Read on Twitter
To start my look back the year #LawrenceCityComm has had, I'll start with the bad. The 5 worst things this commission has done. A thread. 1/?
#5. Considered raising the age to buy tobacco to 21.
This would be MUCH higher on the list, but the commission never got to pass T-21 because the federal government beat them to it, raising the age federally. https://www2.ljworld.com/news/city-government/2019/dec/04/lawrence-city-commission-to-reconsider-raising-age-to-buy-tobacco-products-to-21/
This would be MUCH higher on the list, but the commission never got to pass T-21 because the federal government beat them to it, raising the age federally. https://www2.ljworld.com/news/city-government/2019/dec/04/lawrence-city-commission-to-reconsider-raising-age-to-buy-tobacco-products-to-21/
#4: The CIP rating system.
This year the city developed a rating system to prioritize which big projects we spend money. Originally the rating system combined sustainability and equity, and gave the category the lowest rating. https://www2.ljworld.com/news/city-government/2020/apr/15/some-city-leaders-want-sustainability-to-be-significant-factor-when-prioritizing-city-projects/
This year the city developed a rating system to prioritize which big projects we spend money. Originally the rating system combined sustainability and equity, and gave the category the lowest rating. https://www2.ljworld.com/news/city-government/2020/apr/15/some-city-leaders-want-sustainability-to-be-significant-factor-when-prioritizing-city-projects/
Luckily they separated the two into different categories. My problem is that they try to turn something subjective into something objective, but how things are rated is subjective! Also I have issues with the transparency of it.
I may be wrong, but I don't think city is including a CIP rating report in the staff report for items that have gone through it and made it to the agenda. To me it seems this is something staff could abuse by rating things the way they want to mathematically get their outcome.
#3: Decreasing the speed to 25 along with a speed enforcement campaign.
Part of the reason the city justified doing this was the results of a Lawrence Listens survey. However the survey didn't keep track of demographics, and a lot seemed to be parents. https://www2.ljworld.com/news/city-government/2020/sep/29/city-leaders-to-consider-reducing-speed-limit-on-residential-streets-plan-also-calls-for-more-enforcement/
Part of the reason the city justified doing this was the results of a Lawrence Listens survey. However the survey didn't keep track of demographics, and a lot seemed to be parents. https://www2.ljworld.com/news/city-government/2020/sep/29/city-leaders-to-consider-reducing-speed-limit-on-residential-streets-plan-also-calls-for-more-enforcement/
The commission is currently in the process of police reform. Nothing says "defund the police" like increasing the cops hanging out in neighborhoods and cracking down on minor traffic violations. Also skeptical things go as said; I don't trust our street engineers.
2: Not asking "what's going on" when the police union ousted police chief Burns.
Back in winter, it was revealed that the police union had sent an email to the city manager asking for new management and in return they'd stay silent. https://www2.ljworld.com/news/public-safety/2020/may/28/questions-loom-payment-lawrence-police-chief/
Back in winter, it was revealed that the police union had sent an email to the city manager asking for new management and in return they'd stay silent. https://www2.ljworld.com/news/public-safety/2020/may/28/questions-loom-payment-lawrence-police-chief/
Fast forward to May, and the city is accepting Burn's resignation and paying him over $100k as part of the agreement. It isn't standard to do this without an employment contract. Also part of the agreement is silence where the chief or city can't talk bad about each other.
Some think the $100k is hush money to keep Burns from talking. It's suspicious that the union tried to work out a secret deal with the city manager, and in the end we accepted Burns resignation in exchange for $100k when that's not standard procedure.
#1: The 21st St Bike Boulevard.
Originally I was torn between this and the police chief ousting and thought it would be a tie. But the more I thought about it, this edges out a win as the worst thing this commission has done. https://www2.ljworld.com/news/city-government/2020/apr/21/lawrence-city-commission-approves-reduced-plan-for-21st-street-bike-boulevard/
Originally I was torn between this and the police chief ousting and thought it would be a tie. But the more I thought about it, this edges out a win as the worst thing this commission has done. https://www2.ljworld.com/news/city-government/2020/apr/21/lawrence-city-commission-approves-reduced-plan-for-21st-street-bike-boulevard/
Not only is this the worst thing #LawrenceCityComm has approved this year, but this is easily the absolute worst street project I can recall since this millennium started! Where do I start? It kept coming in over budget numerous times throughout the process.
Originally 13th would also have become a bike blvd, but it was so much over budget they could only afford one. Then there's the engineers use of common sense: they didn't use any. Use a multi-use sidewalk to get bikes from 19th to 21st so they aren't in the street?
Nope. We'll have the bikes use 19th, the street we're saying is too dangerous for some bikers (and the reason for the bike blvd) , to get to ousdahl. Then we'll change Ousdahl into part of the bike boulevard, lowering the speed limit and putting in a speed bump
Seriously. The engineers chose to redo a street people use instead of just having cyclists use a multi-use sidewalk in which the cyclist would be out of the street as part of the solution to cyclists not being comfortable on a busy street.
In addition, the city has never done one of these before, and for their first one, they chose to put in way more than they needed and to make everything permanent! My impression was that since the city had never done a bike blvd before, they weren't sure how to do it.
Their solution was to just put in a lot of stuff and see what works. If part of something is "let's see what works", then I'd putting in some temporary stuff first to see if it actually works or not. Permanent should be for "we know what works".
I will give it credit for reducing traffic on the street. By doing more than it had to, the city ensured that. Originally there was even more planned! I know there was stuff also planned for Alabama. I think something limiting the ability to turn onto it and a speed bump?
I would argue that some of the stuff they did put in was just as unneeded. I think simply making 21st and Louisiana right turn only would have had the same effect without the need to spend lots of $$$ and make things difficult on traffic who live in the neighborhood.
Plus by doing more than needed, do we really know what works? Is the traffic reduction mainly due to the new intersection at 21st and LA, or is it the chicanes? By starting small and adding more as needed, we'd have a better idea of what works and what doesn't.
Also by not making everything permanent, we could take out what isn't working. But we don't know what is and isn't working, cuz this whole thing is just one huge mess and a complete waste of tax payer money. Congrats to the 21st Bike Blvd for being this year's worst mistake!
