Friday, August 22, 2008

The streetlights

A roundup of last night's streetlights discussion and ultimate backing away from turning off the lights, and I was most impressed. It takes a lot in this day and age for an elected official to admit when they've misjudged something, and the majority of them did that.

I was really impressed by the honesty and sincerity of David Lynn and Kathy Hoard. They're both to be applauded for their candor and thoughtfulness.

8 Comments:

Blogger paveplanet said...

I would have been far more impressed if they fully stepped up to the plate and take a leadership position and suggest how the shortfall will be handled. Instead, they wimped out and said "Manager go figure it out for us". Especially since staff did not propose this cut - that came from Comm. Herod at budget meeting back in May.

By far the another great example of their lack of leadership that this Commission continues to exhibit when they are required to actually deal with true government issues.

PS - Doesn't Oconee require the homeowner's in each subdivision to pay for their own lights?

9:37 AM  
Blogger Jmac said...

I believe you are correct. I'm supposed to chat with our neighborhood association president in the next week, so I'll find out.

To be fair, it was an agenda-setting meeting, so there wasn't much time to focus on such cuts. And Kelly Girtz did say he'd be willing to work with staff in identifying those cuts, which, from what Alan Reddish was indicating, will probably come from new projects like the affordable housing fund or public transportation service.

10:56 AM  
Blogger Jmac said...

Also, as it's been pointed out to me via email from some readers, Andy Herod did not propose this cut.

I thought it was Lynn, but I'm not entirely sure that it was. Regardless, it was not Herod.

12:08 PM  
Blogger paveplanet said...

My bad then. But I also think that it came from one of the Commissioners. I would be really interested in knowing who proposed it. Not to tar and feather them, but rather see how they propose to cut the budget.

I still think that there are too many streetlights out there. Why they couldn't turn off those that are within 200 feet of another light in addition to those in empty subdivisions is beyond me.

12:26 PM  
Blogger Nicki said...

I'm not at all impressed.

1. Do we need to cut those dollars? 2. Can we cut streetlights without significant adverse effects?

Yes, and yes. It was a fine proposal, and as I've mentioned my 'hood would gladly volunteer most of the lights that are being proposed for cutting.

Instead we're now not cutting an expenditure whose impact is ambiguous in favor of potentially cutting expenditures whose impact on the public is demonstrated. Nice.

12:35 PM  
Blogger Jmac said...

1. Do we need to cut those dollars?

Actually, no. As Hoard noted last night, we're talking a $3 increase per parcel to offset the $100,000. Of course, that ship has sailed, and the money will come from some place else.

1:15 PM  
Blogger Brian said...

Pave -- isn't it the manager's job to come up with the recommendations, not the commission's?

As it turned out, they just didn't like some of the staff's suggestions, so hence, this rabbit hole on streetlights.

5:35 PM  
Blogger paveplanet said...

Brian:

Exactly - which is why the Manager did not suggest or propose the cut in the first place. It was taken by the elected officials on their own accord.

Therefore, they should be the ones to figure out how to balance the budget now that they failed to follow his advice the first time.

4:26 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home