It seems like it doesn't happen very often, but Mayor Seng and I agree on at least a few things: portions of the City Council's proposed budget modifications stink. By dipping into carryover funds, for example, the Council's short-sightedness will decrease departments' long-term incentives to be fiscally responsible. Axing the city traffic engineer's position takes away an important individual responsible for dealing with one of Lincoln's perennial source of complaints. And taking the Aquila payout in one year rather than two is impatient and unnecessary.
The Council's approach to budgeting feels almost amateurish. They went in with a specific number in mind (which is reasonable enough) and were willing to think as short-term as necessary to get there (which is not). I'm all for fiscal responsibility, small government, and so on. But stealing from the piggy bank is not an exercise in fiscal responsibility; it's an exercise in immaturity.
Likewise, the decision to take away the traffic engineer position has a distinct odor of playground politics. Why, out of all the jobs in city government, that position? Why a position responsible for the source of one of Lincolnites' most common complaints? Are we to believe that one or more Council members' past run-ins with the current holder of that position have nothing to do with this decision?
In all fairness the Council is in a difficult spot. It has to make cuts -- relatively substantial cuts -- to Mayor Seng's budget or it is accused of playing fast and loose with the taxpayer dime. But there isn't a lot of easily-accessible fat to trim. Sure, there are lots of potential cuts out there, but most are either small (requiring more work) or likely to stir up noisy constituents. Who is going to get too fussy about a boring ol' traffic engineer? How many Lincolnites will picket over spending all of Aquila's money this year, rather than over two years?
On the upside, the Council wants to save taxpayers $2.8 million. That's worth noting. On the down side, a portion of what we save this year will come back to haunt us in the future. Most of the Council's proposed savings are not free.
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
<i>Why a position responsible for the source of one of Lincolnites
There’s nothing ironic about it at all. Traffic engineering has slowly—very slowly—improved over the past several years in Lincoln. The introduction of roundabouts, championed by Randy Hoskins, is one example. It would only be ironic if the quality of work from the person holding the position had been degrading traffic quality in Lincoln.
The notion that we may need a different person in the position is, to me, far more supportable than the notion that we ought not have the position at all. But even then I’m wary. It is not clear to me that incompetence on Mr. Hoskins’ part is responsible for the traffic problems Lincoln does have. To cite just one example, the South 27th Street bottleneck is caused more by politics than engineering.
What politics do you speak of? Regarding the traffic engineer position, I was thinking along the same lines of what Dave said up above. But there just seem to be such ridiculous decisions made in Lincoln, I’m really curious to hear about what politics are behind them, specifically with 27th.
The politics of South 27th Street are really quite simple. Residents along and near the South 27th Street bottleneck have two things going for them: money and history. I don’t think I have to defend the assertion that in general money correlates with political influence; this situation is no different. History, on the other hand, “buys” support from Joe Lincolnite, perhaps because he doesn’t want the big trees to be cut down, or because he doesn’t want the street to encroach on the golf course, or because he doesn’t think such pretty old houses should have a four lane road running in front. Traffic studies be damned, there’s a whole lot of pressure against widening that street.
To be clear, I’m very strongly in favor of pursuing some sort of solution to the bottleneck. Slapping a four lane road in there is just one possibility. I kind of like the idea of a 2+1 variable lane system. But then, that’s all another topic altogether.
Mr. Wilson is right about South 27th Street. It’s the country club neighborhood’s clout that has kept that street from being updated to handle the traffic flow.
Talk about a double standard!
The 2-plus-one lane would be a compromise. That road needs to be four lanes, but I can see the taking baby steps and starting with 2+1.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.