[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3ganRUqIYE[/youtube]
In one of the most bizarre online commercials I have ever seen, FP Bankcard was somehow trying to tie in the EC with getting one of their subprime cards, and something about getting tickets to the EC. I like the ‘almost’ Van Halen tribute.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onDYKAMWPLM[/youtube]
Amanda’s “non-theist prayer†made it to rawstory.com
On Tuesday, August 12, Sioux Falls City Council will vote on approving the Transit Task Force report presented at their informational session on July 8. The report has recommendations that include higher bus fares and “red-lining” Paratransit.
Action: Please ask city council NOT to approve the parts of the report that will make life harder for our low-income residents. In particular, ask them NOT to approve the 3/4 mile limit for people with disabilities or increases in the bus fares.
Background: A task force met for about 7 months to work mostly on reducing the share of the transportation budget that goes to Paratransit. I’m sure they came up with some helpful suggestions, but some recommendations will come down hard on low-income people, and pretty much no one else.
Federal rules require cities to serve people with disabilities within 3/4 mile of the fixed route buses. So far, Sioux Falls has served people with disabilities throughout the city. There is now an agreement to “grandfather” in the folks outside the 3/4 mile line. But woe to people there who become disabled in the future.
Bus fares for seniors, kids over age 5, people with disabilities, single rides, and Paratransit would increase 50%. A monthly pass would go from $25 to $30 (20%) now and then be stepped up to $40. (The day pass stays $3, but the day pass does not help everyone.) If you have encountered low-income people trying to cover basic needs on meager incomes, you know that any increase in bus fares will mean a cut from some other necessity.
Most people who don’t ride the bus don’t realize that Sioux Falls already raised single-ride fares when transfers were ended. Now if you need two buses to get somewhere, you pay twice.
If you look up the report, know that some of the participants DO NOT agree with all the recommendations.
I have asked several questions about the report, so feel free to call me to discuss or compare notes. For example, if Recommendation 3C is confusing to you, as it was to me, I have confirmed the following translation. The report says “Develop a paratransit system that parallels the Sioux Area Metro fixed-route system to ensure transportation services are equally provided to all citizens.” IT MEANS “Limit paratransit to 3/4 mile of the fixed-routes to ensure lack-of-service equally to all citizens, disabled or not, if they are outside the 3/4 mile limit.” Of course, in 5 or 6 years, expanded fixed routes will make more people eligible for Paratransit services.
Do bus riders even know there are proposed increases? Do they know city council is voting next week? I rode the bus on Saturday and did not notice any announcement about City Council voting on higher fares. They don’t know, so I am asking you to speak up for them.
*DL Note; I was astonished to hear that SAM doesn’t have bus transfers. It’s silly. When I visited San Francisco the last time, they do transfers for their entire system (in other words you can hop from a bus to a trolley to the subway, as long as it is within a 1-hour period of time. Also, the rumor is that Para-transit in Sioux Falls doesn’t use a dispatch system. In other words, they don’t maximize their mileage by going from pickups to dropoffs in the field like cab companies do. They return to their base after every drop off for their next assignment.
To answer the last photo I asked this question, I was on the entry to the bike trail by the Ronning Apartments downtown.
This one has some pretty good clues in it.
The mayor said in last night’s meeting (FF: 10:45);
“We have never turned anyone away at these meetings . . . everyone has had an opportunity to engage the council . . . we have only asked they limit their comments to 5 minutes.â€
After a citizen pointed out someone the city has filed charges against had to spend 6.5 hours in jail and could not attend the council meeting the night of their arrest to make a presentation because of being incarcerated.*
Mike’s above statement is the biggest load of crap I have heard out of his mouth. At the December 18, 2012 Council Meeting citizens who supported a joint election with the school district for snowgates were censored (20 minute time limit imposed on a group of about 40 people by then council chair Erpenbach, and approved by the mayor). If you do the math, that is about 30 seconds a piece.
As I have told Mayor Huether in an email after that meeting;
“You can laud transparency all you want but I’m sorry Mike, just saying something doesn’t make it so. Limiting public testimony to 20 minutes and making up the rule before the meeting started without informing your fellow councilors was blatant CENSORSHIP! â€
His response;
“However, in fairness to Councilor Erpenbach and the process, ALL OF THE COUNCILORS were notified about the managing the debate time or “20 minute conversation†at 1:47pm on Monday. Your comment about “making up the rule before the meeting started without informing your fellow councilors†is not accurate. Whether or not the Councilors made the time to review it or whether or not they wanted to be open and transparent or not to you and to the public, I can’t verify.”
I found out later they were notified in an EMAIL, not a phone call, and several of the councilors did not see the email before the Tuesday meeting.
Mike seems to think some of us have short memories, but his lack of transparency has been following him since day one. He has been trying to stifle citizen advocates all along.
*As for the citizen that was incarcerated for 6.5 hours. They were told a few weeks ago (over the phone) that there was a warrant for their arrest (charges filed by the city) and that they should come to the jail the following week to be processed. The charge only required a recognizance bond (you don’t have to pay any bail). Normally it means you show up, you get processed and fingerprinted and are told what you are being officially charged with. Instead, they were jailed for 6.5 hours for processing.
l3wis