Article Contributed on: 10/5/2007 11:41:01 PM
Here is an update on some recent decisions and other activities by the Town Council and Town staff, along with my comments and thoughts:
At an early September joint meeting with the Planning Commission, all six of my colleagues indicated a willingness to expend tens of millions of taxpayer dollars to build five parking garages in the core of downtown for the benefit of developers. They also indicated an agreement with the Downtown Advisory Commission's and Town Manager's recommendation that no user fee be imposed to recoup the costs.
I argued, unsuccessfully, that if the developers need parking garages to make their projects profitable, then they should take the risk themselves and recoup the costs in the rents they charge tenants or the sale price of the buildings.
I also argued, unsuccessfully, that parking garages should be kept out of the core of downtown so that pedestrians, bicyclists, and mass transit can be the main transportation alternatives there and that, if the taxpayer was going to bear the cost of building parking garages for the benefit of private developers, the people who park in those garages should pay for that privilege and reimburse the taxpayers.
Of course, despite the free-spending attitude reflected in that amazing decision, the Town government, led by Town Manager
Mark Stevens and abetted by several ardently pro-tax hike members of the Council, continues to plot ways to convince a majority of voters to authorize a tax increase.
Last Tuesday, at a special meeting at which comments from the "Leadership Advisory Group" (consisting mostly of former Council members) was taken, several members of that group and one member of the Town Council indicated in various ways that the public is "like a 4 1/2 year old" when it comes to being able to make choices, that members of the public "aren't smart," and that people will have to "face the consequences" if they don't give Town Hall more money.
They urged Council to design a campaign for the approval of a tax increase aimed primarily at those who are most likely to support it (read: downtown business interests) and to, in effect, ignore those in the community that either oppose it or aren't sure it's needed.
Needless to say, I was and am very offended by these remarks. People in this community work hard and have the right to expect their government to spend money wisely and to meet the most important needs first before sticking its hand out.
They also have the right to expect their local government to avoid wasting money on high-priced political admen who traffic in deceptive and destructive soundbites and instead to mount a comprehensive, thoughtful, honest and broad-based conversation about whether Town Hall actually does need more revenue.
One can make the case that it does, but here are some reasons to doubt the Stevens Administration's commitment to the fiscal restraint needed to justify it:
1. When the local government puts itself on course to give a tens-of-millions-of-dollars subsidy to wealthy developers, paid for by the sales taxes and property taxes people here pay, then it's more difficult to take seriously claims of financial difficulty.
2. When the local government can keep not only the necessary Town Manager and probably necessary Assistant Town Manager on the payroll, but also a Deputy Town Manager who seems mostly to coordinate production of a taxpayer-financed glossy propaganda magazine (
Outlook) and television show ("Castle Rock View") that could and should be paid for by the Chamber of Commerce, realtors, or Castle Rock Economic Development Council, and who oversees a human resources operation that itself has a director, then it's hard to take claims of financial difficulties seriously. It becomes even harder when the salary being paid to that Deputy Town Manager could be used to pay for the several police officers that the Town needs now but does not have.
3. When the local government almost routinely issues contracts without seeking competitive bids, and therefore pays out tens of thousands of dollars or more per year more than it might otherwise have to, it's hard to take claims of financial difficulties seriously.
4. When the Town Council votes itself a pay raise, as it did during the meeting on April 10 just before I was sworn in as a member, and considers buying its members fancy new laptop computers, instead of asking them to use their own, when financial times are tough, it's hard to take claims of financial difficulty seriously.
And it's too bad, too, because there
are things this community needs.
First of all, we could use a real traffic calming policy that actually reassures people that their children are not at risk of being mowed down by racing vehicles on quiet residential streets and the streets near schools
Unfortunately, the policy now under consideration by the Council is likely to be ineffective at best. That proposal would excuse the Town staff from even discussing traffic calming steps with a neighborhood plagued by unsafe speeding vehicles unless the streets have an average of at least 500 cars per day moving over them AND the average speed they are traveling is 32 miles per hour.
It always seemed to me that a speed limit was just that, a limit, and so I can't understand why we wouldn't calm traffic if the average speed on a residential street, no matter the number of cars driving on it each day, exceeds that threshold. Since the residential street speed limit is 25 miles per hour, that should be the real limit.
This community lost a child to a tragic accident last year when a car hit him on a street in the Meadows. There were cars parked on both sides of the street, as I recall, and the police concluded the driver wasn't going more than 25 mph. But it's hard to see how he wasn't going too fast for the conditions, since he couldn't see a kid darting out from behind a park car fast enough to stop before a collision.
I fear it will take another one of our children being killed by a reckless driver before our Town Council, Town Manager, and Police Chief take the safety of our residential streets more seriously than they do now and more seriously than the poor excuse for a policy proposed by the Public Works Department last week would permit.
BTW, the Council will vote on that traffic calming policy on Tuesday, October 23 at 6 pm at Town Hall, 100 N. Wilcox St., Castle Rock. PLEASE come and express your views on this matter during the public hearing on the proposal. If the public doesn't participate in this discussion and let their feelings be known, then this town is likely to be saddled with this deeply flawed and obviously ineffective attempt to protect the safety of residential streets for a long time.
The Town Council also recently gave the staff the power to condemn a privately-owned parcel near the Walgreens downtown even though staff conceded there is still a chance for a negotiated purchase of the land and that condemnation authority is not yet needed. My colleagues rejected my argument that the government shouldn't take private property unless absolutely necessary, preferring instead to give the staff the anvil of condemnation authority to hold over the head of the private landowner during negotiations.
On the positive side, the Town recently celebrated the opening of the Mitchell Gulch Trail, which connects Mitchell Gulch open space to Gateway Mesa open space. The trail is beautiful, but rugged in parts, and it is a wonderful addition to the Town's recreational facilities. The Parks & Recreation Department and the Parks & Recreation Commission deserve lots of credit for making it happen, as do the private landowners who donated easements over which the new trail passes.
The Town Council also recently approved changes to Castle Rock's snow removal policy. As of now, plows will go on all residential streets, no matter the actual or anticipated snowfall, during all storms between November 1 and March 1. Between October 15 and October 31, and between March 1 and April 15, plows will go on residential streets if the anticipated snowfall is 8 inches or more. I thank the Public Works Department for its excellent work on this proposal and look forward to a far more effective and efficient snow removal policy starting this winter.
Contact me at
hlacey@crgov.com if you have questions or concerns.