Reply to a comment

Reply to this comment

ajm3s writes:

in response to marcofriend:

Mr Pinter says that the condition of some sidewalks is so bad that it could be dangerous to children if the City doesn't do something now. I'd have to ask if they are so dangerous for children, what about all the missing sidewalks that the City doesn't force the owners to put in until they build on their lot? Everytime they mention "danger to childred", the City Council throws money at it-----like those must have bicycle paths that are so infrequently used.

This City has to quit using the Obama idea of throwing money that we don't have at everything.

It is also clear that the Parks and Recs Committee is still working very hard behind the scenes to put up the Mackle Park Taj Mahal without a referendum. Of course it is "almost free" because it will pay for itself, probably like the Racquet Ball facility does.

To continue on your point, the City and Council do not understand the term: PRIORITIES.

If you read this article they discuss, such concerns as city logos on shirts, when in fact, they add to the list of misplaced expenditures, some under the prodding of matching grants.

Consider the fact, we have expanded the width of some roadways to create bike paths, yet we have to walk in the street where no sidewalks exists.

Now what would the folks consider to be a higher priority, putting in sidewalks and maintaining existing sidewalks or creating a bicycle path.

I am not against bicyclists, but I had to walk before I could ride a bike, so continuing on this simple mindset, I would have expected we would have finished the laying out of sidewalks on all streets before we should embark on a bicycle path network.

So let's break the city mindset of spending on things that do not address the basic needs of a city.

And in some cases that address basic needs, as in water and sewer, they create overcapacity. And I am supposed to now feel confident in management of a budget.

We have a very serious management problem because they have lost sight of fundamentals. So if the past, is our guide, I expect very little change. The Taj Mahal will be constructed and bike paths expanded, fountains created, the finest grasses in our soccer fields.

Is it fair to say management is weak when they cater to every special interest that can speak before the Council with 100 while a petition signed by over 1000 residents calling for a referendum on such a project is considered a threat to the power of Council.

Why?

Share your thoughts

Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.

Comments can be shared on Facebook and Yahoo!. Add both options by connecting your profiles.

Features