Posted by under_score (anonymous) on March 13, 2008 at 1:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yes, let's forget about making any cuts to any programs. God knows we can't afford to stop street rehabiliation for a year. Emporia is rolling in money right now and if we need to make up for a drop in revenue we can easily do what we do every time we need more money. Raise property taxes of the few people who are actually stupid enough to still be living inside city limits.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on March 13, 2008 at 4:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ok, if there was any good time to say this...it is now.
STOP THE SPECIAL PROGRAMS NOW and worry about funding the city infrastructure. no more beautification programs, no more pretty banners, no more special funding of programs or issues that we don't ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO HAVE!!! budget like you are in the real world...not like steve commons is still around.
please commissioners, do the right thing and keep city services reletively untouched and stop funding your friends special programs. most of all MR NELSON....stop worrying about how our interstate entrances are until we figure out if we can keep the streetlights on in town...ok? hard to see all the pretty billboards and flowers without lights...right?

Posted by ozland (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 7:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Emporia wake up!
Hanlin and the commissioners need to go. I call for an audit of all money(s) spent since Zimmerman came to town.
When you look at the South side of Emporia. Little Mexico, as the locals call it-you can see that the commissioners have no interest in funding any street rehab.
I wonder if that is because there are low income and ethnic folks on that side of town. They don't count.
People lets organize and have town hall conversation on these issues. Keep in mind that the commissioners are better off keeping us dumb.
FREE EMPORIA FROM THE CHAINS OF FOOLS!

Posted by create (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 8:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Ozland, if you want a meeting, you have to be the one to organize it. You can't say "let's." There's a lot more involved than you think, believe me. The "let's" turns out to be only one or two. Talk is cheap.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 8:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I think most of us are trying to figure out how to make the best of what is bound to be a difficult budget situation for the city. I will agree with the posters above to the extent that we need to be extra careful with the money we are spending in the coming years. That means we have to look at the budget in slices: what we must do, what we should do and what we can do.

The musts are simple. We need to upkeep our infrastructure while providing essential city services (fire, police, ect.). What is left over in the budget then goes to what we should do and what we can do. "Shoulds" are economic development projects that, over time, get us out of our current mess. Organizations and projects that demonstrate a high return on taxpayer investment dollars fall into this category. However, the projects and organizations must be conscious of our current situation, and spend accordingly. If we ignore what we should do, we will exist in this crisis state in perpetuity.

The left overs from "Must" and "Should" go into "Can". These are your quality of life projects. These projects need to figure out how they can maximize their economic development potential, because, although important, in times of crisis they are a luxury.

I will also agree with the poster that stated we have a disproportionate amount of infrastructure dollars going to the west side of town. We need to focus on our core, and evenly distribute funds to other areas whenever possible. In the future, I would like to see districts emerge for city commission elections so the public has representatives that live in areas more evenly distributed throughout the city. I think that would solve a lot of problems, both real and perceptual.

Finally, I will say that I don't agree with a lot that comes out of the commission, but I do agree with their assessment of our entrances and corridors. If we had focused our development efforts on maintaining and improving existing infrastructure instead of making an over-extended push west, I don't think we would have some of the eye sore problems we see today. But if we are truly going to ever capitalize on the highway system traveling by and through Emporia, entrances and corridors will go a long way on enticing visitors into the city. Of course, you have to give them something to do once they get here, but that is a private development issue that I think our local restaurant owners, retailers and other venues would be happy to take care of.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momus

I'd appreciate your insight in a couple of things.

What about reductions in force? I wonder how much administrative duplication is taking place down at city hall. I also wonder how many unnecessary labor $'s we're spending. I also wonder how many of the unproductive $'s are management or analytical/support staff.

Is there any value for the city to look at consolidating within city departments, developing economies of scale.

Would be developing self-managed teams and eliminating large chunks of management overhead be worthwhile?

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 10:35 a.m. (Suggest removal)

netloafer, if you would pay attention, that is what the wage and job study is and was for. the city took enough time to get somebody who knew what they were doing to tell the city that they had inflated a lot of titles and had created jobs where they weren't needed.
NOW...if you get the commission to act on that appropriately so that they cut the duplication seen by the already completed study, maybe that would be a nice start.
as far as beautification....what land do you propose the city buy to plant flowers on and put up signs on?? most of the land around the "entrances" is privately owned? do we need another lesson in purchasing land? or was the water park enough for everybody?
if we want to beautify, start by asking businesses to do their fair share.
ask bungee to clean up their streetside mess
ask the car lots to put something other than balloons and banners along the street
ask all the property owners along us hwy 50 and hwy 99, as well as i-35 to cut back their weeds and do some much needed edging so that we don't have hayfields hanging over the curbs.....
if you want a grass roots effort, start with the roots and every citizen start in their own yard/backyard.
then, maybe we can convince the others that it needs to be done

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 11:24 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dhc66.

Thanks. I'm not in the loop, so it helps that we have people who have dug through the details, have become enlightened, and can instruct the rest of us.

Momus

I'd still appreciate your insight into the questions I asked.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 12:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dhc66

I didn't make any proposal(s) regarding beautification. I didn't recommend the city buy land to plant flowers, build water parks, etc. So, I'm not sure why you're asking me that particular question.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 1:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Netloafer,

Consolidation is generally a good thing. I think they have had some problems merging the cultures of the city and the county together. We have this absurd "enemy" competition between county and city, when we all need to realize that we have a symbiotic relationship. I guess I'm saying, we should go down the consolidation path, but we need buy in from the current employees of both parties to make it work (unfortunatley).

As far as beautification goes, it's a public private partnership. Businesses and private individuals need to partner with the city to get things done. Fundraising, design, planning and integration are all things that can be done privatley. But, the city needs involvement so that we can produce a cohesive look and strategy instead of the hodge podge that occurs when no one is talking.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 2:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry about the double post Netloafer,

Consolidation within departments may have to happen. I think most Emporians have heard over the years "if it wasn't for business X, we would have a significantly lower workload" coming from certian departments. Well, things have come to pass that allow us a view into that senario. If we have a reduction in workload, that should lead to a reduction in work force (in theory). However, we aren't sure how much the work load will be effected in the short and intermediate terms, and I don't know to many people that stand up and say "my job has become expendable".

I think I understand the organizational structure you are suggesting, and I support organic work environments as long as the values of the organization are clear and free of concentrated influence. A reorganization must be initiated from within, otherwise we are inviting one of our beloved consultants into Emporia for another round of expenditures.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 3:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Momus

Thanks

The reason I asked the question was that I spent a good part of my last 16 years of professional life in staff/management positions, either as a process engineer or an engineering manager.

The corporation I worked for was highly succesful because unproductive labor wasn't rewarded. What usually happened was that once labor became unproductive in a business segment or unit, innovation and competition had already driven the company to open new ventures. This made room to move the unproductive labor from unprofitable ventures to those that would create profit.

The other thing I saw toward the end of my time was the development of self managed teams. What that development did effectively was to consolidate four or five workgroups under one manager whose sole responsibility to the units was administrative (pay, benefits, services, etc) rather than tactical or strategic. It worked. Employee buy in to the plan was twofold - employee autonomy and a greater share of the profit in the form of economic performance objectives in addition to base salaries. The hurdle was getting the four out of five managers to buy in.

Of course, that was in the private sector. Do you think those types of applications could work in the public sector? The difficulty I see is that there is no profit objective in the public sector, nor is there any real efficiency or productivity incentive at any point in the chain, from city commissioner, to city manager, to front line employee, etc. In addition the public sector has the double edged sword to present to the citizen. In order to keep the status quo or improve things the powers that be can rattle the sabre by talking of reductions in service to relieve the tax burden or to increase taxes to maintain services. Our city leaders do both of these with great skill!

Your thoughts?

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 3:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

netloafer, I hope a few of the smarter folks who visit here will respond to your post. How can the public sector buy into the private sector ideas you discuss? Very very interesting.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

ok, first off, what would you eliminate? the firemen for not going to a fire every minute of every day? or would it be the police officers for not stopping every motorist...
for those departments, there is accepted down time that is just a fact of life. you can't very well send all the firemen home just because there isn't an ambulance run or a fire.
you can't very well send the cops home if there isn't an accident or a murder, and all they are doing is stopping traffic offenders or patrolling the streets.

as for the other departments, they stay fairly busy. from what i understand, a lot of the "line level" jobs that most citizens see like street and water departments, they all have second and third jobs they do on their down times.

lastly, the city just accepted a survey done by a company which recommended the elimination of some jobs/departments and the consolidation of some others within the city. wait a little longer and i'm sure the gazette will dig a little deeper to see what the study said...or at least i hope they do so the taxpayers know the job is being done right. from the story i read, it said that pay scales needed adjusting and categories had been suggested to trim the number of "positions" within the city structure.

let zimmerman continue to dig us out from under what commons took 20 years to bury us under. it may take some time, but from what i see, there are already good results all over. net, i doubt a company could fix problems created by 20 years of bad management in the short time zimmerman has been here.

oh, and PS..
if you consolidate, you have to pay for startup costs which, according to riley county can take years to make up. if i remember the article right, the riley county law enforcement (jointly city and county) is 20 years old and just barely seeing the end of paying back their startup costs. their public safety manager right now even said something along the lines of "don't do it to save money, because ultimately it doesn't do that" . lastly, who would be in charge and how do you divide the pay in from city/county government and residents and how do you divide the workforce and workload? ultimately somebody would cry foul and say that the city/county is getting more services than them.

Posted by wtrdog (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 10:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

dhcc66, You seem to have a very firm grasp of the matters at hand.

My viewpoint may be from a different direction as I am one of the "front line" workers for the City. I have seen a lot of changes in the last 5-6 years I have been employed at Public Works. We continue to endure work force cuts, However more is expected of us as a whole. We are typically spread pretty thin. I can vouch that my dept. stays very busy & we have very little down time.
I can honestly tell you that we do have a crisis although it can't be seen. The main infrastructure of the city is past its life expectancy. I am speaking of sewer (sanitary & storm), & water mains. They all suffer from low maintenance standards & of course age. For far to long the idea was expansion, Not to maintain the core of the city. This is true of the streets, Buildings, Sidewalks etc. However, Its those out of sight out of mind problems that will do the most damage, Financially & structurally if left ignored. I have personally seen water line still in use that the year is stamped 1882. This is true for the majority of the utility core of the City, Sewer & water lines ranging in age from 100-130 years old that have been mostly unmaintained with the exception of patchwork repairs. The City streets are lined with patches from repairs made to water & sewer lines. I hear complaints all the time rough streets, A lot can be contributed to residual damage from previous water or sewer line problems.
Fact is we do not have the workforce to maintain & repair the Cities core utilities. All the departments at Public Works have dwindled down to a skeleton crew. Standard policy as of late has been not to fill a position when someone leaves. Roughly half of the workforce remains that was in place 5-6 years ago when I started.
I am aware that there are many problems the City faces. I am merely pointing out my experiences with what what most people never see or think about until they themselves have a problem.

I have not seen the restructuring part of the mentioned survey. There were salary adjustments for every hourly job title employed by the City. The "cutbacks" or elimination of jobs was not explained to us that I know of at this point. From a wage standpoint, Just about everyone (with only a few exceptions) were underpaid according to the survey. Now its up to the commission, City Manager, & others to take some sort of action on it or push it aside.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on March 14, 2008 at 10:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wtrdog,

Infrastructure falls under the items that must be addressed within the budget as does fire and police mentioned by dhc66. The question is: where can we consolidate? If we have less revenue, how do we prioritize potential cuts? Where will workload decrease to the point where natural cuts are justified?

We over reached to the west, to the detriment of our existing infrastructure. That problem will haunt us for years, and I hope we learned a lesson here. Take care of what you have, and let development occur naturally.

To netloafer's earlier comments: I truly believe that we have some outstanding government employees that represent our city. The problem we have before us is how to judge the effectiveness of individual departments to identify efficiency. In the business world, you can look at a department’s bottom line and judge the value of a department in dollars and cents. However, the government generally provides services which the private sector deems unprofitable, so what measure do you use? Individuals like the gentleman listed above that are making an outdated system continually function aren't rewarded in a government setting. You don't get more funding for doing more with less. So, where is the incentive to encourage efficiency without eroding our infrastructure? Adam Smith's models break down without universal motivators and judgment mechanisms. That's why I suggested budget prioritization while searching for traditional areas of efficiency. I consider myself a fairly educated person, but attempting to apply a traditional business management model to government spending has me fairly perplexed. It's not like we have great options here, it's like we are searching out the option that is the least detrimental in the short, intermediate and long term future of Emporia. It's best to avoid being forced into a position where those types of decisions must be made, but now that we are here, what do we do? Because we obviously have city employees on the board, where do we have areas that we can find efficiency without leaving us in a much worse position in the future?

Posted by wtrdog (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 12:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I know for one I am happy not to be one of the "decision makers". There are tasked with with a burden of choice between the lesser of evils.
I do not consider myself an "educated man", But I consider myself a logical one. Logic tells me that if we are faced with an unknown loss of revenues at this time, Then it is not the right time to talk of beautification projects. Its time we step away from the ignorant thought process that has plagued this City for two decades. Expansion & beautification is something to be thought of when revenues are good, Not when you're scraping pennies.
Emporia is not a tourist attraction, What magnetism do we have to bring people into town? What do we have to offer someone once they exit the highway?
Hypothetically speaking, What if we did something to the entrances to town? Would that somehow distract people from the lack of entertainment venues, The bumpy streets, Or the number of other problems this city has? If you had no ties (family,business, etc) to Emporia & visited, What would bring you back to town again? There are no easy solutions or quick answers, But I believe these are the things that the City Gov & Commission should keep in mind when the topic of beautification comes up.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 7:18 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momus

Thanks. I agree with you that our real problem is one of prioritization, since traditional economic modeling doesn't account well for municipal organizations. I also agree with you that our government's primary responsibilities to us are in the areas of public safety and necessary infrastructure. And I suspect if someone did the spreadsheets they'd find a lot of savings to be had in other areas, including redundant staff, capital outlays, etc.

I also agree with you about the neglect of our core. My wife and I bought an old Victorian close to downtown about nine years ago now. During that time we've seen over and over the headlong rush west while downtown deteriorates. Every time I mention it in polite conversation with the commissioners they tell me that I'm being too negative. I try to tell them that I probably care as much about this city as they do, but they always respond that they're life-long Emporians and that couldn't be true. They tell me that being negative doesn't help. I tell them that we have to face reality if we're ever going to get where we all say we want to go, that denial is not a good option. I recently had a discussion with someone at the covention and visitors bureau about this and it went the same way.

This city has some very serious problems, and they aren't going to magically disappear by denying them. Professor Catlett's best-case model is telling us that the loss of Tyson is going to have an 8% economic impact (best case). I think his model is also telling us once again we've got to start the long march toward fixing what's broken.

One last Saturday morning peeve. In the past year the city has commissioned two independent studies . They cost megabucks and there is going to be no action taken on either study. If the commissioners are so interested in throwing thousands of dollars away I suggest we put them on a float later today at the St. Patrick's day parade. They can toss money to us all the way down Commercial Street. It'll be appropriate for the day. Some of us will be "wearin' the green." The commissioners will be "throwin' the green."

Posted by momus (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 8:27 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Wtrdog,

When it comes to entrances and corridor projects, I look to the city for zoning regs and authorization. But you are absolutely right, we need to figure out how to get private money (or at least money from outside the Emporia tax rolls) flowing into projects that don't have an obvious infrastructure or economic development slant. We probably can't get a public group together to fix a water main, but we CAN get people together to fix some of our other more aesthetic problems without increasing the tax burden on the public.

I respect your opinion and perspective, but I will respectfully disagree with you on one point. I believe that we do have some entertainment options quickly coming on-line with the Granada Theatre and an Arts Council expansion. We also have a few unique restaurants and retailers that have the potential to pull people into town. I hear that Emporia has "nothing" all the time, but, growing up in a MUCH smaller town I can tell you that you do have options in Emporia. We just have to figure out how to put our best foot forward.

Netloafer, I agree with your "positive" statements. They are quickly becoming a pet peeve of mine. There is being positive, and then there is being unrealistic. I've always heard that the first step in solving any problem is admitting that you have one. People in Emporia know what our problems are (for the most part), and although we may differ on how those problems should be solved we have to admit their existence and detail steps taken to correct the problems to build public trust in our government officials. This "don't worry, it will all get taken care of" attitude is upsetting. If you want to engage the public in improving the city, admit our flaws and ask for help. And, not being "positive" is quickly becoming code for disagreeing with the direction (westward ho, no matter what) that some in positions of leadership are taking us. As long as solutions are being suggested, I don't think people should be pegged as "negative" just because they point out problems within OUR city. Yes, I don't care if you've lived hear for a year, or ten, or were born here. We need everyone involved in fixing OUR city.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 9:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i'm very glad to see some very constructive thinking on the part of momus, net, and wrtdog...now where are you when the city is electing commissioners?? your thinking would go miles toward fixing the cities probs.
i also wholeheartedly agree with splitting the city into districts and making rules where commissioners would have to live in their "district" to run for commission. It should be proven that they live there also, not just that they own a rental property there.
lastly, i understand that people get frusterated at the slow pace of things, but remember, steve commons and his merry bunch of check writing commissioners took 20 years to get us to where we are now. for now, patience is the only thing we have.
from what i see, the city is on the path toward reorganization through their wage/job survey which they accepted and agreed to follow last week. they are looking closely at the loss of Tyson and how they can effectively cut costs but not services. they seem to be mostly on track with what is important with respects to what needs to be kept and what can be passed over, although the "beautification" needs to be put on the back burner unless outside funding can be found or private groups want to be responsible for it for now. make sure the water runs and police and fire can still respond...then plant some flowers with what money is left over.
nobody has to be "positive", but maintaining a negative attitude while the city tries to rebuild won't go any distance toward helping.

Posted by neighbor (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 9:22 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I worked for the County the last time they tried consolidation of the dispatchers. It didn't work and both departments mutually agreed to go back to seperate dispatchers. Consolidating the Police and Sheriff's Department's would not reduce costs nor address crime rates. The changes would cost us more money than what we currently have to spend on their budgets as mentioned above. I have to agree with wrtdog on his statement that there is nothing here to attract tourists. We have a very special small town zoo, the National Teacher's Hall of Fame, the William Allen White Home, soon the Granada Theatre and the mention Art's Council expansion, but will they attract enough tourists away from Topeka, Wichita and KC to boost our economy? Not a chance. I would venture a guess that the basketball games and tournaments held at White Auditorium each year bring more people to town in one weekend than the before mentioned places do all year. I would also wager a bet that the attendence and revenue generated for the City by the Trysa soccer fields dwarfs any of the above locations. Emporia is a nice place to live for the most part, but a tourist attraction? I think not. Perhaps we should enhance the things that do work, and stop throwing money at what we think might work.

Posted by olddog (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 9:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

As create said on a different link ... Do we really need it? Can we do without it? Is there a different way to do this? Maybe they should consider thinking about wants and needs when they think about spending or making budget cuts.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dhc66

Having run for public office I can tell you that one of the things that happens to folks who advocate change in direction is that they get tarred and feathered with the negativity charge.

For example, I advocated increasing salaries of front line firefighters and policemen. When asked where i would get the money from I said that it might require reductions in redundant force elsewhere in the city ranks or shelving some pet project west of town. I spent time riding with this city's policemen and women and saw not only how dangerous their jobs could be, but I also saw parts of town that rivaled the inner city slum that I grew up in on the east coast. That got the negativity tag. When I mentioned downtown development I was asked why it would be more important than west side development. I challenged the other candidates to walk around downton and see why. I told them it was part of my daily routine and I could see the payday loan shops, the closed businesses, the slumlord rentals in the city's core. I was told that it was negative to even bring the subjects up, that everything in Emporia was just fine and was going to get better. During the debates I was asked along with the other candidates about TIF's as a mechanism for economic development. The other candidates said they supported them for retail development, particularly in the western part of town. I said I coud only support TIF's as a lever to deal with blight, particularly in the urban core. I was once again dismissed as being negative. I talked about the impact of the mill levy on city development. I compared our mill levy with the mill levy of a small community north of Boston and other areas on the west coast, taking our mill levy and applying it to their real estate values, then demonstraing that their real estate taxes would triple or quadruple if the same tax burden applied to us were applied to them. I made recommendations that would increase our median incomes so that the tax burden could be decreased and property values could go up. Again, negativity - everything in Emporia was fine.

And, so it went. I lost the election, fair and square. I have no complaints about that. I'm sure it had as much to do with my style as it did with my substance. That's water under the bridge now. But, the problems remain. There are more payday loan shops open now in the downtown corridor than there were during the election cycle. There are more stores and businesses closed. The slum lords still reign. Infrastructure in the downtown area is in bad straits. More and more homes are on the market as people leave town because of the tax burden increases. Poverty rates here are on the rise. We've lost a major employer and another one is on the ropes. That's the reality!

I want to see this city become vibrant. My view is that we start from the reality we have and then claw and dig our way out. If that's negativity, I gladly accept the moniker.

Posted by Denise_Dorcey (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 11:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In April and May, we have a unique opportunity to ignite goodwill in our community and take a first step in becoming vibrant, as netloafer spoke of. Building a new playground in Peter Pan Park will be a great opportunity to support the community of Emporia, bring about change and to put into action energy -- negative and positive -- mentioned in above posts.

The new playground at Peter Park actually has two goals. The first and most obvious is to create a child-safe playground that will attract families to Emporia, especially the south part of Emporia. The second goal is to build or strengthen the Emporia community itself. We accomplish this by asking all Emporians consider volunteering their time and sweat to construct the playground. It’s all volunteer! You might compare it to an old-fashioned barn raising. And, like a barn raising, it builds community as well as the structure through the relationships formed while working on the site.

Everyone can join the effort, because the project calls for volunteers of all skill levels, all ages 11 and older, male and female. Volunteers needed during construction are:
*Skilled laborers (people who know how to use power tools)
*Unskilled laborers (people to rake ground cover, paint, help the skilled laborers, run errands, engrave pickets, stock the snack table, sign in volunteers, drill holes from templates)
*People to donate food
*People to serve food

Older kids may help. Those 10 to 14 must be supervised by a parent. Those 14 to 18 can work unsupervised but cannot operate power tools.

The playground will be built between Wednesday, April 30, and Sunday, May 4. Shifts each day will be 8 a.m. to noon, 12:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., 5 p.m. to dusk, with meals provided on the grounds at noon and 4:30 p.m. The playground will be build during these days, rain or shine.

Many hands will make the work light. If you, or a group you are involved with, are interested in helping other Emporians do something positive for its children and the community, this great project can use your support. Emporians face a critical time right now. A community-building event like this can have a major impact on how we see ourselves and how we face the future. Building this playground will leave us all saying, “We can do this!”

To learn more about this project or to sign up for a shift (or two or three!) contact: me, Denise Dorcey at 794-1622, ddorcey@usd253.org ; Mike Dorcey at 794-3476, mikedorcey@yahoo.com; or Robin Nelson at 342-1600, rnelson@emporiakschamber.org.

Thank you for considering our project,
Denise Dorcey
Volunteer Committee Chair

Posted by wtrdog (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 11:31 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I feel Emporia has sufficient entertainment if you are local, Or even from a neighboring smaller town, But what is here to divert people from their original destination along the highway? I find myself headed to Topeka to shop, Lawrence to enjoy the plethora of very good restaurants & the cozy feel of Mass street. I know I am not alone in this, Most people I know travel the highway to find better shopping and/or a more diverse selection of foods. Sure Emporia has some things, But tourist attraction it is not. I did not grow in a small town, I grew up in a metro area in a southwestern city. What I think is really important is to look at this with an outsiders point of view. After all, It is the outsiders you are trying to attract & spend their money in our town.
Something else to consider is the fact that rising fuel costs are going to keep more people closer to home. I used to take pleasure drives, Skip from town to town & take in the scenery of the countryside. I would think that now most people are of the thought that if they have to drive somewhere they will not deviate from the most direct route unless it is unavoidable.

netloafer,

Something I have learned the decade I have been in Emporia. The "good ol boys club" is alive & well here. It sounds like your ideas were opposed from the start, possibly because you were an outsider in some peoples eyes. I remember hearing remarks made when Mr. Zimmerman was hired. They were usually along the lines of where he was from & how that would affect our town. Basically, It was prejudgment on the basis that he wasn't an Emporian. That somehow his ideas or methods would be alien to Emporia & therefore would not be in our towns benefit. After a year or so on the job it seems that those remarks & fears have been forgotten for the most part. I do not envy his job, I wouldn't want to try to clean up twenty years of mismanagement & now be faced with the Tyson tragedy.
I too believe that Emporia can pull itself from the ashes. I would like to have a reason to stay here, For my children to have a reason to stay instead of move off for better opportunities when they graduate.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 11:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

very well put wtrdog, and don't forget, it's only been about a year since zimmerman started. what he is fighting is monumental at the least. he can suggest and suggest and direct and direct...but ultimately it's up to the 5 people sitting across the table from him to figure make the vote count. you could read the minutes and the agendas and see what the issues are....educate yourselves and others, and question what you don't understand.
if you want to make a difference, go to the commission meetings and question things when they open the floor for discussion. the couple of times lately that i've watched the meetings on TV, there was nobody there and nobody DARES to speak up against the commission.
THEN....somebody please make it manditory to have a division of the city so that all areas are represented and the issues for the south and east areas are considered along with whether to put another lane on Industrial to re-build that street for the 5th or 10th time in the last 5 or 6 years (thanks mr outgoing engineer for your shortsightedness in planning those changes).
it's time to come together and do something that matters....

Posted by admireed (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Five commissioners elected at large means they are all responsible to the whole. Election by districts means to heck with the town be good to my neighborhood. Sounds great but would make us a little Topeka. Hold ten feet to the fire not just your elected two

Posted by create (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"...there was nobody there and nobody DARES to speak up against the commission. "
We could always have another meeting like last November.

Posted by emporian (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Its pretty sad when you know someone will get elected to the commission as soon as they decide to run. Doesn't matter what their stance on anything is. The NW corner of Emporia is very well represented on our commission. Money really does rule in Emporia.

Posted by momus (anonymous) on March 15, 2008 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I understand what admireed is saying, I just don't happen to agree on this particular topic. When you have one section of town that is over-represented in relation to other sections, I think you are asking for problems. A diversified representation model that is composed of individuals from throughout the city, in my mind, is advantageous in comparison to our current system.

I know that our current commissioners try hard to do what they feel is best for the city, but their view of town is inherently skewed towards the particular section that they are most familiar with. The situation is compounded when you have virtual neighbors sitting on a government body while many sections of the city go completely unrepresented. I wouldn't mind having one at large member of the commission, but if we want government bodies that truly works towards the betterment of the ENTIRE community, I think districts make common sense.

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on March 16, 2008 at 5:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Momus

I agree. I recall during the commission election mentioning some of the crime problems and the run down conditions of much of the housing on the east side of town. In the KVOE forum one of the candidates challenged my statement. I told him to go there and see for himself. After the election he told me he'd done what I'd requested and said he was absolutely shocked. He didn't say so, but I don't think he'd been by some of those neighborhoods in years.

The conditions still exist. Nothing has been done about them in the year or so since the election. There was an attempt at a rental ordinance, but that is on hold or in limbo right now.

At the risk of being too negative for some forum guests, allow me to observe what happens when blight isn't dealt with. It spreads! I grew up in Boston. There was an area of the downtown that was crime ridden, filled with peep shows, drugs, etc. The city decided that it was too much of a drain on city resources to deal with the problems, so the "combat zone" was created. Police didn't respond to calls, zoning enforcement was curtailed, etc. It took some time, but the "combat zone" expanded, block by block, until the city was faced with the long term prospect of total collapse..

When, as you say, one part of town is over-represented vs. others, this is almost always a by-product. It's not sinister. It's just the nature of politics and constituencies.

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on March 16, 2008 at 6:56 a.m. (Suggest removal)

i checked to see how you would get a district divided city commission. you would have to have somebody put it on the ballot then vote on it.
I'm not sure how you get something on the ballot, but i'm figuring that the current city commissioners would probably have to agree that it's a good idea (good luck with that one) or somebody would have to have a petition signed...
i guess the other thing somebody could work on is having a 2 term limit on being a commissioner???? otherwise, you are just asking for the same old crud year after year...pet project after pet project...

Posted by netloafer (anonymous) on March 16, 2008 at 7:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

There would have to be a ballot petition. In order to do that there would need to be a required number of signatures on the petition to meet the needed threshold. I'm not sure what that number is. Once that's done, it would go on the ballot. The key to getting it done would be public awareness. Those supporting the measure would need to get on the bully pulpits and get the vote out. My first guess is that the northwest part of town would not be favorable, but the downtown, south, east, and university districts would. That's where I think time and attention should be spent if something like that were to be successful.

Posted by wtrdog (anonymous) on March 16, 2008 at 10:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Every city & town I have ever been in has had slums. I know we had our fair share where I am from. We had those places where the Police were afraid to patrol. Where unless you knew someone on a street or they recognized your car, You were in danger going there. But, In my experiences those places were a very small percentage of the overall size of the city. I think every city has forgotten or neglected neighborhoods. In this case however it is selective neglect. Emporia is not big enough to simply forget about a part of town.
As I understand it the "slum lords" threw a fit about the rental ordinance. I'm not saying that this is the reason that it stalled, But it is a possibility. I personally thought it was a good idea in theory. Someone has to be held accountable for the condition of properties, Why not the owners, Makes sense to me. The problem I see is who is going to enforce it? Do we have the resources to evaluate each property or would it be on the basis of response on complaints?

Posted by dhcc66 (anonymous) on March 16, 2008 at 10:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)

the first place we need to start is the code enforcement office/rental housing authority. they are supposed to be checking on complaints from tennants on rental properties....
second, i live in a less than great part of town and i've always seen the police over here, probably more here than in the northwest part of town....so i'm not sure the "afraid to patrol" applies here.
if you want to see a very run down place or two, try around the college where some of the student houses have tons of beer cans and trash around them....for them, that seems to be just poor housekeeping. maybe the city code services should start by enforcing the eyesore ordinances??

Posted by wtrdog (anonymous) on March 16, 2008 at 11:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The afraid to patrol comment was in response to netloafers experiences in Boston. I was basically sharing my similar experiences

I can't speak on the behalf of code services or how they respond to complaints. However I have an experience that relates to the matter.

I was on call for the city a couple of months ago. I received a call in the 900 blk of Market. The original call was to turn the water off because of a leak inside. So I did so, And went to talk with the residence. I found two early twenties women in the basement apartment trudging through sewage. The entire apartment was flooded & the odor was overwhelming. I went immediately to check the city mains, They were clear. I went back to advise the women that they should contact their landlord. They said that they had been trying all day & hadn't gotten a response from him. They told me that they felt it was because of a dispute they were having from several months before when the ceiling had fallen in & the landlord had refused to help with costs to clean the furniture or fix the ceiling.
Last I knew she was moving & I believe she was the only residence in the apartment house.

Words do not even come close to describe the conditions these girls were living in. I know there has to be low cost housing available , But this place was in my opinion uninhabitable even without the raw sewage flooding it.

Posted by slipandslide (anonymous) on March 16, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

chances are the girls didnt get their damage deposits back when they moved along with their stuff being damaged. i have a suggestion for keeping the downtown looking better, without mentioning names of businesses, some businesses try to get by using only one dumpster, they will overload them and stack their boxes on the ground and then when the wind picks up, theres trash blowing every where. they should have to keep the dumpster lids tied shut. and often enough, i find vomit on the sidewalks for bar patrons who throw up after they leave the bar and noone cleans up the messes, the bars should have to clean up after their patrons at the end of the day.

Posted by create (anonymous) on March 17, 2008 at 7:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Those girls should have had plenty of recourse for their horrible situation, even in the first instance. In a case like the sewer flowing back into the building, the city should require that their employees file a report that includes the name of the owner of such a building. Then the city needs to look into those cases immediately, not just file papers.

Those are the kinds of landlords that cause ordinances to be passed, yet they all show up in hordes to protest when the city has a meeting to discuss it. I still say that landlords should be licensed and rental places should be inspected every so often. I myself rent out an apartment and have had to invest in it every so often, especially when a tenant moves out and leaves it in a mess.

I agree with slipandslide about the vomit on the sidewalks. Bars, no matter where they're located, should be responsible for cleaning up the mess. Instead they leave it there all day long. Yes, I've seen it too, far too often.