Some hard questions...

I was appalled to hear the reasoning given by council members for voting “for” this farce, that the S. Main St people “had worked so hard” for this and that it would “be a shame not to vote for it.”

Are we now to understand that anyone in this town who wants anything and “works hard” for it should get it even if they cannot afford to pay for it entirely by themselves?  Are we to understand that council will have the taxpayers pick up the remainder of the bill for anything that anyone wants and works hard for but cannot totally afford?

As Mr. Presta said at Tuesday’s meeting, “If not, why not?”

Spiderjohn:

Of course the decorative lighting thing is over...for now…but be assured that I will bring it up in the future when we are told “we are broke” or that the city has “cut everything to the bone”.

And you are correct about the bigger battles to come.  In addition to the two that you mention, we cannot forget the biggest “gorilla in the room”: the combined sewer system.  Whatever the EPA mandates isn’t going to be cheap, so we can be certain that new and higher taxes are in our future.  That is why it irks me so when we squander money, in amounts large and small, on projects that either end up benefiting no one or benefit only a few.

And of course no matter how broke they claim we are, they always happen to find those necessary amounts “tucked away in one of our other funds” when friends of City Hall have a pet project!!!

I understand what you are saying, Spiderjohn, and I understand the point of view of the folks on South Main.  However, neither those folks nor council ever did address some of the legitimate points that I raised:

The folks on South Main have already organized (several times) when they want something, so why couldn’t they get together, pick the same lamp posts and lights, and have them installed a few feet farther back from the curb (on the other side of the sidewalk), thereby achieving the same effect???

What about their precious Ordinance 1210???  If someone on that street wanted to put up a modern lamp post they could not do so without a “certificate of appropriateness”.  They would’ve been hauled before that kangaroo court known as the “Historic Commission” in a New York minute and been threatened with huge fines and jail time.  These folks, the Historic Commission, and Ordinance 1210 are all supposed to be about historical accuracy.  Last year, while looking at some pictures of Middletown in the late 1800s, I began noticing that there were no gas street lights.  I began searching for pictures of old Middletown.  I searched Library Lens and many other sources. NO WHERE could I find even one picture of even one gas street lamp in Middletown.  This “period lighting” thing is a farce.  The City is now going to violate their own Ordinance 1210, and the strongest proponents of that ordinance are complicit in this violation. Ordinance 1210 should be repealed, PRISM should be disbanded, and South Main Street should lose its standing as a Historic District for insisting on permanently “decorating” the street in a historically inaccurate manner!!!  Instead of “restoring” South Main Street, they seem intent on making it look like an olde tyme street in some other city.  Are they that ashamed of Middletown’s history???

The picture showing the supposed "safety hazard" due to darkness is a joke.  A picture taken under the same conditions, with the same camera settings in my neighborhood, Spiderjohn's neighborhood, or 85% of the other neighborhoods in Middletown would be indistinguishable from that picture. Streets in towns that actually did have gas lights would've been even darker!!

Where is the money coming from???  We are supposedly broke!!!  This question should been asked...it was not.  Why not???

So, the five members of City Council (the Mulligan brothers had to abstain) voted unanimously to install the decorative fake gas lamps and lamp posts on South Main Street.

None of them seemed to care where the city would be getting its share of the assessment for the construction costs for these decorations.  If we are to believe what we were told last fall during the budget discussions, there is no money available anywhere except from our dwindling cash reserve (also known as the “rainy day” fund).

None of them seemed to care that the rest of the citizens, whether they can afford it or not, will be picking up the tab for maintenance and utilities from now until the end of time.

None of them seemed to care that the money for these ongoing costs will be coming out of our dwindling “rainy day” fund, which is (I believe) projected to be EMPTY by some time in 2015, at which point our city will officially be bankrupt.

None of them seemed to care that the city will be violating its very own City Ordinance 1210 (the so-called “Historic Ordinance”) or that the Historic Commission is likely guilty of nonfeasance of duty—even though it was these very same property owners on South Main Street who were the most vocal proponents of Ordinance 1210, that now choose to scoff at it.

None of them seemed to recall that barely an hour earlier, while discussing the financial ills of Weatherwax Golf Course, City Manager Gilleland stated  “we have about three options for about everything we do:  we can increase the revenue, we can decrease the expenses, or it can remain the same”!!!  Well, we didn’t “increase the revenue” with this decorative light legislation, nor did we “decrease the expenses”—in fact we INCREASED the expenses!!! So why didn’t these five council members take Gilleland at her word and let it “remain the same”???  It appears that “everything we do” does NOT include those things we do for friends of City Hall, such as the folks on South Main Street.

Gilleland added that “it’s important that we talk about this in terms of our priorities” (when discussing the golf course).  Apparently, decorations on South Main are a higher priority than Weatherwax Golf Course, Historic Pioneer Cemetery, a swimming pool or many other worthy projects that are not “befriended” by the folks (or by cronies of the folks) at One Donham Plaza. There never seems to be any money for most of these "un-befriended" projects.

Apparently they just don’t care…and they probably won’t “remember” this later this fall during budget discussions, when once again, Gilleland will wring her hands, tell them that everything has been cut to the bone, there is just no money left for anything, and convince them that an illegal tax tacked onto our water bills to pay for power and maintenance for street lights is really not a “tax” at all but a “fee”. 

Pac,

Let me try to answer your questions as fully as I can:

“1.) I thought the home owners were paying for the street lights and the installations themselves??”

This is correct to a certain extent.  The cost of the street light, their installation, and the installation of the underground conduit, and the wiring will be assessed to the owners of the property on that section of South Main Street, based on street front footage.  Since the City owns some of the property, for example Old South Park, the City will be on the hook for several thousand dollars of this cost.  The same is true for many of the property owners who do not wish to have these extra lights installed, such as the American Legion and some property owners who have appeared before council stating that the assessment may likely cause them to lose their homes. 

It is unclear who will be on the hook for any construction extras that arise as the trenching for this conduit crosses any of the ancient sewer laterals or any other underground utilities in the area that will be encountered.  The city has refused to address this, and has “talked around” the issue as if it will not occur.

“2.) The way I read it, you are saying that the city is paying for the electricity and maintenance of the street lights once installed.”

Yes, that is correct!  Duke will charge about $10 or $11 dollars per month, per fixture for electricity and maintenance for these phony, decorative gas light lookalikes.  This comes to $4,000 to $6,000 per year in ADDITIONAL costs to our city (depending upon which set of figures you use), from now until the end of time, plus escalation due to inflation and energy costs increases, which will “necessarily skyrocket” according to our president.

“I do not understand the hoopla about paying for the maintenance and electricity for the light poles when the existing light poles, such as the one in my front yard, are serviced by duke energy and the city picks up the tab for electricity and maintenance.”

The reason the hoopla is that there are presently only about ELEVEN street lights like the one in your front yard (spaced just like the ones in your neighborhood) for which Duke charges the city the very same $10 or $11 dollars each per month.  Depending upon which scheme we are discussing, these folks want to either: a) remove those eleven street lights and replace them with FORTY-FIVE phony gas decorative lamp posts and lights; or b) keep those eleven street lights just like yours and ADD THIRTY-THREE phony decorative gas lamp posts and lights.

No one has addressed where the city will find the money to pay their share of the installation, or the ongoing yearly costs, since the City Manager has made it clear when other projects have been proposed that there was NO MONEY AVAILABLE unless something else was cut.  No mention was made of what must be cut to pay for this!!!

These folks think that these phony decorative gas lamp posts and lights will improve the looks (and therefore the value) of their properties.  Further, they are claiming that these are “period” lamp posts and lights, and supposedly these history-minded folks want their homes to look just like they did in the olden days.  The hitch is that, in Middletown, there never have been any public gas street lamps and lights!!!  (I think there have been some public "hitching posts", but that's a different story!)  Any gas lamp posts and lights in Middletown were installed by the property owners ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY and NOT in the “street lawn” (that strip of grass between the street and the sidewalk).  The irony of this whole matter is, that what they want to do “in the name of history” is totally historically INACCURATE!!!  To make matters worse, the property owners who may have refused to sign their petition because they want to keep their properties “historically accurate” may now be forced to pay several thousand dollars to RUIN the historic accuracy of their properties!!!

The saddest part is that there is a simple, economical alternative.  All that need be done is for the property owners who so desire, to have the same exact, historically inaccurate lamp posts and lights installed a few feet away on the other side of the sidewalk (just as EVERYONE ELSE in this city does), and leave the city and the property owners who do not wish to do so out of it.  The result would be the same.  The street view would be the same.

I hope that this helps you to understand the situation.