Lincolnite

Lincoln's new branding and marketing campaign has just been announced. Are you ready for it? Life is Right I'll let you ponder for a moment whether you love it or hate it before I hop in with my thoughts. ... Ready? The absolute first thing that came to mind when I heard the new slogan was "...and the pro-lifers just went wild". Taken entirely out of context it's hard to imagine the slogan being anything but a pro-life picket line chant. "Life is right! Life is right!" Heck, it's almost catchy. So at first I was completely shocked that somebody would pick a slogan so tainted with political undertones for Lincoln. And not just any political undertone, but undertones of one of the most divisive issues in American history. That's a pretty big deal, no? That's my impression of the slogan without any context whatsoever. What if we put the slogan in context? The website doesn't convey the entire marketing campaign but it gives a basic idea of some of the things we can expect. For one thing, "Life is right in Lincoln because..." has a less charged tone to it. The slogan starts to mean not just "life is good", but "this is the way things ought to be". It's clear why that makes sense as part of a marketing campaign. I'm still not completely sold on Life is Right, but we'll see what the passage of time does for it. It's not as bad as GOLincolnGO so that's a plus. Let's hear it, Lincolnites. Love it, hate it, or don't give a durn one way or the other?

One of the oft-presented alternate plans to Walmart's proposed new store on South 27th Street is that they build a "Market" rather than a "Supercenter". Before anybody gets too deeply invested in that idea, let's think about why it's (probably) not a viable alternative for Walmart. Walmart Markets are not just small Walmarts or Walmart Supercenters. A Walmart Market is a grocery store, nothing more. Proposing a Market instead of a Supercenter is comparable to proposing a bakery instead of a Super Saver. One is a subcomponent of the other, but the two are not interchangeable. I obviously can't speak for Walmart, but I'd be surprised if Lincoln is anywhere near being in the running for a Market right now. Our grocery store market isn't hyper-competitive, but the Hy-Vee / Russ's / Super Saver trio appear to be handling things just fine. Walmart Markets are smaller than Supercenters. Much smaller. Most Markets are around 40,000 square feet, whereas the proposed Supercenter is about three times that size. So although getting a Market instead of a Supercenter might at first seem like a win, it's probably not. No way would the developer just let that excess square footage go to waste. One would think that the developer would fill up the space with ... well, something. And that something isn't going to be green space. There will still be delivery vehicles and there will still be traffic. And don't get me started on the ridiculousness of the suggestion that Walmart could just move out to Highway 77 and Warlick Boulevard, as though that location were somehow equivalent. Remember, Walmart wanted to move out there but the project collapsed. Considering the investments made in that area, if Walmart could make a store happen there on terms it could be happy with, it would happen. It may seem like I'm telling neighbors to just shut up and accept their fate. That's ... half true. I empathize with them and I encourage them to put up a stink -- it's worth a shot, after all. At the same time, it's obvious to me that their strongest opportunity to complain passed long ago. They should have recognized what the zoning on that parcel permitted and attacked preemptively. The City's decision to carve out a space for big box retail in the midst of a neighborhood is just plain bizarre. A year ago it would have been relatively simple to get that changed. But not today. Today neighbors should engage in a flurry of defensive tactics. Think about fences and berms. Think about noise and lighting. Think about signage and trash. In other words, craft a list of reasonable-but-tough requests and demands for your soon-to-be neighbor and start working to make them happen. If neighbors spend all their time bitching they'll miss yet another window of opportunity, this time to help turn this (perceived) lemon into something approximating lemonade. Mayor Chris Beutler said this morning that he won't get in Walmart's way on this project. (One can only imagine the fit Colleen Seng would be throwing right now if she were still mayor.) It's very likely to happen. I hope neighbors figure out how to fight for themselves rather than just fighting against a perceived enemy.

Let's compare two numbers.

1. On Give to Lincoln Day, Lincolnites raised $1.3 million for a variety of local non-profits. The money will be used for everything from clothing foster children to rescuing animals to beautifying neighborhoods.
2. The JPA recently approved $1.3 million to renovate a 1,200 foot train platform canopy. The money will be used to refurbish the steel and wooden structure.

When you think about how you want your local community to spend $1.3 million, which of these feels better? Now, I realize there's a bit of an apples and bananas comparison going on here. It's really not fair to put these two numbers side-by-side. And yet, doesn't seeing them presented this way kind of give you a crummy feeling in your gut? I appreciate the need for "atmosphere" in West Haymarket, and I understand why this canopy is going to be a part of it. But can anybody tell me with a straight face that refurbishing this old canopy for $1.3 million is a better use of funds than spending significantly less on a brand new replica? I'll wager that there's a healthy batch of talented local guys looking for work who could craft a darn good facsimile for half the cost of the refurbished original. I'm all for preservation, but I despise preservation for its own sake. It needs to be coupled with common sense. A significant chunk of this $1.3 million expenditure is far removed from anything resembling common sense.

Cigarettes are about to be banned on many Parks & Rec properties. Areas affected by the ban include playgrounds, ballfields, skate parks, and the Ager Junior Golf Course. Except not really. Despite the Journal Star's initial language ("tobacco will be banned"), it's not a ban at all. It's more of a "pretty please stop doing that". The biggest change from the status quo is that signs will be posted. Beyond that there's apparently nothing stopping a tobacco user from doing his thing. The LJS article ends with the following:

Parks and Recreation Director Lynn Johnson said people who smoke in posted areas will be politely asked to put out the cigarette or leave.

Johnson's statement raises more questions than it answers. First, who is "politely asking"? It's not like there are City employees wandering around ballfields and playgrounds. Regular Joes like you and me could politely ask, but we can already do that. Tobacco users can now, just as in the past, politely tell us to go make love with ourselves. Then there's the issue of telling an offender to leave. On what authority can a City employee tell a tobacco user to leave the premises? If the employee tells a person to leave and that person says no ... then what? Does it become trespassing? Can one legitimately be said to be trespassing on public property when his only crime is not, in fact, a crime? I'm no doubt complicating the issue. But I've dealt with smokers who didn't even understand the concept of not smoking near a fireworks tent. Among tobacco's many side effects is the power to make a person quite stubborn. Smokers will push the issue, non-smokers will fight back, and police will be involved. I can imagine 911 calls like this: Caller: There's a man smoking near the slide! 911: Smoking isn't illegal, ma'am. Caller: But the sign says ... ! 911: I understand, ma'am, but that sign is just ... Caller: Send the cops or I'll put out the cigarette on her face! 911: *sigh* Obviously an ordinance would be simpler.

I spent this past weekend in Springfield, Missouri, home to a couple "diverging diamond" intersections similar to the one proposed for Northwest 48th and I-80. We drove through one of them. The most notable thing about it was how unnotable it was. I didn't even know we were at such an intersection until we were halfway through it. It flows nicely, and concerns about how drivers will know where to go are significantly overblown. The driving process is readily apparent. The fact that the driver experience isn't shocking is good news for Lincolnites. Once folks get beyond the novelty of it, the intersection shouldn't be expected to cause any trouble. Then again, our multi-lane roundabouts shouldn't be a problem either and look how much whining they've generated. I wish I had known I was approaching a diverging diamond intersection so I could have made a video or taken a couple photos. Alas, we were more focused on not getting lost than on documenting quirks along the way. I suppose you'll just have to take my word for it when I say that Lincolnites may well survive this latest round of transportation trickery.

U.S. Property has purchased the Five Willows building at 48th and Pioneers and rechristened it Stoneview Center. I'm glad to see the building get some love. For one thing it's in my neighborhood so I wasn't crazy about the building sitting empty. And for another, it's a shame to see all the money put into that property go to waste. The new concept for the building is interesting. For one thing, there's office space ("Suite 100") that includes an indoor walking track. That's relatively unique. I could see some hip company leasing the space and using the track for r/c car races instead. There's also a decent sized restaurant space, complete with what appears to be some old tanning equipment. Perhaps that could be used for some kind of newfangled cooking technique. All in all it looks like a good project, both for the building and the neighborhood. It's a far cry from the old Food 4 Less that used to live there, that's for sure.

Good morning everybody! I just want to give a quick update on things going on in my life. June is turning out to be a crazy, crazy month. I just returned from a weekend trip to Springfield, Missouri, where I helped officiate their State Cup soccer tournament. This weekend I'm going to Kearney to mentor at a tournament out there. Later in the month I'll head to Saginaw, Michigan to referee at the Region II Youth Championships; that will have me gone for a full week. And mixed around all of that I'm swamped with work. The consequence, unfortunately, is that blogging around here is taking -- and will continue to take -- a hit. It also means slow response times to those of you who have emailed me. If you do drop me a note I will do my very best to get back to you. Typically I leave emails "unread" in my inbox until I can give them the attention they need, so your note won't just disappear. Thank you for hanging tight with me and continuing to check in for new updates. If I can survive June, the rest of the summer's a breeze.

Pepe's is a bistro in Havelock specializing in vegetarian fare, one of the few places in Lincoln to do so. Now Pepe's wants to join the food truck craze currently going on in Lincoln. You can help get them going via a KickStarter project. Owner Pepe Fierro says:

This will be the first all vegetarian/vegan food truck in Nebraska. I need at least $8000.00 to get started. That will cover the purchase of the truck, rebuild, license, permits and insurance. I will take the truck throughout Nebraska featuring area farmer's fresh organic produce. I will be able to set up at festivals, special events and be available for private on site catering.

You can learn a bit more about Pepe's goals via the following video:

The Journal Star called out two local restaurants on Monday for failing to pay the arena tax. The scofflaws are BBQ4U and Taqueria El Rey. Insert angry scowl here. Before you grab your pitchforks, though, there's an important note to be made. BBQ4U is closed. A new restaurant, Poppi's BBQ, has taken over the location (and phone number), but Poppi's pays its taxes. As Nancy Hicks reported today Poppi's has nothing to do with the BBQ4U debt. As for Taqueria El Rey, the Journal Star wasn't able to dig up any additional information because "no English-speaking manager could be reached". Translation: the LJS couldn't be bothered to find a translator. Think about that. In this city of over a quarter-million people, the Journal Star couldn't dig up one person capable of helping them communicate with the Spanish speakers at Taqueria El Rey. That's some fantastic journalism right there. So all in all, in the entire City we've got one up-and-running tax dodger. That's not so bad. Hopefully they come clean soon. It'd be a shame if they had to be shut down for non-compliance.

Capital Towing gets another four years as the City's car tower of choice. I don't really care one way or the other. I'm not a regular victim of towing and I have no idea how good (or bad) any of the alternatives might be. The thing that gets me, though, is how controversial and political a towing contract can be. It's one of those features of local government that has always confused me. A while back I ranted about how the politicization of local fire departments baffles me; this is the same sort of thing. We're talking about towing cars to a lot, then accepting payment for the release of said cars. It's really not a difficult thing to do, and it shouldn't be something that generates much controversy. Councilman Adam Hornung voted against the contract because he says he receives oodles of complaints about Capital Towing. Meanwhile, the City's Purchasing Department says it has zero complaints on file. There are a couple pretty simple explanations for that. First, it's one thing to bitch and moan informally -- an action that permits certain exaggerations in the tale -- but it's another thing altogether to file a formal complaint. Mr. Hornung himself is a perfect example. He claims that Capital Towing "did an unbelievably horrible job" when they towed his car. Yet you'll note that his complaint was never filed, nor were those of his constituents. He has contributed to the problem. Second, who would ever think to submit their complaint to the Purchasing Department of all places? Surely one of the reasons they've never received a complaint is nobody knows they're the ones to complain to. That problem is solved easily enough. Now you know: if you have a complaint about Capital Towing's actions related to a tow that falls under their contract with the City, contact the Purchasing Department. They're at 440 South 8th Street, Suite 200. You can call them at 402-441-7417, or send them an email. You can't affect the current contract, but you can affect the contract four years from now.

So this is kind of neat. Apparently Nebraska Department of Roads is considering the use of a "double diamond" interchange at NW 48th Street and I-80. It's a bit difficult to describe, but fortunately there's a good video explaining how it all works. The ultimate goal, I guess, is to decrease left turns across traffic. To do that, though, you have to use some trickery. In this case, the trickery involves flip-flopping traffic from the right to the left side of the road. From above it makes a lot of sense. I'm not sure how obvious it is to a driver who has never seen such a thing before. No doubt the Lincolnites who still haven't figured out roundabouts will panic, but that's no big surprise. As I watched the video for the first time, my mind began to wander away from NW 48th Street to a much different intersection. I wonder if, somehow, double diamond-esque principles could be utilized in the 14th / Old Cheney / Warlick area. The City has solicited proposals from three different firms for that cluster of fun so now is the time to be thinking about these things. Could "flipping" traffic address some of the area's problems? If you figure out how to make it work you'll be a hero to all the folks who have to drive through there.

Folks who live near 27th and Grainger Parkway are up in arms over the likely arrival of Walmart to the area. Meanwhile, the new LPS District Office development -- which will include Whole Foods -- is widely praised. What a difference a retailer makes. The two developments have far too many differences to make a fair comparison. Still, it's fun to contrast the two welcomes. Walmart was reviled from the moment it was announced; Whole Foods, save for some minor concerns about traffic, parking, and lighting, was greeted warmly. Those differences were largely based on popular perception of the retailers. It's easy to see why. One of the retailers is run by an ardent capitalist and global warming denialist who compares unions to herpes and loathes Obamacare. The other is Walmart. I don't have a dog in this fight. I couldn't care less about the new Whole Foods or the proposed Walmart, either based on retailer reputation or the development to which they belong. Both are legal, properly zoned, correctly permitted, and so forth. After that ... well, it's just the luck of the draw whether neighbors get a "good" or "bad" development. Neighbors are welcome to fight, but at least in Walmart's case it seems far too little far too late. Walmart has fought off entire cities before. A couple hundred pissed off neighbors don't hold much weight, unless they've got a really good alternative in hand. In this case they don't. There must be something about South 27th Street that draws NIMBY-esque controversy. There was the Alzheimers facility near 27th and Old Cheney; the daycare near 29th and Pine Lake; the CVS back at 27th and Old Cheney; and now Walmart. If you live on South 27th, check the zoning of nearby properties. You might be next. And given the rapid acceleration in land uses, the next one's likely to be a doozy like a Federal prison. You've been warned.