Thursday, September 30, 2010
Camp Murray, the Twist
I was trying to decide what to pen about the letter that Camp Murray blasted out to the world, when in steps Deputy Mayor Don Anderson with a letter that pretty much says it all. Anything I added would just be more provocative :) Here's Don's letter if you've not already seen it. If you are not familiar with the issue, you'd want to get up to speed either at The News Tribune site and the Suburban Times site above.
Here's Don's letter. I italicized the one paragraph I hope you read if you don't have time for the whole letter:
Dear MG Lowenberg:
I am writing in response to your letter to the City Manager and Lakewood City Council of September 28, 2010. I can only speak as one member of the Lakewood City Council and not for Lakewood City Government as a whole, but I would be happy to meet with you at any time to discuss Camp Murray’s continuing traffic congestion issues.
However, I must say that I am disturbed by both the content and tone of your letter of September 28, 2010. It makes no reference to the well-recognized cause of Camp Murray’s traffic problems or to the logical solution to those problems. It also fails to recognize the City of Lakewood’s good faith attempt to work toward short-term mitigation of the issues or to the City’s very workable alternative proposal to allow for the construction of a new gate for Camp Murray. This was in spite of the fact that Camp Murray’s Environmental Assessment of the project was untimely and grossly deficient.
As you are well aware, recent traffic studies conducted as a result of the City of Lakewood’s procurement of a grant from the Defense Department’s Office of Economic Adjustment confirmed what has been patently obvious to all who travel I-5 in the area of Camp Murray. The Tillicum interchanges have failed. The reduction of lanes on I-5 between Tillicum and Nisqually needs to be corrected by the construction of additional lanes. Those are the root causes of your and our traffic problems.
To paraphrase the late Senator Daniel Moynihan, any solution short of additional lanes and new interchanges would merely be putting lipstick on a pig.
The responsibility for this infrastructure failure rests squarely on the shoulders of your boss, the Governor, and your fellow state agency, the Washington State Department of Transportation. While the WADOT focuses on “trip reduction,” “non-motorized transportation,” trains and King County infrastructure, the badly needed and long-ignored improvements to I-5 between Lakewood and Nisqually have not been prioritized or slated for funding.
Joint Base Lewis McChord is the largest employer and the leading economic driver in the South Puget Sound Region. Transportation infrastructure for this lynchpin of the State’s economy should be the top priority of the Department of Transportation. Sadly, it is not even close.
You asked what the City of Lakewood is going to do to correct your problems. The solution lies in your chain of command, not ours. We can continue to work to obtain funding for the implementation of a permanent solution to the I-5 corridor traffic problems which plague Lakewood, its Tillicum neighborhood and Camp Murray. These will never be solved by relocation of a gate or rerouting traffic to failed I-5 interchanges.
We hope to have you as a partner in this endeavor. I believe that as the head of a state agency, you are in a unique position to influence both the Governor and the Department of Transportation to recognize, prioritize and fund the needed I-5 infrastructure improvements.
Very truly yours,
Donald L. Anderson, Deputy Mayor
City of Lakewood
Forward this post
Here's Don's letter. I italicized the one paragraph I hope you read if you don't have time for the whole letter:
Dear MG Lowenberg:
I am writing in response to your letter to the City Manager and Lakewood City Council of September 28, 2010. I can only speak as one member of the Lakewood City Council and not for Lakewood City Government as a whole, but I would be happy to meet with you at any time to discuss Camp Murray’s continuing traffic congestion issues.
However, I must say that I am disturbed by both the content and tone of your letter of September 28, 2010. It makes no reference to the well-recognized cause of Camp Murray’s traffic problems or to the logical solution to those problems. It also fails to recognize the City of Lakewood’s good faith attempt to work toward short-term mitigation of the issues or to the City’s very workable alternative proposal to allow for the construction of a new gate for Camp Murray. This was in spite of the fact that Camp Murray’s Environmental Assessment of the project was untimely and grossly deficient.
As you are well aware, recent traffic studies conducted as a result of the City of Lakewood’s procurement of a grant from the Defense Department’s Office of Economic Adjustment confirmed what has been patently obvious to all who travel I-5 in the area of Camp Murray. The Tillicum interchanges have failed. The reduction of lanes on I-5 between Tillicum and Nisqually needs to be corrected by the construction of additional lanes. Those are the root causes of your and our traffic problems.
To paraphrase the late Senator Daniel Moynihan, any solution short of additional lanes and new interchanges would merely be putting lipstick on a pig.
The responsibility for this infrastructure failure rests squarely on the shoulders of your boss, the Governor, and your fellow state agency, the Washington State Department of Transportation. While the WADOT focuses on “trip reduction,” “non-motorized transportation,” trains and King County infrastructure, the badly needed and long-ignored improvements to I-5 between Lakewood and Nisqually have not been prioritized or slated for funding.
Joint Base Lewis McChord is the largest employer and the leading economic driver in the South Puget Sound Region. Transportation infrastructure for this lynchpin of the State’s economy should be the top priority of the Department of Transportation. Sadly, it is not even close.
You asked what the City of Lakewood is going to do to correct your problems. The solution lies in your chain of command, not ours. We can continue to work to obtain funding for the implementation of a permanent solution to the I-5 corridor traffic problems which plague Lakewood, its Tillicum neighborhood and Camp Murray. These will never be solved by relocation of a gate or rerouting traffic to failed I-5 interchanges.
We hope to have you as a partner in this endeavor. I believe that as the head of a state agency, you are in a unique position to influence both the Governor and the Department of Transportation to recognize, prioritize and fund the needed I-5 infrastructure improvements.
Very truly yours,
Donald L. Anderson, Deputy Mayor
City of Lakewood
Friday, September 24, 2010
Return of the Budget
To heck with the return of Hawaii Five-O. We have the Lakewood budget to talk about!
My loyal readers, both of you, will recall I make a big deal about the annual budget process because this is where the city government makes some of its most important decisions. How we as public policymakers spend money says a lot about priorities and strategies to provide the essential services we all expect and need. The decision of what we spend money on is crucial to whatever the city can do to make Lakewood a better place to live and work.
It's no surprise this is a lean budget year, what with the economy in such bad shape. So one does not expect to hear about new programs; one expects to hear about how to preserve what we've got and maybe do things more efficiently and differently.
That said, one cannot leave vision behind. Example: The Lakewood Landmarks board got a preliminary briefing about the Lakewood Colonial Center last night. The good news is that the architectural firm found fewer problems than we expected with the building. But it's still going to be a pricey venture to preserve that building, whoever preserves it. You could argue that's not a problem for the city, but the preliminary discussions raise a challenge and call us to dream: Should the Colonial Center be at the core of a stronger downtown-like neighborhood, and if so, how? What role should the city play in the surroundings of that neighborhood?
In the context of having dreams like this, the 2010 budget process should be a challenge. I encourage people to come by for budget hearings, because you learn a lot of things that no one could fit in one newspaper story or blog post. With that in mind, here's the calendar for this year's budget:
Sept. 27 (Monday): Revenue Workshop. That's a nice way of saying the staff and city advisory groups will present ways we could raise taxes. I'd be stunned, with how almost everyone out there is suffering in this economy, if that happened. But to be thorough, it's a discussion we should at least have. I don't think the voters elected a council that wants to raise taxes, but I've been wrong. Well I was wrong once, think it was 2007. Will have to check my notes :)
Oct. 6 (Wednesday - note there are some special Wednesday workshops) The council will discuss the budgets for planning, economic development, public works, parks and recreation, human services funding and facilities.
By the way, if you think that's too much for one night, you're right. I really wish we were like most cities and had council committees that explored these sorts of important city subjects in more detail. But 'course you've heard me say this before.
Oct. 11: This workshop will be about police and public safety, neighborhood policing and code enforcement, the courts and our legal department.
Oct. 13: This will be a joint session with the council and the chairmen and chairwomen - and any other members who attend - of the city's various citizen advisory committees such as for public safety, parks, roads, etc... For the 'average citizen,' whatever that might mean, this would be a good place to get an overview about the budget, as it will be presented to the advisory groups to get the discussion flowing.
Oct. 25: Another budget workshop.
Nov. 1: Public hearing about the budget.
Nov. 8: Another budget workshop.
And here it gets tricky in terms of calendaring. The 'new' council has been pretty agreeable, and it's possible the budget will get approved on Nov. 15. Or if we run into snags or outright disagreement, that could happen another night. There is a legal requirement the budget for 2011 be approved in 2010.
As with all of these, it's prudent to keep your eye on the city website or other usual sources for when meetings take place and where.
Hope to see you there - and if you can't make it, you'll hopefully hear more about the budget process as it moves along.
Forward this post
My loyal readers, both of you, will recall I make a big deal about the annual budget process because this is where the city government makes some of its most important decisions. How we as public policymakers spend money says a lot about priorities and strategies to provide the essential services we all expect and need. The decision of what we spend money on is crucial to whatever the city can do to make Lakewood a better place to live and work.
It's no surprise this is a lean budget year, what with the economy in such bad shape. So one does not expect to hear about new programs; one expects to hear about how to preserve what we've got and maybe do things more efficiently and differently.
That said, one cannot leave vision behind. Example: The Lakewood Landmarks board got a preliminary briefing about the Lakewood Colonial Center last night. The good news is that the architectural firm found fewer problems than we expected with the building. But it's still going to be a pricey venture to preserve that building, whoever preserves it. You could argue that's not a problem for the city, but the preliminary discussions raise a challenge and call us to dream: Should the Colonial Center be at the core of a stronger downtown-like neighborhood, and if so, how? What role should the city play in the surroundings of that neighborhood?
In the context of having dreams like this, the 2010 budget process should be a challenge. I encourage people to come by for budget hearings, because you learn a lot of things that no one could fit in one newspaper story or blog post. With that in mind, here's the calendar for this year's budget:
Sept. 27 (Monday): Revenue Workshop. That's a nice way of saying the staff and city advisory groups will present ways we could raise taxes. I'd be stunned, with how almost everyone out there is suffering in this economy, if that happened. But to be thorough, it's a discussion we should at least have. I don't think the voters elected a council that wants to raise taxes, but I've been wrong. Well I was wrong once, think it was 2007. Will have to check my notes :)
Oct. 6 (Wednesday - note there are some special Wednesday workshops) The council will discuss the budgets for planning, economic development, public works, parks and recreation, human services funding and facilities.
By the way, if you think that's too much for one night, you're right. I really wish we were like most cities and had council committees that explored these sorts of important city subjects in more detail. But 'course you've heard me say this before.
Oct. 11: This workshop will be about police and public safety, neighborhood policing and code enforcement, the courts and our legal department.
Oct. 13: This will be a joint session with the council and the chairmen and chairwomen - and any other members who attend - of the city's various citizen advisory committees such as for public safety, parks, roads, etc... For the 'average citizen,' whatever that might mean, this would be a good place to get an overview about the budget, as it will be presented to the advisory groups to get the discussion flowing.
Oct. 25: Another budget workshop.
Nov. 1: Public hearing about the budget.
Nov. 8: Another budget workshop.
And here it gets tricky in terms of calendaring. The 'new' council has been pretty agreeable, and it's possible the budget will get approved on Nov. 15. Or if we run into snags or outright disagreement, that could happen another night. There is a legal requirement the budget for 2011 be approved in 2010.
As with all of these, it's prudent to keep your eye on the city website or other usual sources for when meetings take place and where.
Hope to see you there - and if you can't make it, you'll hopefully hear more about the budget process as it moves along.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Question
It's always good to question assumptions. Here's one: does anyone feel like my blog, as presently formed, is of any use? Years ago before the Suburban Times was there to share information, there was no doubt in my mind this blog had a purpose. I wonder now. I'm curious what people who don't normally reply to my blog might think - if anyone is still reading it. Let me know. I'm thinking of getting involved in another project instead. But let me know what you think. Comment, or email me at wneary@cityoflakewood.us
Forward this post
Saturday, September 18, 2010
What the President Had to Say
Those of you who follow @wtneary on Twitter or are Facebook friends have been keeping track of how I re-enacted President Wilson's appearance at the Stadium Bowl in September 1919. This was today in honor of the bowl's 100th anniversary. I thought I'd share the speech I read on President Wilson's behalf. My friends and fellow citizens, it is very delightful to find myself in this beautiful spot and very thrilling to find myself surrounded by so great a company of my fellow citizens.
I cannot in these circumstances make you a speech, but I can say something from my heart.
I can say that I am profoundly glad to see you and profoundly touched by a welcome like this.
I want to express my particular interest in this charming circle of school children – I am told there are 12,000 of you - because one of the thoughts that has been most in my mind recently is that we are making decisions now which will mean more to the children than they mean to us and that as we care for the future generations we will be careful to make the right decisions as to the policy of the United States as one of the factors in the peace of the world.
I feel, as I am sure you feel, that we have reached one of the most critical periods in the history of the United States. The shadow of the war is not yet lifted from us, my fellow countrymen, and we have just -come out of the depths of the valley of death.
I offer you a substitute for war, the substitute for turmoil, the substitute for sorrow and despair. That substitute is offered in the covenant of the league of nations. America alone can not underwrite civilization. All the great free peoples of the world must underwrite it, and only the free peoples of the world can join the league of nations.
We must have peaceful means; we must have discussion — we must have frank discussion, we must have friendly discussion — and those are the very things that are offered to us among the nations of the world by the covenant of the league of nations.
My fellow citizens, do not forget the aching hearts that are behind discussions like this. Do not forget the forlorn homes from which your boys went and to which they never came back
I have it in my heart that if we do not do this great thing now, every woman ought to weep because of the child in her arms. If she has a boy at her breast, she may be sure that when he comes to manhood this terrible task will have to be done once more.
Everywhere we go, the train when it stops is surrounded with little children, and I look at them almost with tears in my eyes, because I feel my mission is to save them. These glad youngsters with flags in their hands—I pray God that they may never have to carry that flag upon the battle field!
I will make further remarks later at a smaller place in a few minutes. Here, I give you my most cordial greeting and my most profound thanks for this generous welcome.
I'm no expert on the Wilson years, but I found his speech rather poignant. Here was a guy who hoped through the League of Nations that he had out-thought war. Throughout his tour of the West, including his stop in Tacoma, he was very ill. He had to be worrying that his body was going to give out on him, which it did when he had a stroke a month later.
I should for the record note that of the speech above, the first four sentences and the last sentence were from his remarks at the Stadium. All he did at Stadium, in the absence of today's sound systems, was acknowledge the reported 40,000 people who were there. The rest of the speech came from his main speech in town, at the Tacoma Armory, which sent on for 45 minutes to an audience of about 4,000. My goal with the Stadium audience today was to include enough of his Armory talk to explain why he was here - to support the League of Nations.
Saturday, September 11, 2010
A Gift to Remember
Here's in interesting question to contemplate. Where do we put the sign that is seen at right at the Kuwait-Iraq border?You can see the sign at the beginning of the video here hosted by The News Tribune. The sign carries the name 'Lakewood' and was posted at the Kuwait border to indicate to the 4th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division that they were crossing from Iraq to Kuwait labeled as 'Lakewood' - to home. After all was said and done, the sign was taken down and preserved. At a function last night, I heard that the command team wants to donate the sign to Lakewood.
Assuming the sign arrives back in the U.S. safe and sound, and is donated to the city - where should it be displayed? City Hall? If so, where? Or somewhere else?
Thursday, September 09, 2010
The Phenomenon of Citizen Suspicion
Been awhile since I got personal with you all. Here we go.
The delayed status of a rail bypass through Lakewood would appear to be at least a temporary victory for Lakewood citizens and local government. Giants - the federal railway system, the Obama budget, the state transportation department - all planned to route more traffic through Lakewood. Instead, the state agreed to step back and respect its own rules and re-evaluate the plan. This was a victory for our citizens and our local government.
As you might imagine it, during it all, the city was trying a lot of tactics ranging from loud shrieking and hollaring - yeah, that's sort of my role - and back door legal and political maneuvering. We had closed door sessions to discuss legal action, and open discussions in public about other kinds of strategy. So you can imagine my dismay in mid-February when a citizen leader emailed his neighbors:
It would appear that the City Council and city staff either do not hear our concerns or are ignoring them.
That hurt. I'd been complaining and working against the bypass for years. Yet there was a clear tendency to think the City Council was not paying attention to its citizens in the discussions about the topic. And all I could do for the neighbors was try to educate them that while the city might not be shooting off fireworks in the middle of their neighborhood, we were trying to attack the problem tactically. As stated above, it all seems to have had a happy ending - well, at least for now.
So after that experience, it's been interesting to read emails about the Camp Murray Gate situation. Here, once again, people have accused the City Council of complicity in screwing their neighborhood. To quote from two emails:
I am not sure why the placement of a new gate of Camp Murray seems to be a fast track issue but it does seem to be pushed along without concern for our neighborhood.
I have read of the involvement of City officials in conference calls and meetings with Camp Murray officials regarding gate relocation ... I am of the opinion that the procedures being used lack fairness to the citizens of Tillicum who are the most needful of the protections of our city government.
And what drives you batty is that the city is working hard right now to respond to the Camp Murray application. Instead of being focused proactively - where in the hell does Camp Murray get off shortening the public comment period? - I'm trying to defend myself and city government to people who should be natural allies.
Two things are going on. First, we have a couple of full-time anger-mongers in this town whose ability to type and speak is directed toward constant negative attack. If they get to people first, it's natural to begin approaching a topic with suspicion.
But second, and more worrisome, there's a clearly tendency toward suspicion of government everywhere that's kinda sad. Some citizens seem eager to think that me - Walter, working two jobs, the father of two, regular guy living on School Street - is eagerly in cahoots with Camp Murray to drive unsafe traffic in their neighborhood. Why shouldn't I personally sell out Tillicum? I'm elected, right? I'm involved in government, right? Government is out to screw us all, isn't it?
It's just sad. Part of the issue is communication. I should spend more time talking to neighbors about what's going on in the city. But there's a recession and no one's job is safe - I should also be spending more time on my day job. I should also be spending more time with my family and my clubs and organizations. Etc.So just being me at the end of the day, I fault myself for not communicating more.
But ... not so fast. I think we all know that even if I did communicate, some people would choose not to trust me. They'd figure I was just communicating more to cover up my brilliant plan to conspire against them. But why would they think that? It might be because the anger-mongers got to them first. Maybe it might be because something I've done in the past seems wrong for reasons either real or uninformed. But I doubt if a lot of people are working from that much information. The standard in America instead seems to be a deep-seated tendency - a default setting, to use a tech phrase - toward suspicion of not just government but all individuals involved in government. It's demoralizing to those of us in government, just at the time when we need to draw more energy to research and to fight.
People aren't just making this suspicion up. If you read the news, there always is something government is doing that is worthy of criticism. Well, duh. Government is run by humans that make mistakes. Does that mean we must always assume suspicion is the answer and the worst case always the scenario?
Sad. Not much more to add then that. Just sad. I'm not asking to be thanked for how I try to represent citizens. I'm not asking for city government to be thanked. It just seems like a painful waste of energy to defend oneself to one's friends and allies when we ought to be working together.
Meantime, the News Tribune got everything right in their editorial. if you want to see the latest on the Camp Murray issue, that's the place to go.
Forward this post
The delayed status of a rail bypass through Lakewood would appear to be at least a temporary victory for Lakewood citizens and local government. Giants - the federal railway system, the Obama budget, the state transportation department - all planned to route more traffic through Lakewood. Instead, the state agreed to step back and respect its own rules and re-evaluate the plan. This was a victory for our citizens and our local government.
As you might imagine it, during it all, the city was trying a lot of tactics ranging from loud shrieking and hollaring - yeah, that's sort of my role - and back door legal and political maneuvering. We had closed door sessions to discuss legal action, and open discussions in public about other kinds of strategy. So you can imagine my dismay in mid-February when a citizen leader emailed his neighbors:
It would appear that the City Council and city staff either do not hear our concerns or are ignoring them.
That hurt. I'd been complaining and working against the bypass for years. Yet there was a clear tendency to think the City Council was not paying attention to its citizens in the discussions about the topic. And all I could do for the neighbors was try to educate them that while the city might not be shooting off fireworks in the middle of their neighborhood, we were trying to attack the problem tactically. As stated above, it all seems to have had a happy ending - well, at least for now.
So after that experience, it's been interesting to read emails about the Camp Murray Gate situation. Here, once again, people have accused the City Council of complicity in screwing their neighborhood. To quote from two emails:
I am not sure why the placement of a new gate of Camp Murray seems to be a fast track issue but it does seem to be pushed along without concern for our neighborhood.
I have read of the involvement of City officials in conference calls and meetings with Camp Murray officials regarding gate relocation ... I am of the opinion that the procedures being used lack fairness to the citizens of Tillicum who are the most needful of the protections of our city government.
And what drives you batty is that the city is working hard right now to respond to the Camp Murray application. Instead of being focused proactively - where in the hell does Camp Murray get off shortening the public comment period? - I'm trying to defend myself and city government to people who should be natural allies.
Two things are going on. First, we have a couple of full-time anger-mongers in this town whose ability to type and speak is directed toward constant negative attack. If they get to people first, it's natural to begin approaching a topic with suspicion.
But second, and more worrisome, there's a clearly tendency toward suspicion of government everywhere that's kinda sad. Some citizens seem eager to think that me - Walter, working two jobs, the father of two, regular guy living on School Street - is eagerly in cahoots with Camp Murray to drive unsafe traffic in their neighborhood. Why shouldn't I personally sell out Tillicum? I'm elected, right? I'm involved in government, right? Government is out to screw us all, isn't it?
It's just sad. Part of the issue is communication. I should spend more time talking to neighbors about what's going on in the city. But there's a recession and no one's job is safe - I should also be spending more time on my day job. I should also be spending more time with my family and my clubs and organizations. Etc.So just being me at the end of the day, I fault myself for not communicating more.
But ... not so fast. I think we all know that even if I did communicate, some people would choose not to trust me. They'd figure I was just communicating more to cover up my brilliant plan to conspire against them. But why would they think that? It might be because the anger-mongers got to them first. Maybe it might be because something I've done in the past seems wrong for reasons either real or uninformed. But I doubt if a lot of people are working from that much information. The standard in America instead seems to be a deep-seated tendency - a default setting, to use a tech phrase - toward suspicion of not just government but all individuals involved in government. It's demoralizing to those of us in government, just at the time when we need to draw more energy to research and to fight.
People aren't just making this suspicion up. If you read the news, there always is something government is doing that is worthy of criticism. Well, duh. Government is run by humans that make mistakes. Does that mean we must always assume suspicion is the answer and the worst case always the scenario?
Sad. Not much more to add then that. Just sad. I'm not asking to be thanked for how I try to represent citizens. I'm not asking for city government to be thanked. It just seems like a painful waste of energy to defend oneself to one's friends and allies when we ought to be working together.
Meantime, the News Tribune got everything right in their editorial. if you want to see the latest on the Camp Murray issue, that's the place to go.
Welcome editorial in The News Tribune
When another writer says it all, I'm content to just sit back and admire the words. This is a good read about the Camp Murray Gate matter.
Forward this post
