A blog devoted to the Quad Cities, with an emphasis on images, local politics, and development.
We just need more speed cameras like Ohio http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/news/13347408.htm
In many cases, the cameras didn't cut much slack: 40 percent of those fined $150 were going 10 mph or less over the posted limit. One person was going only 5 mph over a 20 mph limit.That would absolutely happen here if they didn't give people the 11 or 12mph of leeway. Your $2.50 stormwater fee looks like no big deal when you're getting $40 tickets every time you get in the car, so I don't think any councils are going to be too keen on ticketing at 5mph over.
Davenport One should bag moose shit ( there is plenty of it) and market it under a fancy D-1 label if it needs more money for its Grow Davenport projects and quit hauling bags of money home from City Hall.
I was being sarcastic about the speed cameras. If I get a ticket for up to 5 or 6 miles over, you bet I'll be contesting it!
I'm not sure what would happen if they tried 5mph-over tickets, but it would be bad. Bad for the police, bad for anyone who voted for it, just bad. I would like to think any current or future council person realizes this.Plus the Postal Service would have to buy more trucks just to carry all the notices.
New poles are being put up at Kimberly and Brady, guess the speed cameras are on their way.
Saw this post on the Colonel's blog. It is about the lawsuit those three little old ladies filed to stop the City from selling the 36.1 million in bonds and putting us all in debt:Not sure it is a waste of time. I heard about this and a lawyer in my office said that if the Council moves ahead and actually sells the bonds (which is scheduled to occur on Dec 15), then the City and possibly the Council members themselves could be held responsible for their irresponsible actions. He put it like this...Lets suppose you are divorcing your wife and you have $100,000.00 in the bank. She sues you for claims of $100,000.00. Would you go out and spend that $100,000.00 on your new girlfriend during the lawsuit against you??Moral of the story... Unless they want to be held individually responsible and possibly be held in contempt of court, Moritz, Bushek, Engelmann, McGivern, Howard, Ahrens and Barnhill best not spend that money and issue the bonds until this case either moves forward or is dismissed.
What grounds are they suing on? We elected the council, and bonds are a normal part of city business. The fact that 3 ladies don't like what the city's up to isn't usually good enough to win a lawsuit.Also, there's no need to post the same comment on both the Colonel's blog and mine.
Hey QCI, maybe not everyone reads your blog.Ya Think?
QCI,It will be interesting to see what the lawsuit actually says, but the rumor is that there is a lot more to it than three little old ladies that don't like the current council. I am told that the lawsuit mentions that the current spending (36.1 million dollar bond issue) does not represent the will of the voters, which by law is I think what a council is supposed to do. More importantly, I heard it raises legal questions about the actual items being purchased on behalf of the taxpayers, such as possible EPA hazards at the site where the police station is supposed to be built, and the possibility that the core of engineers might not allow the boat to be moved to its intended site and yet money is being committed in advance of that decision to the levee project. This could all be ruled capricious and arbitrary by a judge, and then the new council would get to decide the fate of the 36.1 million in bonds. I sure hope that occurs. I will tell you one thing, if I were sitting on the current council, I would NOT allow the bond sale to go through until I at least waited to see if the judge would throw the case out. If not, I think it could put me at personal legal risk. Those are three very smart little old ladies!
To the 11:05 poster: I realize not everyone reads this blog. That doesn't change the fact that no one needs to post the same exact comments on multiple blogs. Not everyone reads the Times, but that doesn't mean every letter to the editor should be sent word-for-word to the QCTimes, the Reader, and the Dispatch. Pick which site its more relevant on and post it there.To the lawsuit topic: For one, I do think the majority of Davenport would vote for the new police station, and I don't know if its a given they wouldn't pass the whole shootin' match. My prediction is the lawsuit is doomed.
I'm really confused, one poster states that part of the old ladies lawsuit claims that the bond issue "does not represent the will of the voters". All these years I thought that's why we had elections, to elect people to make decisions for us, now it seems if you have a $100 bill in your pocket you can go down to the courthouse and change your mind through a lawsuit about what the elected oficials are doing.I suppose the next thing they will want is a monthly referendum in place of a city council meeting.
The "the will of the voters" they mean "the will of the angry and vocal minority"
The little old ladies are not so dumb after all. Sure, some of the stuff in their lawsuit says that the elected officials are not demonstrating the will of the voters and sure, that can be thrown out. But, they are very specific about the potentially toxic nature of the site where the new station is to be built, and that will have to be investigated. If all that can happen during the current council's tenture, then fine. If not, the little old ladies should win!
If the police station is a toxic site it should be evacuated immediately! We don't need any more lawsuits than we already have.
I will agree with that last poster that the little old ladie's lawsuit should be dropped...AFTER January 1 06. Go ladies, go!!!
Post a Comment