City commission identifies goals for 2009
Commissioners prioritize goals
By Russ Morgan
Monday, March 23, 2009
Emporia City Commissioners narrowed down and prioritized their goals for the upcoming year during their second goal-setting session at the Water Treatment Plant Monday night.
Commissioners held their first goal-setting session two weeks ago, during which they discussed ideas and hopes for Emporia’s future and how they could work toward seeing those hopes fulfilled. The meetings will provide a framework for city staff to organize upcoming agendas to reflect the goals the commission deemed to be high priorities.
City manager Matt Zimmerman led the discussion of the 18 goals that were identified at the first meeting. He said the purpose was for the commission to decide which of the goals should be high priority, which should be medium and which should be low. The commission will officially adopt the goals at an upcoming action session.
One of the goals identified as high priority was property maintenance — improving and maintaining the safety and aesthetics of the city’s housing. Fred Neuer, a committee chairman of Building Futures in charge of enhancing Emporia’s housing, came to the meeting to speak to the commission about creating a citizens review board to help the city uphold its ordinances and improve housing quality.
“We have a lot of good people in this community who are willing to say, ‘We need to step up and try to help improve our housing stock,’” Neuer said.
Antonia and Stanford Felix, who also were at the meeting, have been instrumental in getting the neighborhood project going, Neuer said, and deserve the credit for getting the idea going.
Neuer said the point of a city-appointed citizens review board would be to identify problems with housing in the area and figure how to improve them.
“... We’d like to do it with a citizens review group,” Neuer said, “peers, people of that neighborhood or area who will say, ‘This particular property is not up to the ordinances that are already on the books.’”
Antonia Felix said she was happy with the response the idea received from commissioners.
“I’m pleased to hear that there is excitement and enthusiasm for learning that there are citizens who are willing to take on a lot of responsibility and do a lot of legwork to take care of some of the problems with code violations,” Felix said. “I’m really happy that they’re receptive, and I really look forward to working even more closely with the city to create more organizations that work together in that way.”
Felix said one problem is that there isn’t enough manpower in Emporia to take care of upholding the laws already on the books, and that there are a number of volunteers willing to help make their neighborhoods more beautiful, safer and up to code.
Neuer mentioned the uproar that was caused when the city was looking into a licensing requirement for landlords.
“I think the approach there might have been the problem,” Neuer said, “and anytime that you bring government up as the solution, that sometimes causes problems.”
“We’re not inventing new laws because we’re prisses who like picket fences,” Felix said. “We’re just trying to get the trash out of the front yards and maybe fix up some steps that kids are around and hazardous vehicles ... These things are very well established as illegal and it would play a huge role in bringing up the pride of the entire city. ...”
Commissioners agreed with the idea of a citizens review board, and said a pilot program for such a board might be an issue worth pursuing.
Other goals deemed to be high priority:
F City budget and finances
F City personnel
F Economic Development
F Outdoor warning sirens
Each of these, along with other, lower-priority goals, will be fleshed out with details, and city staff will look at ways the commission can pursue the goals as the year progresses. Commissioners will be discussing the city’s warning sirens at their upcoming study session Wednesday morning at 8 a.m.
create (anonymous) says...
I hope the citizens review board comes to my neighborhood first. I remember how much work went into the house across the street after the old owner passed away two years ago. New roof, lots of new plumbing, the entire place was gutted, even new windows. Trees were trimmed, bushes were cut back, the siding was scrubbed clean. A carpenter worked wonders and built a brand new front porch with a railing and turned spindles, sturdy, wide steps, and even a swing. What a darling little 2 BR cottage it became for some young couple with a baby or an older couple downsizing. Then THEY moved in with forty thousand pounds of junk and every bit of it scattered all over the yard...still! Still!!! You can't even see the cute front porch for all the cardboard boxes and a sofa that sits there rain, snow, whatever. So far there isn't a junked car in the yard, but there is a spring-summer 24-hour yard sale with stuff piled onto tables rain or shine. Oh yeah, the picture is completed with a barking dog chained to a tree.
Now what? Is this one family's view of home-sweet-home- so-the-rest-of-us-just-have-to-shut-up-and-mind-our-own-business? Has the condition of this neighboring property affected my own property value? Will the citizens review board have some kind of legal backing to get people to clean up a blighted property? Define blighted. Is there a set of standards?
I can hear it now. Standards? Standards? We don't need no stinking standards!
I would think that if the appearance of the rest of the neighborhood is neat and tidy that it would be enough of a standard to inspire people to keep their own properties tidy and in good repair.
I smell trouble. Will a citizen with a badge carry enough clout?
March 24, 2009 at 7:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mythoughts (anonymous) says...
This has to be done. People who live in junk and filth need to know it won't be tolerated. It's only gotten this bad because the city hasn't stayed on top of the existing standards.
I believe the Building Futures group has plans to help those who need help--getting them in touch with local organizations that can help bring them into compliance. And I believe that making things look better and be safer is a big step towards self-worth. Let's get in gear! : )
March 24, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I wrote this in another forum, I think the forum was about smoking or something, anyway I thought it might be relevant here since the story is about government telling people what their houses should look like. I'm not against safety and health codes for housing but we tend to over correct and go too far with these thing. Seriously who is hurt by blaze orange trim.:) Safety/health codes OK, appearance police not OK. God bless The USA!
"I've been to Germany a couple of times, once for two and a half years while I was in the................oh yeah I can't mention that. Sorry. Anyway while I was in Germany I noticed that the buildings and the houses were all very similar in color. It kinda looked nice but something about it just didn't set right with me. I asked a German national why all the buildings and houses are painted the same, he said it was the law. In contrast when I drive around Emporia I see all kinds of different colors on houses and buildings. Would I live in a purple house with blaze orange trim? NO! Do I throw up in my mouth a little at the sight of it? Yeah, a little. But as I hold back the vomit I am reminded how fortunate I am to live in a country where you can live in a purple and orange house if you want to. It is indeed our right to live in such a house until a law says otherwise. Then and only then does it cease to be a right."
March 24, 2009 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
create (anonymous) says...
A purple and orange house is a matter of taste, but did you read what is across the street from me? It won't be long before rats populate all that junk if they haven't already. And I do mean junk! Junk is not a matter of taste.
March 24, 2009 at 1:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I totally agree with health and safety codes but I also feel that we can take them to far sometimes and start telling people what color their house needs to be and what roofing materials they have to use because of the appearance........... that sort of thing. The town I was in in Germany was Oberboinigan (I probably spelled that wrong) and it looked really nice and uniform but it was almost too sanitized if that makes sense. It lacked personality. I just hope that isn't the direction we're heading. I say let's clean it up but keep the vomit inducing colors because this is America and we can.
Oh and vote NO on the ban please. Thank you.
March 24, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
crack
I said
"I totally agree with health and safety code"
I also said
"I'm not against safety and health codes for housings"
Government looking out for our health and safety IS good. Like I said above. People taking responsibility for themselves is better. The government and free market principles have already made it very easy for people with common sense such as my self to avoid shs so I don't see a need for the ban. I do not defend shs/smoking in fact I don't smoke at all. Unlike yourself I don't defend alcohol and am not a drinker at all. I do however believe that part of living in a free society is putting up with things that I do not agree with like Purple houses with orange trim, smoking, and drinking. There are going to be dangers in a free society, if the government made it perfectly safe we all no doubt would lose something that we like. You fail to see the bigger picture because you so desperately want to go to bars and not have to smell the smoke. I think that is pathetic but this is America and I have to put up with it even though it is ludicrous.
It's funny how in my original post on this thread how in my quote I couldn't even mention that I was in Germany in the Army because it offends you and I was trying not to do so. Perhaps you are just too sensitive and you are your own problem.
March 24, 2009 at 2:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I have never put smoke in your lungs. I don't smoke. You miss a lot crack.
March 24, 2009 at 2:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
By being so bull headed and going into places that ALLOW smoking you are putting the smoke into your own lungs. I don't go there and I have no problems. I have suggested you do the same. Why not just listen to me, a fellow citizen, and avoid it yourself and you won't need the government to protect you in this case. That's one less thing they have to do. They can then focus on more urgent matters like the economy. You now have the information and you have the power to avoid shs so from this moment further anymore exposier you have to shs is on you.
Vote NO please. Thank you.
March 24, 2009 at 6:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seriouslyfolks (anonymous) says...
I'm sorry that this got so far off topic.
March 24, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )