Tuesday, June 19, 2007
A poor precedent for the public
You could have knocked me over with a feather. The majority of Lakewood City Council members last night decided to backpeddle on our previous decisions to place flashing yellow lights in school zone enforcement zones along major roadways. The road in question is 108th, where it connects busy Bridgeport and the mall. The council voted 5-2 not to put up flashing lights by St. Frances Cabrini School.
If you'd like some context, The News Tribune had a good story on the topic recently.
The News Trib published a thoughtful letter about the topic today.
I don't mean to be over-dramatic - really, I don't. But the precedent is scary.
What I find extremely frustrating is that people got so distracted about what should be the core issue. According to a council policy approved last year, the city's employees should put flashing yellow lights on major roads. There should be no question about it. There should not be a debate unless someone wants to revisit the original question. A council majority approved the school zone policy specifically because the police had committed to enforcement only at such times when children are actually likely to be around. That's why there are flashing warning lights on 112th, or Gravelly Lake, or Bridgeport, etc...
But instead of doing that with 108th, the city's own managers came up with reasons not to put up flashing lights as discussed in the TNT story. They tried, with what I am sure are the best of intentions, to cloak it as a debate about the daylong speeding problems on 108th. At the end of the debate, only Councilwoman Helen McGovern and I voted for consistency with the original policy.
I spent a good chunk of Saturday afternoon walking on 108th, knocking on doors there and nearby roads. Without exception, the people on 108th told me that they did not understand why the city did not put flashing yellow lights on their school zone. People expect it. We made them a promise. Our failure to be consistent undermines our public policy.
The neighbors also expect the city to do something about how their road has become a speedway. That's understood, and a separate question from the council policy about flashing lights.
The good news is that I don't think this has implications for the other roads. I don't think staff will dismantle the existing flashing yellow lights on major roads. But the sad part is that now the city staff know they can. That's a poor example for new and junior city staff who watch their elders.
What the junior employees have learned is that all city staff have to do is categorize the roadway by a particular term in order to circumvent council policy - the policy set by the people that YOU elect.
So there you go. Today's lesson: if you define the term regardless of reality, you have the power. Not the taxpayers or the public. Is that heady and empowering? You bet. Is it good government? No.
It's a sad day for accountability and responsibility in government.
Forward this post
If you'd like some context, The News Tribune had a good story on the topic recently.
The News Trib published a thoughtful letter about the topic today.
I don't mean to be over-dramatic - really, I don't. But the precedent is scary.
What I find extremely frustrating is that people got so distracted about what should be the core issue. According to a council policy approved last year, the city's employees should put flashing yellow lights on major roads. There should be no question about it. There should not be a debate unless someone wants to revisit the original question. A council majority approved the school zone policy specifically because the police had committed to enforcement only at such times when children are actually likely to be around. That's why there are flashing warning lights on 112th, or Gravelly Lake, or Bridgeport, etc...
But instead of doing that with 108th, the city's own managers came up with reasons not to put up flashing lights as discussed in the TNT story. They tried, with what I am sure are the best of intentions, to cloak it as a debate about the daylong speeding problems on 108th. At the end of the debate, only Councilwoman Helen McGovern and I voted for consistency with the original policy.
I spent a good chunk of Saturday afternoon walking on 108th, knocking on doors there and nearby roads. Without exception, the people on 108th told me that they did not understand why the city did not put flashing yellow lights on their school zone. People expect it. We made them a promise. Our failure to be consistent undermines our public policy.
The neighbors also expect the city to do something about how their road has become a speedway. That's understood, and a separate question from the council policy about flashing lights.
The good news is that I don't think this has implications for the other roads. I don't think staff will dismantle the existing flashing yellow lights on major roads. But the sad part is that now the city staff know they can. That's a poor example for new and junior city staff who watch their elders.
What the junior employees have learned is that all city staff have to do is categorize the roadway by a particular term in order to circumvent council policy - the policy set by the people that YOU elect.
So there you go. Today's lesson: if you define the term regardless of reality, you have the power. Not the taxpayers or the public. Is that heady and empowering? You bet. Is it good government? No.
It's a sad day for accountability and responsibility in government.
