July 2012

Is dual use of city departments a good idea?

I’m just throwing the idea out there, but could we use firefighters to help in tree trimming around the city? I just watched this video of the new green truck the fire department has purchased. It seems the truck is perfectly outfitted for things like simple tree trimming.

And I am not saying the FD needs to ditch their regular duties, but could the truck be used to help trim trees for the elderly or for people who don’t have the means to do it themselves?

I think it would be easy for them to go around and check trees (and fire hydrants) in their districts and not be negligent in providing safety to the residents. These trucks are fully equipped with the lastest technology to respond to a fire quickly. And if they are out in their districts they may even be able to respond quicker.

I have always felt the biggest problem with municipal employees is that they are usually not required to multi-task unless they are a grunt in the hole for public works. Remember the termination of Debra Owen? She wore many hats, and for that she was a significant asset and value to the city. Heck, they had to replace her with 3 employees and a couple of committees.

Just a thought.

 

The irony of Jason Gant

While I agree PAC’s should be filing reports, I had to shake my head at this comment by Gant;

“But at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter if they’re active or not,” Gant said. Filing reports is “the only way (voters) know who’s paying for different postcards or different billboards or any of that type of political activity.”

Unless you of course work for Gant, because then you can do whatever you want and the AG will put his tiny little stamp of approval on it.

Texting and Driving. Educate before Legislating.

As you know, some councilors on the city council are pushing to ‘make a statement’ about a texting and driving ordinance.

I will repeat this one more time. Texting and driving is stupid. But if certain councilors want to ‘make a statement’ about texting and driving, I suggest they put up their own money when the city gets sued over an unenforceable ordinance.

This is a state law issue, period.

The city has already lost in the SD Supreme court on code enforcement, red-light cameras and controlling VL casinos when it comes to city charter. They will lose AGAIN if they try to trump state law on texting and driving.

As a city councilor pointed out to me the other day, “Wouldn’t education make more sense?”

Ah, duh.

Educating drivers on the dangers of texting and driving far outweighs implementing an ordinance that 1) no one knows about and 2) the SFPD has basically said would be impossible to enforce.

So I challenge DaCola readers, come up with a billboard slogan that would get  driver’s attention on the dangers of texting and driving (the above graphic is my lame attempt.)