In it's latest update the City mentions RiverVision.
RiverVision
At its foundation, the plan empasizes the following stragic goals:
Connect Davenport and Rock Island
Capitalize on the unique qualities of Davenport and Rock Island
Create new urban parks appropriate for each city
Identify catalysts for spurring economic development
Phase project implementation to demonstrate early success.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This means both cities want to bring back the water taxi with $3.5 million from the Federal Transportation Act. Both cities want to light Lock & Dam 15 at a joint cost of $650,000. I didn't see where either city mentioned maintainence and utility costs. While the water taxi is a neat idea I seem to remember the reason they stopped it is because it lost money. Development is fine, but it is not the only issue in this city.
This is just my take on it; shouldn't the city wait until some of the rumored 189 lawsuits against it are finalized? Two of the big ones are the cable fee, and the red light/speed cameras which would be millions if the city lost in court. I think before the city does much more spending, they ought to start thinking. Leave the meetings like they are, and run our city like professionals.
Nowhere is the crime problem mentioned. Maybe everyone feels like some posters on other blogs that because violent crimes lately involved people who know each other it's not a problem. While this seems true enough on the surface, when people are being shot outside of businesses, during business hours, I say it's a problem. Your opinions are welcome.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
qc gas prices-
http://www.quadcitiesgasprices.com/
Links
- Just Cruisin2 blog
- Local weather
- Iowa Road Conditions
- QC Blogs
- davenport snarkiness
- QCI's blog
- QC Media
- Solo
- Some car pictures
- 3-D Sound
- Quad Cities Cruisers Events
- QC Antique Ford Club
- Studebaker Club
- Cordova Dragpark
- Davenport Speedway
- find racers
- track locator
- Miller/Offenhauser Historical Society
- Car blog
- Chevy Talk
- Ford Barn
- Mopar Forum
- AARP Magazine Online
- Family Watchdog
- Federal Citizen Information Center
- Google News
- Missing and Exploited kids
10 comments:
The city has the ability to do more than one thing. Increasing our anti-crime efforts doesn't have to, and in my opinion shouldn't, mean we can't work on the riverfront. As you mentioned, it would probably involve various grants and federal dollars anyway, not to mention that it would come out of the CIP as opposed to the operating budget.
Everyone seems to talk in these either/or tones, but I don't know why it can't be "and," especially when the money comes from 2 different funds.
QCI, I thought the same way myself. But evidently if the city is thinking about development, they can't think about crime. Crime just isn't mentioned. They can't say they haven't heard about the problem. So I believe the city council is as much a problem as us people who would like to hear more about what is being done to fight crime. We know they're not going to get rid of section 8, or other low income rental programs because the city is a property owner to a lot of these renters. So until I hear different, I will continue my 'againster' comments. I just can't see how the crime being in our local news almost daily can help development either. How can so many people admit there is a crime problem, then blame the messenger for bringing it up. If the city can think of more than money and development, they should prove it.
I don't understand their head-in-the-sand attitude towards crime either.
I think they believe that development will take care of crime. This is flawed. I really think that if we focused on the elimination of crime that we can then really promote more people, businesses and development. It is the which came first thing, the chicken or the egg. I think we have too many with the attitude that people have to live somewhere - even the criminals who are our problem here. A task force to address crime is long long long overdue.
I had a chance to review the document you mentioned above. I believe the River Vision section was talking more long term. The current proposed city budget has no funding to operate the water taxi. That will have to wait until we get funds to build the dock area on both sides of the river to service them.
The new budget is adding 5 personnel to the PD in total. This should help, but in no way elimnate, the crime situation. Two of the new headcount will be towards the NETS program which will help improve some of the more impoverished neighborhoods.
You should review the proposals in the powerpoint presentation of the budget. It does help to understand where the PD and the city is putting their priorities. An improvement in the right direction in my mind but I'm sure it will fall short of most peoples' expectations.
6:49 mentions a task force. Good idea! It should be brought to the council's attention to get additional citizen input.
The idea that development drives out crime isn't flawed, but the idea that we're somehow going to redevelop every crime area in Davenport in the next few years is. I don't foresee a renaissance in Goose Creek, so for places like that we need good old fashioned police work.
Development could drive out much of the crime surrounding downtown. For example, the area behind this building used to be a perfect spot for criminal activity, and now there's little to none. A few new businesses, removing the Ledo, or some redevelopment near the Y could help scare off the criminals from the 3rd and Western crime hotspot. There is more than one way to get rid of crime, but neither one way can work by itself.
Citizen input was offered but doesn't seem to have much teeth. Look at the DAI, what have they done or presented? This is the cities way to pacify those who tend to draw attention. Will this group of councilmen listen to anyone? Only when it comes to getting re-elected.
Out of 26 pages in the update, the only even remote link to crime is the mention of 5 more police. While I am not against development, things could be done SoLo without a huge city expense or labor force. I have mentioned these options several times in past posts. The city needs to get a handle on the low income complexes. Goose Creek, Castlewood, and yes the Lido. I think the crime will be mentioned as elections are coming up and that always changes opinions on the city council. I'm just saying it would be nice to see it mentioned in a document of that size. When I tell people where I live, I get; wow you must be tough to live there. I would rather hear; it must be great to live there. If we get rid of the crime, we can also work on losing our negative image. People who don't live SoLo think it's like the wild west.
QCI, your comment about Goose Creek needing old fashioned police work before or if it's the next renaissance area was heartwarming to read. That is the very message SOLO residents have been saying. Just because we aren't the next frontier for development is no reason for the PD, the NEO, the MAYOR to turn their backs on us. We have crime God damn it, violent crime, yes even crime against strangers, and we need backup. We need the laws on the books enforced TODAY, and stop jacking us around when we ask for it. If the judges are the problem then the PD can offer to join us in facing that problem.
8:48, no need to use the Lords name in vain, in fact, if you do, you will lose the point that you where driving at. You did with me, I stopped reading your blog! Grow up, not out!!
Post a Comment