Archive for Video
Reading Other People’s Mail
Posted by: | CommentsEarlier this month the city of DuPont hosted a Town Hall meeting to address the sign code. The city of DuPont decided not to follow through on the action set forth by Mayor Jenkins in a rare show of leadership last April. To refresh and summarize, the mayor directed her staff to go off and initiate an enforcement action regarding the advertisements littering our byways. Furthermore, the mayor appointed her wunderkind (then future) City Administrator, Dawn Masko, to head up the effort of reviewing the code and overseeing any changes. To that end, the sign code would be addressed by a group of stakeholders that included the city, business leaders via the DuPont Business Association (DBA), and the churches.
That noble effort didn’t have a snowball’s chance.
As time trudged on, it was apparent that for all the city’s talk, they lacked the walk. The enforcement action and “education” of the businesses regarding the law fizzled. Quadrant and the churches came out on the short end; Quadrant Homes forked over for dozens of new sign permits and the churches were banished to the side streets and away from the arterials. Worse, the city failed to show the fortitude to keep the enforcement up and generally did a poor job of communicating its expectations.
Some banners came down while others remained. Some permits were paid while others were not. The distances from the curb varied, as well as the hours the signs were to be displayed. The city even had more hand held signs to join the crapufacturers of Town Homes, Pageantry. Dominos and Jiffy Lube had employees hold offers like the homeless hold a scrap of cardboard.
Months passed. and those intimate with the issue were left waiting, and wanting, for that promised action. The city came up with a new step: Go to the old standby.
A town hall meeting.
I was unimpressed but not surprised. A town hall meeting offers two things I abhor in politics, local or otherwise. First, a town hall meeting offers a grand gesture that suggests that progress is being made. Second, a town hall meeting also gives the illusion that you have a voice; that you are part of the solution. Don’t be fooled by either, over the years we had town hall meetings on the mine expansion (no progress), fire service (no progress), survey and communications (no progress); what of the city’s track record suggests to you that this time it will be different?
Still, I was curious as to why the mayor flopped like an imaginary Sequalitchew salmon? The answer came from Dawn Masko. Sort of…
I wrote an email to Ms. Masko, and Roger Westman (who was announcing the meeting to his constituents) that was actually read aloud at the town hall meeting that I did not attend. I had not intended that it be read, but I appreciate that it was, for no other reason than it established me as a local soothsayer (or, incurable cynic). You decide:
—–Original Message—–
From: Mike Gorski [mailto:mgorski@realdupont.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:16 PM
To: Roger C. Westman; Dawn Masko
Subject: Re: Community Meeting – Sign Code
Roger and Dawn,
Not to be too much of a pain on this matter but I was wondering why
the city chose to deviate from their originally stated plan of
inviting input from stakeholders? The April council meeting set clear
direction and yet, nearly 4 months later, the city has changed
direction without explanation. To be frank, the last town hall meeting
I attend for the survey results was only attended by 17 community
members, no minutes were recorded, and no actions mentioned at that
meeting had follow up provided.
That begs the question of how many community members have to show up
to make a quorum at a town hall meeting? Isn’t it an illusion of
public input if the event is hastily advertised and poorly
communicated (bear in mind we still have no output from our
communications “blue ribbon” committee).
You had a member of the community who was motivated to help with focus
group activities and now you have chosen to take additional input from
people who may not understand the code as written and whose only input
is more emotion than fact. Furthermore, you potentially are inviting
even more data to consider that will further delay the process. You [sic]
current timeline is already unreasonably set for November 2010.
My overall concern with this approach is that you will open the door
for an “astro-turf” campaign by a stakeholder to give the appearance
of overwhelming support. For instance, a church or realtor may bring
in 15 and 10 people respectively to speak in favor of allowing their
signs while citizens who feel their signs are an unsightly distraction
will only have 5 representatives. In short, do not mistake those in
attendance as a fair representation of the community. The city has
confirmed [and] historic issues with communications.
I hope to attend but I am not sure that I can make it in time. I would
like to see in the future an avenue to provide input without
attendance. Perhaps an email can be entered into record if I state my
name and address.
For what it is worth, I would like to see addressed the “human
billboard” signs. Hoffman Hill have [sic] a weekly sign holder dancing
around directing people to the townhouses for sale. Is there a permit
for that sign? Is it covered by code? Can we please somehow restrict
that sort of signage because it something you would expect to see in
Tacoma or Spanaway.
I look forward to your timely response.
–Mike Gorski
Ms. Masko replied with a boilerplate response. A cut and paste job with a lot of blah blah referring the process and how laws are written. It did contain this nugget:
I realize that the Community Meeting is a different format that what
was originally stated, but there has been considerable feedback from
citizens, business owners, and other community stakeholders who wanted
their voices heard on this important topic and did not feel a
stakeholders group would give them an equal opportunity to
participate.
This response piqued my interest but it didn’t really address my concerns. I hit “Reply All.”
Dawn,
Thanks for the impromptu civics lesson on the purpose of a town hall
meeting.
As I mentioned before, my concern is the change in direction from what
was originally stated in April. You mentioned that there were numerous
calls and emails to the city asking for participation in the process
regarding addressing this code. I assume that you have maintained a
record of the inquiries and that the call logs and email copies are
available upon request through the standard records request process.
I am disappointed that the callers, especially the realtors, were not
directed to the DuPont Business Association. It would seem logical
that the business voice be funneled through that organization; it may
have been a good opportunity for the DBA to build credibility.
Similarly, the citizen concerns could have been routed to the citizen
representatives. Whether or not the original approach would have
worked will remain a mystery.
The news of an outside consultant also was not previously mentioned.
What is the cost of the service and is it really necessary? Is our
elected council, many of whom were in attendance at the town hall
meeting, incapable of formulating an objective opinion and crafting
the legislation?
I am also perplexed at the determination that new legislation is
required. How was that decision reached prior to the input of the town
hall meeting and citizen testimony? Did the result of the city sign
sweeps have any influence on this decision and if so, what was it?
Speaking of the enforcement, how many sign sweeps in total were
conducted? There were obvious violations that occurred after the
warning letters and sign collections. Is there a reason the
enforcement was abandoned? I understand there are cost considerations
that the mayor neglected to include in our city budget but the
citizens should not be punished for the lack of foresight. As you
probably have gathered, the city’s ineptitude in enforcing their, nay,
“our” codes are nothing short of a disgrace.
To that end, the main focus of you and your staff needs be the cost
and personnel to complete this enforcement task. This should take
place before the law is changed because it will influence the law
itself. A law without enforcement puts us in exactly the position we
are in today.
There is undoubtedly improvement on our streets of the numerous signs.
That may be attributed to the fact that it had grown so out of control
that even a minor improvement looks like progress. There are still
plenty of violators and issues to be resolved. The episode that
transpired this past weekend at the corner of Hoffman Hill and McNeil
should be intolerable to the city. A human sign waver having a
companion laying passed out on a blanket while he completed his shift.
Can you answer whether that he has a permit? Is that a violation of
any DMC or do the citizens just have to tolerate that sort of behavior?
I realize it is difficult for you to monitor the activities in town on
the weekend since you reside elsewhere. Frankly, this sort of thing
went unchecked with Bill McDonald in your position and he lives here.
However, when such things are brought to your attention I expect that
they be taken seriously.
My stand remains unchanged. The city failed to commit to enforcement
since the April mandate and has yet to produce for the citizens any of
the facts on the violations. The tracking sheet has no measured
deliverable to help council in their legislation. No output was given
on the number of violators, number of permits issued weekly, monthly;
revenue generated. (Although the city did state how much it would cost
to enforce the code with union employees).
To summarize, my concern in the change in direction is the suggestion
that DuPont has a direction on this matter. Based on the actions
between April and August, I am unconvinced. The solution has deviated
and now more layers of complexity (and expense) have been added while
enforcement was effectively cast away. That did not happen in a vacuum
and my original question can be restated as who made that call? You or
the mayor?
I do have an expectation that all my questions raised here be addressed.
Regards,
–Mike Gorski
Let’s face it. The city caved in so there had to be a reason why. Very few people cared enough to be bothered on the sign issue. It crept up on us. Besides, DuPont can be demographically bucketed into various factions who are pissed off at the city. Fireworks? Check. Dog shit? Check. Skate park? Check. Mine expansion? Check. The list sadly goes on and on. But now it appears that there is a new group we can add to that list. A group of interlopers who now are demanding a seat at the sign code negotiating table.
Date: Fri, 13 Aug 2010 11:25:09 -0700 [08/13/2010 11:25:09 AM PDT]
From: Dawn Masko
To: Mike Gorski
Cc: “Roger C. Westman”
Subject: RE: Community Meeting – Sign Code
Headers: Show All Headers
Good morning Mike. I apologize it has taken so long for me to respond.
It was the Mayor and my decision, made after consultation with our City
Attorney, to change the City’s course of action from a stakeholder’s
committee to a more inclusive community meeting approach. Per
attorney-client privilege, the legal advice given is confidential and
cannot be disclosed. Most of the communication from citizens wishing to
participate was done via phone calls which the City does not track nor
maintain call logs. Copies of any electronic records which we have
could be made available through a public disclosure request with the
citizen information redacted. We did receive positive feedback on the
community meeting as presenting a forum for all to have their voices
heard. We did also accept written testimony through Friday, August 6th
and included that as part of the public record as well.
While I agree that the DuPont Business Association would be a good
option for many of our local realtors to participate in it is not the
City’s normal practice to divert citizens or business owner’s comments
or complaints elsewhere. Even within our business community there are
several different sides of issues being voiced, which again was the
reason many were in favor of a community forum so they could “speak for
themselves”. The same holds true for our concerned citizens – there are
many varying opinions on the City’s sign code.
We have a consultant on contract who has worked with the City on special
projects involving planning. The sign code revision process is
complicated and time-consuming. We have one staff member in Planning at
this point who already has several major projects on his plate, as well
as being the sole person to review land use and permit applications.
The consultant is compiling the data from the community meeting,
information previously deliberated on by the Planning Agency,
surrounding communities sign codes, and other information as necessary
to bring forward a report to the City Council at the September 21st work
session. At that work session Council will be presented with options
and decision points for them to direct staff on what they would like to
see in the revised sign code – if the decision is made to do a revision.
Staff and legal counsel will then prepare the legislation based on the
Council’s clear guidance. It is not the Council’s duty to draft
legislation, rather to deliberate and vote on it.
There has been no determination by the City Council that a new sign
ordinance is required as there has been no public discussion of this
issue. However, the current and former City Attorney’s have suggested
that the City Council review the code, but I cannot discuss the nature
of any legal advice given by the City Attorney because it is governed by
the attorney-client privilege.
In regards to enforcement, the City has not abandoned its efforts. We
have conducted two sign sweeps with another one going to be happening in
the next week, sent out educational letters, and sent out letters
informing businesses of non-compliant signs. We do have this
information available for disclosure with a public records request. We
will continue to send out letters and work on enforcement, within the
legal guidelines set out by our City Attorney, as we work on the sign
code revision. Public Works will continue to conduct periodic sign
sweeps as time allows and is slated to conduct another one this week. I
also appreciate receiving information and pictures regarding signs which
may not be in compliance with our code and will follow up on those as
well. It is not the City’s intention to not enforce the current code,
but rather to enforce it in a fair, equitable and legally defensible
manner.
In regards to human sign-waivers, our current code would require them to
have a permit, which I believe they do not have. I will follow-up with
the business owner if you can please provide me with what company they
were representing. Whether to permit this type of sign activity will be
something the Council will have to discuss, but the court’s have treated
signs held by person’s in a more protective way than stationary but
temporary signs.
I do take your concerns seriously, as well as the concerns of all other
businesses and citizens. As I stated above, I will continue to work
with my staff to enforce the current code in a fair, equitable and
legally defensible manner. Thank you for your input on this important
issue. –Dawn
Attorney-client priviledge on why you changed to a town hall meeting? Attorney-client priviledge on why council has to review the code? Um, excuse me, but since this is a public matter regarding a code that applies to all of us residing and operating a business here, then aren’t we also the client? I guess not. Such secrecy leads me to conclude that the city of DuPont is being sued over this matter, otherwise, why keep the citizens in the dark? But, isn’t a lawsuit a public matter? After all, you have to file it publicly with the court.
In an odd way, I am actually in favor of the city getting sued. Perhaps a lawsuit here and a lawsuit there will awaken the mayor and council that they are way over their heads. Running a town of 8000 isn’t all parades or wreath laying. At some point some real work has to get done.
Can you sue your local government for malpractice? If not, then you should.
I listened to the audio of the town hall meeting looking for clues. From the on start it became evident that our new pissed off class of people in town are the realtors. They also came off emotionally fragile. The citizens got a lesson in how tough it is out there for real estate, and paying to permit a sign was killing their business (of course, they didn’t mention all those years their agencies were taking their 6% off of suckers put into bum mortgages; when the houses were basically selling themselves). But there was plenty of tissue to go with their hyperbole. Still, the most interesting guest speaker was also the most distinguished. Could she be the source of the change in approach, as well as the new found discretion by Ms. Masko and Mayor Jenkins?
Bear with the audio issues for the first half minute.
This was a powerful message from the professional “lobbying” arm of the realtors association in this area. For the record, I do not entirely disagree with what is being said, but I do feel that the response was heavy handed considering that no one I heard from was complaining about the real estate agency signage. In fact, the realtors were the only ones picking their “Open House” signs up on a regular basis. To that end, the realtors could be considered a model to the rest of the scofflaw churches, builders, and businesses.
What I could not escape from the comments, however, was the tone. It was as if some gubmint folks traveled down from Mount Pilot to lecture Andy, Opie, Barney, Aunt Bea, and everyone else in Mayberry on what a big mistake they were making. After all, DuPont is a town built by real estate development. Did you happen to catch the dig at “Old” DuPont? If it wasn’t for our generous overlords at Quadrant Homes we would be nothing! And, we certainly would never have a Civic Center as nice on Barksdale.
I was amused at how the realtors came armed with possible solutions (all favoring themselves). I also enjoyed how they could appreciate how we were trying to keep our town clear of clutter but we were still interfering with business. Perhaps that is why I got my civics lesson from Dawn. Maybe she got schooled by Ms. Rudolph and it just continued to roll down hill.
At the end of it all, I think we could have lived without the town hall meeting. We could certainly have lived without the stern finger wagging we got from their Government Affairs Director. We get it, commercial speech is protected by the constitution of the “United States of America.” But here is the thing, DuPont is not banning, prohibiting, or censoring the signs of realtors. In fact, you pay the same as a church or a nail salon to advertise your wares (and it is an ad). In a way, even before this bubble burst in the real estate market, Realty is a dying profession. Technology is sending the sign laying, open housing hosting, and six percent grabbing industry to the same place that the blacksmith resides: Irrelevance. They justified their existence by “marketing” properties through flowery prose and MLS comps. Now, with sites like Zillow and Estately, I can shop for a house in Georgia as easily as I can in DuPont, WA. In ten years we will be trying to remember what all the fuss was about and our grandkids will ask, “What’s an Open House?”
But today, the sign code issue is far, far from over. The city is already back peddling and the realtors have their hands on the code of their nuclear option. It is just a shame they won’t be around long enough to enjoy victory.
The Wide World of Larry
Posted by: | CommentsHere is another installment of Larry Wilcox and his bit of the council report. It reads more like a scripture from the holy book of Larry. Can anyone remember the last time Larry Wilcox had offered up anything remotely close to city business? His updates always tend toward keeping the public informed on his side projects. Or, an uninteresting data dump from some other civic meeting where he serves as representative of the city of DuPont. Who can forget last month when Councilman Wilcox informed us of the departure of the Steilacoom Historical School District superintendent?
This month Mr. Wilcox doesn’t want to appear to be egotistical. Whatever that means.
So here is 2:45 of Larry plainly speaking. No intro or outro music. Just the sweet vocal stylings of a man who loves the sound of his own voice.
Gone ’til November
Posted by: | CommentsWhether it is coveted Cadillac fire service or bandwagon jumping to oppose a high speed rail re-route, DuPont is ever ready to hook their star to the fortunes of Lakewood. Is it civic government or synchronized swimming? You are forgiven if you can’t tell the difference. For those of you who need a reminder: DuPont has history, Lakewood has supermarkets.
Lakewood also has sandwich board signs. A government that won’t enforce its sign code. And, frustrated citizens.
Someone call Maury, I think we may be related.
The Tacoma News Tribune published an account in their Sunday edition of the sign issue in Lakewood.
CHRISTIAN HILL; Staff writer
Published: 08/15/1012:05 am | Updated: 08/16/1011:41 am
Local business concerns have prompted Lakewood city leaders to put the brakes on proposed regulations that would largely outlaw signs that many storeowners use for promotion.
The city’s first significant revision to its sign code since 2001 includes proposed regulations that would ban banners and A-frame, or sidewalk, signs except to promote a grand opening or store closing.
Linda Smith, president of the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce, outlined her concerns in a letter delivered before the council’s discussion of a recommendation from its advisory board last week. She asked that the proposed regulations be postponed for a year
While acknowledging the importance of cleaning up Lakewood’s image to prospective businesses, Smith said her members include small businesses that can’t afford mailers or advertisements in local publications and need as much visibility as possible in these tough times.
“Right now, with this economic downturn, I find this to be really bad timing,” she said Monday.
The sign code has been a source of contention in the past. Smith said there was an outcry among businesses after the city incorporated and officials began enforcing its new code. The county had a sign code, but it was rarely enforced, she said.
Newer cities, such as Lakewood and University Place, have been trying to strike the right balance for years. The cityhood movement of the early ’90s was fueled by residents tired of clutter, such as junk cars and signs. But when new city restrictions were enforced – such as a posse of Lakewood volunteers who fanned out in 1996 making lists of illegal signs and tearing some down – a backlash occurred, and the city scaled back.
Lakewood council members this week acknowledged the concerns about bringing back more stringent rules. They expressed an interest in working with the business community to reach a compromise.
“We need to have a deeper discussion,” Councilman Walter Neary said.
The council had been scheduled to take action on the regulations Monday.
Increased regulation of temporary signs is one of a handful of proposed changes to the Lakewood sign code.
The city now allows businesses to display A-frame signs and banners for up to 15 days with a permit. At that point stores must take them down for at least a week.
“It was too complicated for our code enforcement officers to track who had temporary sign permits and who didn’t,” said Dan Catron, the city’s principal planner.
Staff wanted to significantly ease the regulations, such as by allowing A-frame signs on a permanent basis. The city Redevelopment Advisory Board supported such a change.
However, the Planning Advisory Board determined that this would lead to a proliferation of signs and would “result in a negative aesthetic impact,” according to a staff report.
On a 4-1 vote in June, the planning board forwarded its recommendations to the City Council. It included tighter regulations on A-frame signs and banners.
Board member Paul Calta voted no, saying he thinks the city is “business unfriendly” and “it will pay a price for it down the road,” according to the minutes from the meeting.
The second major change to the sign code would increase the maximum size and height of signs along freeways, which city officials view as important as they try to attract redevelopment. Catron said some businesses have requested larger signs than current code allows.
Under the recommendation, the maximum height would increase from 25 feet to 35 feet, and the maximum total size would increase from 120 square feet to 200 square feet.
This proposed revision drew a favorable reaction from council members Monday night.
A couple points of interest. The first is the participation from the Lakewood Planning Board. DuPont has no such input. The other point is the tired refrain of how these are tough economic times and how a sandwich board sign might make the difference between a business staying open or closing in failure. I am not buying that, at least not here. With the rent paid by our businesses, they will need a little more than a painted sign to lure in patrons with our meager traffic volumes. Maybe a place giving $6 haircuts in Tillicum needs that advantage, but not here.
As you can see, we are not alone. Citizens upset at unsightly signs cluttering the city? Check. Businesses cry foul because they require a sandwich board every twenty-five yards in order to stay in business? Check. City leadership not acting in spite of recommendations to the contrary? Check back in November.
Get a Room, Council!
Posted by: | CommentsJohn and Yoko did not share affection as enthusiastically in public.
The July DuPont City Clowncil meeting, sans Mayor Jenkins and Councilmember Grayum, featured a homage to our obsequious benefactor: CalPortland (formerly Glacier Northwest). Over the past three years, CalPortland has been the city’s go to guy for all matters trivial and mundane. Need some pamphlets? Call Cal. How about a sponsor for our lame local events? Call Cal. Do you need fourteen yards of aggregate or concrete? Boy, oh boy, call Cal!
Who can blame them? CalPortland is just carrying on in the tradition of offering up shiny objects to entice the natives. Watch as CalPortland grind the organ as our ignoble savages do a jaunty dance called the Mine Expansion Two Step. Goodbye two hundred acres of wooded land atop an aquifer; Hello trail markers!
OK. Exhale. This is a tad of an exaggeration, but it still looks bad. But if you look at the accomplishments of this council for the past few years, and there are not many, the credit can be linked to CalPortland and their tireless patronage.
You have to tip your cap to CalPortland; they pay attention to the dysfunction of our council and act accordingly. They spend generously because a dotted “i” here and a crossed “t” there and they stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars in DuPont. What is a couple of grand between friends?
“Each man has his price, Bob, and yours was pretty low”
Roger Waters
From Too Much Rope
Same Playbook, Same Result?
Posted by: | CommentsDawn Masko has taken a page out of her mentor’s playbook and called an audible at the line. Evidently, after reading the defense, Ms. Masko decided to run things differently from the way they were called on the sideline back in April.
There is lip service regarding the need to garner additional inputs as a reason to change the play, the format, and the scope from what the mayor and council outlined way back when, but this is Masko’s baby now.
April. That is Baseball’s time to shine; it is not exactly football season but the city team is hoping the sign ordinance issue should resolve itself sometime between the Apple Cup and the holiday bowl season.
To refresh your collective memories, the sign issue was raised as a matter of enforcement. There was a proliferation of signs not conforming to the city code as written. The signage advocates, led by the churches, claimed confusion of the law and the direction given by city. Plausible, but only the part that the city could confuse their own code.
After some hurt feelings the city pledged to enforce the sign code. It was a grandstanding moment for the city to appear to do something but if you blinked then you may have missed the whole of the city’s activity on the issue. Behind the scenes there were letters sent and DBA announcements made, but I am quite confident that if you audit the books that there are still some gaps in the city’s coverage.
That is not to say that there haven’t been some little victories. There are fewer signs at Center Drive and McNeil. Quadrant ponied up their fees for their signs and was forced to conform with their placement. But, you can hardly call the whole a success with this much time left on the clock. There are still obvious examples of rouge signage that hasn’t been addressed.
The solution was supposed to be a huddle of stakeholders. Churches, citizens, businesses, and the city; but that changed and now Ms. Masko seemingly has lost her nerve and decided to let the chorus of the crowd dictate her fourth down maneuver.
A town hall meeting. That is the equivalent of punting in the red zone. There are children’s birthday parties that are better attended in DuPont than their town hall meetings. But just as the clown knots together a few balloons and calls it a giraffe, so does the city hold a meeting and claim citizen input. It is all an illusion.
The last town hall meeting I bothered to attend had exactly 17 citizens in attendance. Is this just another case of the city checking a box and calling it done? There are concerns over this approach. The first is that it takes a seemingly simple task and complicates it unnecessarily. Does the resolution really require more input? There is a law on the books, the concern was over the enforcement associated with the law. That would suggest it to be procedural matter.
The risk the city is running is to muddle the objective with phony “citizen” testimony. This is often referred to as “astro-turfing” since it creates the illusion of a grassroots movement but instead offers up a stacked deck of supporters or opponents. For instance, let’s say I have a business or a church and I really want any change in the sign code to accommodate my needs. If I know that I can fill a public hearing with 20 “supporters” to passionately or emotionally testify in favor of more signs on public sidewalks then they may create the illusion of wider support.
The end result of this exercise could very well mean more real estate and church signs.
The action at hand in DuPont with the sign issue is one of balance between the needs and wants of our businesses and homeowners; but also it is a matter of vision. How do we want the town to appear aesthetically to visitors and citizens alike. Do the mayor, council, and ROA envision a well maintained and tidy community of homeowners or would they rather have the commercial district extend into our neighborhoods? If they opt for allowing more signs or ignoring the code enforcement, then I really cannot see the point of paying homeowner association dues.
In fairness to Dawn Masko, she is trying to engage the community, however it just isn’t the time or place. The history of recent Town Hall meetings suggests more of the same old, same old. Same old people and the same old result. Hurrying the meeting onto the calendar after a long period of silence on the matter also does not suggest a successful new approach. Dawn Masko, in fact, is married to the same old approach and this meeting shows it. There is no city data to suggest the frequency or success of sign sweeps. No information to consider, just more emotion.
Remember, no one really asked for a new sign code, they just asked that the existing code be enforced.
The last point is that Dawn Masko does not live in DuPont. She really has very little idea what the scope of the problem is and she can only assume that if no one is complaining then it must be OK. The reality is that most people will not complain nor will they get involved. This is where our council and mayor should have shown some more leadership on the issue. Mayor Jenkins did offer some leadership and directed Masko and McDonald in April. Can Ms. Masko feel that she has a better idea now?
It is my hope that whatever the outcome of the meeting someone will address the hand held signs employed to direct people to Pageantry’s townhouses for sale in Hoffman Hill. It is a curious sight since the corner of Hoffman Hill Boulevard and McNeil Street is so far from the commercial district. It is also redundant with the other way finding signs directing motorists to the same destination. Perhaps what is most curious is that the sign waver is also perfectly positioned to be seen by those visiting our most well attended tourist destination: The Home Course.
Today, the golfers got an eyeful with our teenage directional sign holder dancing with earphones in place and his female companion sprawled on the ground, passed out on a blanket. Welcoming for 5000 years or until the shift is over. On more than one occasion, passersby stopped to check on the welfare of our city strip camper.
Just because no one complains, Ms. Masko, doesn’t make it right.
Two Peas In A Pod
Posted by: | CommentsAs we move on to the DuPont City Administrator’s report it becomes evident to you that not a whole lot changes, at least not for the better. You watch to see if there is a moment of enlightenment but it is just more of the same.
Bill’s report is usually pretty boring. Perhaps it’s the monotone delivery, or the fact it is just rehashed information from the equally as un-illuminating Friday Letter. Seldom does the report end with you feeling that the major needs and actions of the community have been addressed.
There are a few nuances from this report, however, that bear further dissemination.
The first item of interest is the response to the question posed by councilman Westman regarding progress of the sign ordinance. This was a request in response to the tracking sheet update provided by Bill McDonald but Mayor Jenkins felt compelled to jump in and field this question.
If the mayor felt that this matter was beyond the scope of Bill McDonald, who is leaving his position effective July 1st, then why not let Dawn Masko answer for herself? She should know better than anyone the progress toward completion. This was hardly a loaded question. It was a simple inquiry on the status and trending toward closure of an issue before City Hall for action.
The event grew even odder when Jenkins offered up the answer.
I can’t help but feel that mayor Jenkins was grasping while laying atop the acorn that she mistook for a grenade. The response was hardly heroic as she noticeably fumbled, stammered and yammered, invoked tired clichés, repeated herself, and ultimately offered up too much information; not all of which was correct.
The hair on the back of my neck stands up when I hear the response to a question, any question, begin with the phrase “Excellent [question].” Roger wasn’t asking her to define pi, he merely was asking for a status update on the promised sign code focus group.
The mayor continued to bogart Masko’s answer with her cliché and buzzword heavy response.
“Moving forward.” (twice)
“Parallel.” (twice)
“Process.” (thrice)
“Stakeholders.”
“On target.”
Oh brother, check you boots. It was painful. It also reminded me of what constitutes a “tell” when someone is being less than truthful; or perhaps scrambling because they don’t know what they are talking about. Increased speed in the voice, a new cadence in speech, the increased use of buzzwords, unnecessarily expounding on an answer, and finally, repeating one’s self. The combination of all this drive the needle into the red, I am afraid.
Personally, I think the sign issue has shown improvement but I hardly would call it consistent or a complete success. There were signs posted for a recent “Gold Sale” at Guesthouse Suites and I am not sure they were permitted. Nor has there been anything done about human billboards in town. So where was the enforcement there? Is enforcement scheduled or part of the policy where it can be expected whenever a rogue sign appears? Is there a response flow established to alert the enforcing agency?
How many sign sweeps were conducted since the decision was made to enforce?
That brings up a point on what an update should be, so listen up council and mayor. This update should be measurable. Dawn should be providing council the following: 1) How many permits were submitted and approved per week since last report; 2) How many signs were in violation per week; 3) How many man-hours were used to enforce the code per week; 4) Any comments from businesses and citizens on the action since the last report.
I especially like the last point since City Hall is there to, you know, serve the citizens of this town.
Additionally, the roll up should include progress on meeting with the focus group; conversations with the city attorney; and most importantly, status on the progress to an established and publicized closure date.
Lest you think the mayor was going to continue speaking for her staff, Mr. Short-timer had a chance to answer a few questions from Councilman Grayum.
Excellent question(s)!
Again, Grayum wasn’t asking anything that needed to be solved with Chinese algebra, he just was seeking some clarification on the tracking sheet. Yes, that lame tracking sheet that serves as a portal to a black hole were resolution enters hyper-space.
The answer was vintage McDonald. Ducking and weaving, he finally blurted out a response so unconvincing that not even the camera believed it.
“…[an issue] stays in a position of closure for a month and then it comes off.”
Yeah.
Right.
The mayor and her administration have all the answers, it seems. Just too bad they aren’t answering the questions that they are being asked.
DuPont WA Mayor’s Report – June 2010
Posted by: | CommentsThe mayor’s report for June 2010 was just like most others in recent history, skimpy on substance and chock full of superficial details that willfully ignore important or controversial details.
Did you know that DuPont Washington’s population number grew in the last 10 years? Fascinating. Or, that we are in negotiations for some used train parts. Phenomenal. Hey, we had people pay to walk a trail that is ordinarily free (when the city isn’t involved). Suckers! Did you know that we have a process around planning events? It’s true, and it is mentioned here.
Worried about the permitting process or the sign code or other enforcement issues? Well, then you will have to wait for the city administrator’s report. The mayor is there to make us feel good. No need to sully herself with the details of what needs to be addressed in the city, after all, there is a parade to plan!
Enjoy.
All The World’s A Stage; As You Like It, ROA
Posted by: | CommentsLast month the Northwest Landing ROA proposed to the City of DuPont that a permanent stage be built at Clocktower Park. This permanent stage construction would be financed in full by the ROA. In essence, it would be given as a gift to the city of DuPont.
Some of the reasoning behind this gesture is that the ROA does not own suitable land to build this structure for them; the ROA does not want to bear the costs of storing the stage; and, the city and the ROA would share a mutual benefit of using the stage for events that require such a facility.
The council, almost as if by script, started wringing their infirmed hands at the thought of the cost to maintain this stage. They look to the rest of their eroding infrastructure (like the arbor at the same park) and wonder if it will actually turn into a liability.
Larry Ackerman of the ROA assured the council that the design will be as low maintenance as possible. All the ROA wants out of the deal is the occasional use of this stage when providing a seemingly less frequent event like a concert.
Win-win, right?
I am not so sure. I find it curious that, if given the opportunity, both parties would choose Clocktower Park. I imagine from the ROA perspective the Clocktower Park is a convenient legacy choice since it has hosted events for the past decade or more. Longer than the vast majority of townsfolk have called DuPont, Washington home. It simply has been done this way in the past so why change it?
The why, perhaps, is because DuPont has changed since the first event at Clocktower Park. But, before we get to those changes we first must ponder the nature of the ROA events in the first place. Would it be overly cynical to suggest that any event sponsored by the ROA is nothing more than a poorly veiled marketing ploy? I would say that in the beginning that was the case but over time it seems absurd that WRECO or Quadrant is still selling that “Planned Community” bullcrap.
Palisade Village was the brochure that sold the rest of the units in Edmond, Yehle, and Hoffman Hill. Any similarities are more coincidence than a plan. The narrow streets, the primarily alley access, and walkability, heck, even the pocket parks are pretty much out the window in the rest of town.
You will find streets festooned with the American Flag on the lamp posts only east of Center Drive. No flags adorn McNeil, Bob’s Hollow, or Hoffman Hill Boulevard. Why? Because it was always done that way. Besides, it looked nice in the real estate ads.
The people of Palisade Village may not realize it but they have been used as accessories to the ROA and the builders for years.
So let’s get back to the changes in DuPont since the first chord was struck in Clocktower Park. Aside from the obvious population growth in the four new villages, DuPont also has a fledgling, if not tenuous, business district. Two hotels with incredible occupancy rates due to our military benefactors. A new school and a recently remodeled school. A community park located as near the center of town as feasible. Oh, and who could forget our Civic (in name only) Center.
I think if you examine the proposal from someone outside of Palisade Village, the Clocktower Park holds little relevance.
Roger Westman brought up an interesting point when he inquired what the city classification was for Clocktower Park. According to the Parks Master Plan, it isn’t a community park. That distinction is held by Powderworks Park. In fact, by definition, Clocktower Park is just another neighborhood park.
Why is this important? Well, probably because the City of DuPont does a lousy job of respecting its own laws, codes, settlement agreements, and governing principles. They can barely figure out what their own plan states before they change it inadvertently or purposefully; or worse yet; they change it to accommodate some outside interest.
Peter Zahn attempted to explain away Councilmen Westman’s inquiry by stating, more or less, Clocktower Park was chosen because it has hosted events in the past that needed a stage. True, but the reason Clocktower Park hosted those events is because it was the only park in Northwest Landing for a long time.
Things change.
There are now many more Neighborhood Parks, as well as the Civic Center and our Community Park. Is there a real reason to benefit, or detract, from such a small subset of DuPont? The video mentions the deal was hatched by the ROA and they promptly engaged the city’s Public Works director for an ad hoc feasibility study. Where was the input of the City Administrator or Parks Department who may have raised Roger’s valid point earlier? Effectively, the ROA sought the information they desired to bolster their offer to the city council. Free is free, and that is certainly singing the council’s tune.
Well, I have another point of view. I think Clocktower Park is irrelevant to the current, larger and more populous DuPont. What is surprising is how quickly the council fell in line with the ROA’s wishes. No one seemed to bat an eye when Mr. Ackerman’s velvet glove slipped off briefly to reveal his iron fist when he stated that he would like to see the project completed by the Fourth of July or the money and offer could go away forever (3:57 mark of first video).
And if you act right now you will get a second pair of steak knives. All you pay is the shipping.
Not so fast. We have a plan in this town, Bub.
For a town that says it wants to attract visitors I find it odd that they would tuck such a resource further back into the neighborhood. On one hand, it would make sense to place it in Powderworks Park since it is centrally located with ample parking. It would also make even more sense placing it at the Civic Center so that utility of the name can live up to the space provided for citizens to gather.
Or, consider my personal favorite location of Ross Plaza. Didn’t we have a “branding effort” a few years back? Wouldn’t a concert located in our business district serve as a promotion to these establishments and be inviting for hotel guests and other visitors? Shouldn’t all of our marquee events take place in the “City Center” we claim it to be?
It is time to rethink our events and their venues. It is also time to rethink a gift that doesn’t benefit everyone. It is time to stop promoting a single village and it is time to start promoting all of DuPont.
Going back to Clocktower Park is so 1999.
DuPont Sign Code Enforcement Update
Posted by: | CommentsDawn Masko, acting and future City Administrator, provides an update regarding the DuPont city sign code and the enforcement activities.
Bill has trained Ms. Masko well. No finality projected until the fall. Is this a surprise to anyone who has lived in DuPont for more than five years?
According to Dawn Masko, the initial actions around enforcing the sign code are yet to be completed but it appears that City Hall has already drawn the conclusion that the sign code has to be changed, or in the least it has to be reviewed, and that will take several months.
What I find interesting is how vague the update is to the council. No report out on how many violators; how many signs collected; or how many permits issued since the matter was brought to their attention by citizen involvement.
Let’s see who gets those targeted letters. I wonder if Gary Yoho will get one at Chloe Clark for their little green men who stand sentry at the crosswalk on Palisade. Those signs are in the right of way of traffic. Or, what about the signs at the John L Scott building? Or, my personal favorite, the human sign waver who stands at McNeil and Hoffman Hill every Saturday with a gigantic arrow pointing you to multi-family dwellings.
Class.
Penny Coffey is right; it is disappointing that this is going to take so long. However, I am not as quick to take Ms. Masko’s explanation that the code is overly complicated and requires extensive review, legal or otherwise. Some things just need to get done and this is one of them. If this is a glimpse into the future of how DuPont will be run then is looks a lot like the past.
Step on a Crack, Break a Taxpayer’s Back
Posted by: | CommentsThe sign code has been garnering a fair amount of our attention. Rightly so, since the issue remained dormant until someone dared to asked “why?” and that ordinary thought grew into something much larger. Today our benefit is less rogue signage and some more coins in the city’s purse.
Of course, it was a little more complicated than that. There was some prior knowledge of the city code and what it detailed. The question “why?” did not surround the reason the churches and businesses needed signs in the first place, but rather why wasn’t the city adhering to the law as written?
Sometimes simple questions have difficult answers. The sign issue resulted in some hurt feelings and defensiveness, as well as justifications; and for that City Hall only has themselves to blame. This is the inevidable result of lack of focus and inaction. It is also the pernicious side effect of working toward consensus. The city doesn’t necessarily need buy-in as much as they need leadership.
The good news is that the leadership has the law on their side. The solution all along resided buried on the city website in the form of a municipal code. It was a collective decision of the mayor and city administrator not to wield their authority and the collective ignorance or ineptness of the city council not to press them on the matter. This inaction led to a new normal and that normal had un-permitted sandwich boards illegally placed all over town.
Viola! It is just that easy to drift off course.
This is not the only time that the city of DuPont leadership has let the citizens down when it comes to code enforcement. You may have noticed that I have spent a fair amount of time shining a light on the matter here. The reaction has been predictable.
You are so negative!
Why can’t you write something positive sometime?
You are just a crank.
And, my favorite: “You are a disgrace to this city.”
Perhaps, but I have my own unique motivations (which I will touch upon in a moment).
After all the focus on the sign issue you may have been lulled to think that the city has turned the corner. Maybe it was isolated after all. And, just when you think that the city understands the importance of enforcing the law then comes the realization that they have been blissfully ignoring another city code. A city code that has been in place since the first term of the Eisenhower administration (I wish I was kidding).
14.01.020 Correction of defective sidewalk.
Whenever any sidewalk has become unsafe or unfit for public use, or whenever it appears necessary or advisable that a new sidewalk be constructed, or an old sidewalk replaced or repaired, or an obstruction removed, the Council may by resolution order the work done at the expense of the owner or occupants of the abutting property. Notice shall be given to such owner or occupants, and procedure shall be followed as specified and provided by Chapter 149 of the Laws of 1915 as supplemented by Chapter 177 of the Laws of 1949 of the State of Washington as the same now exist or may hereafter be amended. Nothing contained in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit or limit the right of citizens or of the City to initiate sidewalk improvements by means of a local improvement district. (Ord. 30 § 8, Sept. 17th, 1953).
14.01.030 Method of repair of sidewalks.
All breaks in or removals of sidewalk or curbing shall be promptly repaired or replaced according to the specifications of the City and subject to inspection and approval by the City. During the time any sidewalk or curb is removed or broken as aforesaid, the person responsible shall make, provide or install such temporary repairs, markings, barricades, warning signs and the like as may be necessary to render the sidewalk safe and prevent injury. (Ord. 30 § 6, Sept. 17th, 1953).
Perhaps you read this in the latest Home Town Clipper. Or, maybe you saw the video from the March televised council meeting. Or, maybe you are clairvoyant, like Councilman John Ehrenreich, and you saw this coming five years ago. All you really need to do is take a stroll through Palisade Village because signs of it are everywhere, as in every few feet.
There is evidence throughout the whole village of damaged sidewalks; lifted, and in some cases broken by the trees planted in the city strip.
The problem is being addressed by city in the way they have grown too accustomed. Choosing the path of least resistance and avoiding enforcement of this nearly 60 year old law. I am sure this is because it probably won’t end in the consensus the city covets when they knock on a homeowner’s door and tell them that their sidewalk in out of compliance.
Imagine, for a moment, how that conversation may go:
Knock, Knock, Knock.
“Hello, your sidewalk is unsafe and needs to be replaced.”
“Oh, my”
“And, you have to pay for it.”
“Says who?”
“Says DuPont Municipal Code 14.01.020, that’s who. Home owners are responsible for their sidewalks”
“Who are you?”
“I am with the city of DuPont.”
“But, it was your tree in the ‘city strip’ that damaged my sidewalk.”
“It doesn’t matter. The law is the law.”
Slam!
The city would be in the right, the law is the law. It just is another example of a lack of enforcement, probably because it would make for an uncomfortable confrontation between the mayor or council and their Palisade pals at Forza or McNamara’s. Sure, it is the easy thing to do, to overlook that confrontation, but is it the right thing to do?
Roger Westman probably spoke for many of his Palisade Village constituents when he expressed concern over the damaged sidewalks due to the tree roots. Mr. Westman even has a portion of a sidewalk adjacent to his property that was ground down by DuPont Public Works, so the threat is there. But I disagree with Mr. Westman when he states:
“I chose to live where I did, I did not have a choice [of] the trees that are in front of my property.”
Actually, Roger, if I am not mistaken it was a package deal. You signed on, and with that, you assumed some liability as stated in DMC 14.01.020. It is unfortunate that many in Palisade Village assumed that whoever planted those trees must have known what they were doing. History tells us that they did not. Caveat emptor.
Penny Coffey must have captured the thoughts of many when she stated that one of the reasons she moved here was because of the trees (presumably those trees in the city strip). It seems inconceivable to long time residents that some of those trees now must go. They have been a fifteen year investment in the marketing of DuPont as a master planned community. What a kick in the shorts it must be to cut them down and risk looking like, heaven forbid: Hoffman Hill (where Quadrant chose to invest more in sandwich board road signs than landscaping).
The tree and sidewalk issue is not just the unholy alliance of Palisade Village. The solution to address the trees will come from all citizens’ taxes. It is an unplanned event that does not yet have a price tag. We are hearing about the sidewalks now, but the curbs and roadway are sure to be next. I don’t like it, but I can live with the city spending money on addressing the trees and their accursed roots.
My opinion on how the city has handled the sidewalk issue in completely opposite to that of the trees. I cannot find the justification as to why the City of DuPont would bear the complete burden of sidewalk repair and replacement in spite of the law.
Why would the city do this and how much is it costing everyone in DuPont? The answers appear to be elusive because the city isn’t really saying how much it is costing taxpayers. This is what I do know: The city has repaired hundreds of sidewalks throughout Palisade Village, and in nearly all of the repairs, they did not consult with the homeowner.
While this may seem like the right thing to do for those who had wonky sidewalks it does end up setting an unrealistic precedent. What next? Will the city of DuPont start paying for people’s parking tickets? Or, pay for any such item it is not responsible for by law?
Stump grinding? Call the city. Need a hornet’s nest removed? Call the city. Too much moss on your roof? Call the city. Just be sure to live east of Center Drive.
In my communication with the city on this matter, I have discovered that no homeowner has paid for the sidewalk grinding service. The city provided no actual numbers of sidewalks that were addressed by grinding. The city also did not specifically state how many man hours from Public Works were spend grinding sidewalks. That is probably because it is just now part of what they do. They city did provide me two department reports, one in 2008 and the other in 2009, that mention sidewalk maintenance and the associated equipment rental.
Compounding the frustration of paying to fix someone else’s problem is that this may not be a fix at all. The sidewalk is in that state because of what lurks beneath. However, I cannot see any action to attack the offending roots. All the city did was spend your money to shave a couple of inches of concrete off of the top of the sidewalk. Presumably, the roots are still growing and pushing that same slab.
Perhaps you are now saying, aw, lighten up. The tree board will take care of the problem. In that fateful March council meeting there was councilman John Ehrenreich pleading and admonishing in the same breath, making an appeal for citizen involvement to join the tree board. It was a cross between a tearful Sally Struthers with orphans in Gondwanaland and Smokey the Bear. It was both pandering and misguided.
Why? Because there is no Keyser Söze, just as there really isn’t a Tree Board. Take a look at their meeting minutes from their inception and tell me if you can find any action they have taken besides plan for Arbor Day. Yes, we now have another sign on Center Drive: Tree City USA.
In fact, of the seven times that the Tree Board met since 2009, councilman Ehrenreich has missed four of those meetings and all of the meetings held in 2010. Is he looking for volunteers or a replacement? Is it John’s lack of attendance that has slowed any action for this issue? Isn’t John the one who dramatically proclaimed that he could see this issue coming when he joined council five years ago? Yet, there was John accepting the plaque for Tree City U.S.A. at a recent council meeting as if it really mattered and as if it wasn’t really just a civic farce.
Enough of the talk, already. We need some answers.
Face it, DuPont, we only heard about this issue recently because of what is unfolding at the Clock Tower Apartments. Bill McDonald stated that the owners of the Clock Tower Apartments faced some objections from their lenders when trying to refinance the property due to the state of the sidewalks. Soon after, there were enough orange cones along McNeil, Edgar, Ross, and McDonald you would have thought that the city was hosting another kiddy soccer camp.
Who is repairing these sidewalks and who is paying for it? Based on the actions that are evident (removed slabs, piles of cut roots) my guess is that it isn’t the city. So then, why is the city addressing sidewalks for some but not others? Or, if this is the city’s action then does that mean the rest of Palisade Village can expect further mitigation?
I still have an information request submitted to City Hall hoping it will shed some light on the matter; though my previous information request did not yield much fruit.
DuPont’s sidewalk and tree issue is a symbol in many ways of an approach that has not served its citizens well. If we are to judge the management of this issue based on past performance then things do not look good. Remember, the deterioration of our fire department was also a slow moving train that eventually took out the council stalled on the tracks. According to councilman Ehrenreich we had five years to prepare for this day and yet the city did nothing.
It is time to hear why the city chose not to enforce this code, either. The sidewalk grinding activity, from a city that claims to be broke, is puzzling. Aside from making our sidewalks look Tillicumesque, affected citizens have a stop gap before the real repairs have to take place. Meanwhile, the rogue root system continues to damage our infrastructure.
In parallel to this lack of effective action our City Hall continues to work on the “important” things (to them) like obtaining historical sites that citizens do not care about (according to the city’s own survey) and to hire an arborist to consult on the restoration of a “heritage” orchard (in the faint hope of drawing in a tourist or two).
The tree and sidewalk issue is going to be painful both financially and aesthetically, but now you have to wonder if it didn’t have to be so painful if the city took action five years ago.