It seems the local politicians only bother to speak to themselves these days. It's amusing to see Ron Fong and Lauren Hammond furiously backpedaling only now. It never occurred to them at all that there was any serious opposition to this boondoggle. An 84% - 16% vote says everything that needs to be said on that matter!
Better lighting is unlikely to affect the crime rate in Land Park and Curtis Park, because most of the crime there isn't street crime. Perusal of the Sac PD crime maps show most of the crime in those neighborhoods is larceny/theft and burglary, not assaults, and thus not greatly affected by street lighting. And we are supposed to pay $32/month extra - at a minimum - for a problem that isn't really there? Hello? Anyone home?
Street lighting, in this context, is strictly an amenity. The only possible value to the community of this project, apart from the lighting itself, is something to increase property values. The project is simply too costly for property owners to voluntarily submit to an increased assessment for this purpose.
Clueless, clueless, clueless:
Jason Hill was confident that Land Park and Curtis Park residents would approve a $10 million plan to install 780 streetlights in dark sections of both neighborhoods.
...In mid-November, property owners in both areas received ballots asking them to say "Yes" or "No" to the question by Jan. 3.
..."It was a tough situation; it was difficult," Hill said last week when asked how he felt during the vote count. "There were a lot more 'No' votes than 'Yes' votes.
...The results, officially announced at the City Council meeting on Jan. 8, showed that the plan was over-whelmingly rejected.
About 84 percent of the 1,315 ballots returned to City Hall opposed creation of an assessment district to pay for the lights, city staff members said.
About 66 percent of the ballots were completed and returned.
...Only one resident, Linda Boudier, addressed the council on the lighting plan on Jan. 8.
"This procedure was seriously flawed," Boudier, a Land Park resident, told the council, referring to the mail-in ballot procedure.
"If this issue is revisited in the future, I hope it will be a more inclusive process, involving the public" and the taxpayer who would have to pay for any new lights, she added.
Council members didn't respond to her remarks, although city officials had earlier said they followed the law in the balloting.
The day before, Councilwoman Lauren Hammond had apologized, via e-mail, for referring to the plan's opponents as "little protesters" who had been misled.
..."I meant to describe the protesters as a small but vocal group," Hammond told The Bee last week. "Obviously, I was wrong since the measure was defeated."
According to Hammond, the results indicated that like many Americans, a growing number of Land Park and Curtis Park residents have become victims of tough economic times. "The economy is so bad that people are afraid to spend an extra $37 a month for safety," she said.
According to the city, most of the lights would serve areas without streetlights, but some would replace non-ornamental lights.
If the plan had been approved by a simple majority, and then by the City Council, a typical property owner would have had the option of paying $4,940 up front, according to documents that all property owners received with their ballots.
Those preferring an installment plan would have been assessed about $380 a year for 30 years. Including interest, the long-term bill for a typical property would have totaled more than $11,000, the ballot attachment said.
The pay-as-you-go payment plan would have been about $32 a month, according to Hill, who maintained that the lights were needed to help reduce crime.
"Everyone would like to have streetlights, but I think there was some sticker shock," City Councilman Rob Fong, who represents Land Park, said after the proposed assessment died.
..."You must understand that this was not a city process per se," Fong said.
The proponents, he pointed out, had shown evidence of community support for the assessment by collecting 1,100 signatures on pro-light petitions.
The process began in October 2006, when the petitions were delivered to City Hall, Fong said.
"The city gets involved only if there's a successful election," Fong said. "(For instance), the city would have directed its engineers to help" install the lights.
With so much at stake, the proponents enjoyed an unfair advantage, said Craig Powell, the opposition's top leader.
"They knew exactly when the election was coming" and distributed campaign literature well in advance, he said. "The first we heard about it is when the ballots arrived on Nov. 15."
No comments:
Post a Comment