December 12, 2004
Response from Bill Bradley
Bill Bradley wrote:
> Elaine,
>
> Thank you for your e-mail. I am always glad to hear what people have to say about city business. You have covered a lot of ground, so much that I doubt that it is practical for me to deal with it all in an e-mail. However, I will make a few comments. Also, I would be willing to meet with you at a time and place of your choosing any time after January 1 to discuss any items you would like. I will be leaving to visit relatives in a few days and will be gone until the end of the month.
One of the basic problems that government has is that it cannot please all the people. Instead we end up spending the people's money to satisfy only some, while others are unhappy that we didn't spend their money the way they wanted.
Taking parks for an example, there are a number of people who have strong views on what the park should or should not be and what it should or should not look like. No matter how we spend the tax payer's dollars, someone is going to disagree with the results. That is one reason why I prefer the free market as opposed to government control. Let those who want something, get together, decide what they want and buy it. Those who want something else should do the same thing.
So far as the DDA is concerned. I think it is a mistake for such an organization to even exist. I expect it is going to get worse before it gets better. It amounts to another layer of government, complicates the operation of city government and distorts the way tax money is spent. I would much rather see everyone get a tax cut and let them spend their money as they choose than to have the DDA involved in spending any tax money.
>
> I am of the opinion that government should be as small, frugal, and non-interfering to the greatest extent possible. If the merchants in the downtown area want a parking lot, they should get together and create one, using their own money to do so. We are even inconsistent within our city. The city does not provide parking for anyone in the uptown area. (That is the commercial area on the east side of town.) I see no reason why tax money should be spent to provide parking downtown. That is why I voted against spending a half million dollars on the Huron Street parking lot.
>
> So far as the trees and flower islands downtown are concerned, again I say, let those who want them pay for them directly. Requiring people who may prefer to spend their money for other things, should not be forced to spend there money on things they don't want and do not use. You have done a magnificent job with the landscaping on your property and I commend you for that. I assume you did it for several reasons, and did it with your own money, rather than requiring the taxpayer to help pay for it. I also suspect that you would not have wanted all your friends and neighbors, plus the Parks Commission and the City Council to require you to accept their input. Of course, city government already intrudes onto your private property by way of zoning ordinances and I assume you have had enough of that already.
>
> Personally, I do not consider commercial advertisements as blight. Advertising serves a useful purpose. People can and do disagree over where, when and how to advertise, and when you get down to the details, the best way to do it is always a matter of personal opinion. In the free market, the person who pays gets to decide. In government, the person with the most power gets to decide. Like beauty, whether signs are good or bad is in the eye, or rather in the mind of the beholder. Technically, the signs are not classified as advertising. They are notices to the public as to who is providing the service of maintaining the islands. It is the same idea that the organizations that support public TV are not advertising when you see their names as supporters of public TV. I realize that this is splitting hairs, but include it for what it is worth.
Please accept my offer to meet with you, including any others you may wish to include, and we can discuss any or all of these matters.
Again, my thanks for your letter.
Bill Bradley
My Response:
Dear Bill,
Thank you for your response. Your opinion about government is already well known and I am familiar
with your views. But we still have government to deal with whether we approve or not.
It also makes no sense to me that you approve of private advertising on public land. Does this mean that I should go ahead and place a "Yelton Manor B&B" sign in Dyckman Beach because I walk over daily and clear garbage there? What if everyone did...instead of just the few chosen cronies of city hall? I guess, under your idea of non-government, we would all just place our billboards wherever we pleased? Is there enough public space for that many "notices to the public" in your free-of-government society?
You see NO case for government policy here?
I say thank god for government that, at least, restricts this practice to the technical "notices to the public".
I would also be curious to know when "notices" becomes advertising in your definition. In 11 years of organizing the 4th of July parade I never put the name of my business on it.
I pay for 6 planter signs on the bridge and I do not advertise there.
And, no, I don't "notice" the public that I tend Dyckman Beach.
My advertising is on my private property where it belongs.
Public park and public land should about beauty and inclusion, not advertising and cronyism. Everyone pays the taxes to maintain public land, not just me and not just the DDA. Everyone.
Sincerely, Elaine
Posted by Elaine at December 12, 2004 05:42 PM