continue its anti-consumer policy of selling expensive water when additional water is readily available. By returning to a pro-consumer policy of the past, the Water Department would be imitating successful businesses in the private sector that make large profits by selling products and services to consumers at cheap prices. The Water Department could actually make more money by reducing the price of water instead of increasing the price. In terms of real conservation, the salty Gulf of Mexico would have less of our precious fresh water.
(While I agree with Kermit on the issue of supply and demand, I also think that SF water consumers should be awarded for conservation, currently they are not – DL).
l3wis 