First, regarding the ethics policy and its concluding hearing (and passage, on its way to the consent agenda) for the Richardson, Texas, City Council, there were some missed opportunities and none more striking (and blown) than how the confidentiality clause was born and passed through. All sorts of descriptions spring to mind. I'll refrain because someone else has already said it better (and he actually edits his writing and checks his spelling, see below).
Many of us have expressed, discussed and tried (and tried) to tell our representative or the entire Richardson City Council how we feel about the use of that sledge hammer of a confidentiality clause (as written).
I feel Mark Steger over at The Wheel has described very capably a better way, one of several, that could be used to handle such a clause concern.
I also compliment all the speakers ("visitors") on Monday night because every speaker brought up valid points, this one and others.
I also feel DC's blog called Just My Two Cents has been consistently bringing up things that are worth considering and I feel and understand his and everyone else's frustration, not that it matters (h/t).
Given the council behavior immediately following it's passage, it seems only the people were really interested in ethics in government.
I can see how council did what it did, council who are inside looking out, who are writing rules that apply to said council, which are claimed to be and supposed to be "the people's code" but that isn't much like the people's code. Or if staff is writing it (from one or from thirteen cities).
Seeing any government consciously follow an RIAA model that is only going to cause about thirty new and better Napster peer to peer offspring is not something beautiful (to RIAA, at least, not until they would get their act together, comparatively, for interims). Government failure to release public information (public information) in a timely matter as required by law (as required by law) only gives birth to (double edged swords) like wikileaks. The more a government unnecessarily keeps a people's business from it, the more the trust lessens that such a government has any right to hide any information even when there are valid (limited) cases to do so. The trust is already weakened via behavior that begat the call for an ethics policy.
There is a lot of ground not addressed at all by the council's code of ethics. No mention of prohibition against several of the activities that should have never happened in the past and should not be happening now or in the future. It can and will happen with even more immunity now because it can be said by council, and staff, that, "oh, well, it doesn't offend our (this) code of council ethics and protection (or staff code of ethics), therefore we can do that." This coupled with what is essentially a chilling gag order of protection for anything at all put into an executive session does not spell "People's Document."
That's what I wanted to say about that, for now.
Moving on to another item, one
that essentially involved whether to require an apartment complex across from city hall to pour more concrete on the ground already planted with trees and shrubs (17 years after an agreement or obligation to do so back in the day) and help cause just a little more stormwater runoff in Rtown (like we need more of that).The request was for a sidewalk variance on a low traffic area with a city (Richardson code) standard sidewalk directly across the street. Not that this means anything, but I have seen many cases where variances were given to others with much less fitting requests by far.
It could have gone either way on granting the request or not, I see the pros and cons, some compromise was had, I am not going to go over the details, but I wanted to say that there could be better ways of providing for increased pedestrian mobility and connectivity (mentioned, and rightly so), reduced storm water runoff, while keeping things attractive (good) and affordable and respecting good design principles. I learned of this through discussions with mainly two people plus a few others, meaning mainly a former council member who I call on as much as I can before I feel like a stalker and a suckling sponge and a Richardson assistant department manager type who is like a wizard.
Some visuals:
Permeable sidewalks, all kinds, fancy or very plain (standard look), could be used that let water pass or go through and reduce runoff and accommodate pedestrians and trees or plantings.
Problems when traditional methods meet trees (roots)
Rubber sidewalk example that I was told about (recycled tires). Utilizing them also helps clean up plagued areas and counties that have severe rubber tire dumping problems. Dumping of tires is such a problem not just here in Texas and so much so that a fee is charged in many areas across the country when tires are purchased to help pay to educate and clean up or combat tire dumping. Putting this and other materials to use more, in more applications where they work better than concrete could help all that and more.
Grasscrete is used in several places around here. In certain cases, in places that are not ideal for more straight up concrete, grass pavers provide support, and green, and permeability (permeation of storm water into the ground).
Another thing is that more miles of trails, developed in a sustainable (very sound) way could be achieved sooner if even a small shift in the way of thinking was employed. Some of this has been pointed out to me in Richardson, but only some. I always say to my friends and anyone who will listen, give us more of that information and examples of what is and can work.
Overbuilding amenities as a policy reduces the pervasiveness of those amenities which could be right-built (adequate) for more users, earlier on (faster availablity and for more people). Wide is good, but length is good too.
Stormwater runoff, dealing with so much impermeable (impervious) surfaces in a city, is nothing to keep ignorning to the extent it has been and to a certain extent being ignored by some (not by all, but by some), mainly politicians, who will offer as the solution to just tax us more (fee us more) as the main, long-time coming solution without appropriate change in their thinking and in policy or in concretin', beyond appearances).
(Having to dig up a roadway and concrete every time any single one of the utilities has a problem is a problem. More on that later. )
Those are my notes and that is my time for now. Maybe someone will read this and see value in it. There are pros and cons to every thing, but sometimes it is very okay to consider different options that have not been given a fair try or much thought.
P.S. I feel that ruling on the case of the sidewalk wasn't exactly too friendly towards a good neighbor business who has done good for so long and now some greens are going to be uprooted and other mature greens put at risk of death on behalf of more concrete. Frontage road around there is already a wading pool when it rains good. Just saying. Also, seems like the city paid for drainage for the condos (their share of it) nearby outright when the development didn't build it in like they were supposed to (agreed to), but the other place has to build for itself what was called a community use amenity. Why the difference between the two? Is it because a councilman who lived at the condos pressed for city to foot their bill but at this time there is no councilman living at the apartments? Just curious how that all works and matches up. I'm not saying it does or doesn't. I'm just asking.
P.P.S. In regards to a few comments about the importance of especially the area around city hall, I wanted to say that how the city hall neighborhood looks is no more (or less) important than how our neighborhoods look (how they should be treated and regarded) and how our businesses and residents should be treated no matter where they live in our city.
