Insanity... once brain cell at a time
I've now attended city council meetings in five different Twin Cities area municipalities. I used to believe that the most painful place to visit is the local office of the Department of Motor Vehicles, but city council meetings have easily taken the lead. They are, without a doubt, the most insipid and boring meetings on earth. Sitting through almost two hours of one tonight (short, by city council standards), in Robbinsdale, I had the most absurd desire... to run for office. Despite hating politics, and despising meetings, I had a powerful urge to be able to add some plain-spoken sense where none is now allowed. I've long enjoyed being the one person in a group to "cut to the chase"... to say what everyone is thinking and nobody is willing to voice... to say something clearly to avoid more beating around the bush by others.
There is some sort of weird paradigm for such meetings, that requires members to speak in tongues, to avoid coming to the point, and to qualify everything repeatedly. I know these are people who, in personal conversation, must be able to briefly say what they mean, but in meetings, they ramble and restate until it is painful waiting to see whether you can actually determine what their point is. It is worse in city council meetings than any other kind of meeting I've attended.
It is actually very similar to the Chinese Water Torture.
Tonight's meeting included a couple of very good examples of just how controlling, inane, and costly city governments have become. One example involved an apartment building the city clearly wants modified, but it must be done on their terms, and their terms are complex beyond reason. Not only the builder is caught in that complexity, but the council as well. The city has ordinances covering almost all parts of construction and the appearance and size of every aspect. After lengthy negotiations between the builder and city staff (that have clearly almost driven the builder away) the city must still rezone (even though the apartment building has been there for decades), and must pass 5 different variances (exceptions to their own code) to make the plan work. There was, in the council meeting, long discussion about 2 parking spaces, and the width of the driveway through the parking area. There is virtually no aspect of the construction project that doesn't have to meet the approval of the city, and jive with voluminous ordinances and codes.
It really is a wonder that anything gets built, but it is NO wonder why housing costs and rental rates are so high. All of that discussion and redrawing of plans is expensive, and enforced set-backs of every kind reduce the amount of building space. All of those silly expenses get passed on to the eventual residents.
Although the council made it clear that the city is poor... in response to polite pleas from a Seniors Advisory Committee seeking space for a Senior Center, the final discussion of the evening gives a clue as to WHY they might be poor.
Robbinsdale is an old inner-ring suburb next to Minneapolis. Hard to understand them being poor, since the city budget is about $22.5 million for a population of only 14,500. That's a per capita expenditure of $1,551, higher than any of a dozen other suburbs I checked. Robbinsdale certainly has some problems, and my purpose here is not to pick on them. I doubt that they differ from other cities in any significant ways. The problems are universal.
I was there supporting a neighborhood group trying to keep the city from widening a street, rebuilding the water and sewer lines, and inserting a roundabout at an intersection. The widening, and the roundabout, would take some property. The people who live in the neighborhood see no need for the street (a dead-end) being widened, and see no need for the roundabout, which is usually to control heavy traffic. Those who live there say there is little traffic through that intersection.
So, we have the odd situation of citizens not wanting the "improvements" the city engineer seems determined to make. The residents just want the street repaired... resurfaced. In all the discussion between the residents, city engineer, and council, I never heard a reason FOR the expensive proposed development. There WAS a comment that if the sewer or water lines ever DO have a problem that requires work, THEN the city will have to rebuild them... to comply with their own code that has changed since the lines were built..
So... we have no problem, but here's a costly solution anyway. It ain't broke, but let's fix it. Little wonder that the city is broke. It really IS torture... one drop at a time.
There is a truth hidden somewhere in that perplexing insanity. I suspect the city planners would like to drive the current residents away. Their homes are old, and Robbinsdale doesn't have much building space to attract new development. Why do they want to drive away the old and replace it with new development? To derive more taxes from the property. Why do they need more taxes? That's the real question.
I've really never understood why cities go out of their way to "improve" the city. Who are they trying to please? The current residents? Most current residents would like nothing better than to be left in peace and have their taxes not increase. If not the current residents, who then? The current residents are actually the owners of the city government. Who else matters?
If a city were to put itself on a financial diet, lower the tax rates, simplify building codes and ordinances, and remove most zoning restrictions, they would experience an immediate renaissance. Businesses, developers, and residents of all kinds would flock to the area in droves, and the city would quickly become exciting in its diversity, rather than boring in its bland sameness. Real estate prices would rise quickly due to increased demand, offering great opportunity for current property-owners to either sell at lucrative prices or remain to enjoy the excitement. For a "big-box" store to move in, they would have convince others to sell, and pay high prices for the properties.
Problem is... that wouldn't leave much for city employees to do, would it? THERE is the root of the problem... a problem I'll examine in my next commentary.
There is some sort of weird paradigm for such meetings, that requires members to speak in tongues, to avoid coming to the point, and to qualify everything repeatedly. I know these are people who, in personal conversation, must be able to briefly say what they mean, but in meetings, they ramble and restate until it is painful waiting to see whether you can actually determine what their point is. It is worse in city council meetings than any other kind of meeting I've attended.
It is actually very similar to the Chinese Water Torture.
Tonight's meeting included a couple of very good examples of just how controlling, inane, and costly city governments have become. One example involved an apartment building the city clearly wants modified, but it must be done on their terms, and their terms are complex beyond reason. Not only the builder is caught in that complexity, but the council as well. The city has ordinances covering almost all parts of construction and the appearance and size of every aspect. After lengthy negotiations between the builder and city staff (that have clearly almost driven the builder away) the city must still rezone (even though the apartment building has been there for decades), and must pass 5 different variances (exceptions to their own code) to make the plan work. There was, in the council meeting, long discussion about 2 parking spaces, and the width of the driveway through the parking area. There is virtually no aspect of the construction project that doesn't have to meet the approval of the city, and jive with voluminous ordinances and codes.
It really is a wonder that anything gets built, but it is NO wonder why housing costs and rental rates are so high. All of that discussion and redrawing of plans is expensive, and enforced set-backs of every kind reduce the amount of building space. All of those silly expenses get passed on to the eventual residents.
Although the council made it clear that the city is poor... in response to polite pleas from a Seniors Advisory Committee seeking space for a Senior Center, the final discussion of the evening gives a clue as to WHY they might be poor.
Robbinsdale is an old inner-ring suburb next to Minneapolis. Hard to understand them being poor, since the city budget is about $22.5 million for a population of only 14,500. That's a per capita expenditure of $1,551, higher than any of a dozen other suburbs I checked. Robbinsdale certainly has some problems, and my purpose here is not to pick on them. I doubt that they differ from other cities in any significant ways. The problems are universal.
I was there supporting a neighborhood group trying to keep the city from widening a street, rebuilding the water and sewer lines, and inserting a roundabout at an intersection. The widening, and the roundabout, would take some property. The people who live in the neighborhood see no need for the street (a dead-end) being widened, and see no need for the roundabout, which is usually to control heavy traffic. Those who live there say there is little traffic through that intersection.
So, we have the odd situation of citizens not wanting the "improvements" the city engineer seems determined to make. The residents just want the street repaired... resurfaced. In all the discussion between the residents, city engineer, and council, I never heard a reason FOR the expensive proposed development. There WAS a comment that if the sewer or water lines ever DO have a problem that requires work, THEN the city will have to rebuild them... to comply with their own code that has changed since the lines were built..
So... we have no problem, but here's a costly solution anyway. It ain't broke, but let's fix it. Little wonder that the city is broke. It really IS torture... one drop at a time.
There is a truth hidden somewhere in that perplexing insanity. I suspect the city planners would like to drive the current residents away. Their homes are old, and Robbinsdale doesn't have much building space to attract new development. Why do they want to drive away the old and replace it with new development? To derive more taxes from the property. Why do they need more taxes? That's the real question.
I've really never understood why cities go out of their way to "improve" the city. Who are they trying to please? The current residents? Most current residents would like nothing better than to be left in peace and have their taxes not increase. If not the current residents, who then? The current residents are actually the owners of the city government. Who else matters?
If a city were to put itself on a financial diet, lower the tax rates, simplify building codes and ordinances, and remove most zoning restrictions, they would experience an immediate renaissance. Businesses, developers, and residents of all kinds would flock to the area in droves, and the city would quickly become exciting in its diversity, rather than boring in its bland sameness. Real estate prices would rise quickly due to increased demand, offering great opportunity for current property-owners to either sell at lucrative prices or remain to enjoy the excitement. For a "big-box" store to move in, they would have convince others to sell, and pay high prices for the properties.
Problem is... that wouldn't leave much for city employees to do, would it? THERE is the root of the problem... a problem I'll examine in my next commentary.
posted by Robert Ronald Smith at 12:01 AM
Permalink
Post
to freedomSLUT
<< Home