|
|
Post by Truth on Oct 11, 2006 9:24:02 GMT -5
From the Pall-Times:
During Tuesday's meeting, councilors also addressed the usage of green space for tenant and resident parking in the city. Four local property owners made motions to have additional parking on their property. One of the motions was tabled, one passed unanimously, and two passed by 5-2 votes, with councilors Harrington and Dick Atkins, D-7th Ward, opposing.
Both Harrington and Atkins said they wanted to see green space preserved and expressed their views with other members of the council. “Here we go again, paving public space,” Harrington said after one of the motions passed. “There's no need to give away public space just because it'll look nice,” he said.
Atkins agreed saying, “We should be headed to try to restore green space in our city, not just pave over it.”
I could be wrong, but doesn't a green lawn look better on a front lawn than say pavement or cement slab?
|
|
|
|
Post by 666 on Oct 11, 2006 10:30:58 GMT -5
Green looks better unless you live in one of the old homes that has limited or no parking space. There are homes all over Oswego that share a parking space or have never had them because of the way they were built. In some of these situations parking on the front lawn is the only way to get their cars off the street in the winter. I'd rather see these places pave the area than have it look like a mud pit.
Adkins has a problem when it comes to looking at the situation from all points of view. He has a hard-on for the landlords and cares less who he steps on to get to them. Ed has the same problem.
Most of these homes belong to the elderly and lower income families who don't seem to matter to Ed or Dick. The council should look at each situation independently and then decide. They need to stop passing laws that cause more burdens than do good.
|
|
|
|
Post by Truth on Oct 11, 2006 21:13:27 GMT -5
Oh, muddy front yards are ugly too. And I agree each case may have its own special needs. Clear something up for me. Explain what laws in the current scenario burden.
There is no doubt that the landlords in this town are under fire. But why? From what I understand, people who live in the effected neighborhoods, me being one of them, are sick and tired of seeing their real property values sink further. They also are bothered by watching once beautiful homes be chopped up into little apartments, which are then rented to college students who have no respect for the area they reside. A house that once held one family with one or two cars may now have three apartments and require 6 spaces to park. The houses were not designed to be multi-dwellings in most cases.
I don't blame residents for trying to protect the neighborhoods and town they love. They are talking to their aldermen about the problems and the aldermen are doing as they see fit. Does anyone offer alternative solutions that work for everyone or almost everyone? These guys in office don't have all the answers but they are trying to please the people of their wards who put them in office.
Why couldn't altering the parking ban work? There could be streets which one side is allowed for parking.
Do you have a suggestion to remedy the situation and please the voters in the effected wards??
|
|
|
|
Post by 666 on Oct 12, 2006 6:49:42 GMT -5
Each request should looked at induvidualy. If its about stopping people from turning single family homes into rental units then address that issue and inforce the codes that are on the books. This council is quick to pass new resolutions against landlords and have not shown any concern towards the rest of Oswego. Its not hard to see that over half of all the new codes and resolutions being passed are out to get back at a few select landlords.
The BS about the houses and businesses on Bridge St shows how foolish this has become. I saw Mr Cali on TV3, this is a business owner and a very nice man who has never caused problems in this city, his porch has a small separation of the concrete and the common clowns site him. He owns one of the nicest houses on Bridge St. and keeps it looking nice, considering where it is located, and the clowns site him for something that no one would ever notice unless they were looking for it. Thats embarrassing, and they should be ashamed.
This council has a vendeta against the last admin and are attacking the landlords to get revenge. Its started day one of their terms and has not stopped yet.
We've had resolutions on the books for years that delt with green space and the use of public space, why the need to change it now? If Mr Smith did the jod he was hired for then this would never had to happen. We need to enforce the codes for all the people not a select group.
Interesting that none of the employees of the city can do their jobs unless the group together as a mob.
One last comment (maybe), Get Tony Leotta out of office. Get someone in office who does not play favorites. Tony is the first to speak out and point fingers at business owners who don't meet his approvals. how about Bridie Manor where he hangs out in the mornings? I've looked at the building and in no way is it up to city codes. A little favortism?
|
|
|
|
Post by Truth on Oct 12, 2006 8:55:00 GMT -5
You make some good points. The council does seem over zealous on a few things and since they don't voice their motives, it leaves us to guess what those motives are. But on what platforms did the council members in question run and are they following through with those? I can tell you I don't know what Rice's platform was because I don't live in his ward so I wouldn't pay attention to what he was saying.
As you point out, it seems like a continued assault on the former administrations' lack of follow through or corruption. Things were let go before Gosek in crew came in however. Favoritism is nothing new in any community. The problem is with small communities, it is more obvious and the rumors fly around because nothing exciting happens otherwise.
The new resolutions and codes shouldn't single out but based on how the cards fall, is the appearance is given that specific individuals are being attacked? Do the new mandates produce the desired community effects? What are those desired changes?
You are absolutely correct that someone didn't do their job. It needs to be done or we should find a replacement who will accomplish the task.
The current "mob", IMO, was formed to provide the united community front perception. I would hope this mob isn't being selective. If they are, parties who are offended need to present it at the public meeting.
As far as Ed Harrington goes, I have talked to a handful of people who said he stopped by and talked with them about what problems they have in their neighborhood. I consider his visits important to show his concern. You can spin that anyway you want. He is not my alderman and I do not know him personally. My alderman? Well, this person has not even acknowledged there is a ward to watch over, again, IMO.
|
|
