Archive for April, 2009

Barrett should veto this idiocy

Thursday, April 16th, 2009

The Common Council, without a shred of public input, this week decided that anyone wanting to park a car that is for sale on the public property must get a $40 permit from the city, show the Department of Public Works the title to the car and have the vehicle inspected by a DPW employee.

This burdensome, idiotic requirement was adopted on a 10-4 vote without much thought at all. The justification behind it is absurd.

“The Common Council finds that a disproportionate number of vehicles that are for sale on public property are unlicensed, unregistered or are offered for sale by individuals who have no legal authority to do so,” the newly-expanded ordinance reads.

Poppycock. Show me the data on that one. And how the hell is requiring a $40 permit for a street sale going to prevent someone from selling a stolen car through some other — any other — means?

Ald. Robert Puente suggested the ordinance should apply citywide, rather than limited to areas where street sales of cars is a problem, so the police would have an easier time enforcing it. Yup, residents of Milwaukee should face a burdensome, expensive, useless requirement so cops don’t have to think or learn a new set of boundaries.  I thought the police were here to serve the citizenry, but it looks like that idea has been totally flipped backwards and upside down.

Technically, the ordinance prohibits parking any car for sale on public property, whether there is a “for sale” sign on the vehicle or not. You can get busted for driving the car and parking at the library, even if you leave the “for sale” sign at home. That is not what the council intended, but it is what the ordinance says.

Mayor Barrett should veto this idiocy. The ordinance, even narrowly interpreted, obviously will hit hardest at people in the city who can’t park their for-sale cars on private property — those whose garages are accessed through alleys or who don’t have private parking at all. The latter, of course, includes many poor people of the variety who don’t have the money or time to go chasing down to City Hall to pay $40 and go through a hassle to sell a $300 car.

We are in danger of having a bad ordinance that has been poorly drafted inflicted on the city. The Common Council should have realized that is a common result when legislation is rammed through without  much thought or consideration. Barrett really needs to kill it.

Council, without public input, passes $40 car sales fee

Wednesday, April 15th, 2009

It will cost $40 to park a car on the street and stick a “for sale” sign on it, under an ordinance adopted Tuesday by the Common Council.

Anyone wanting to sell a car on public property — namely, streets — will have to fill out an application and have the vehicle inspected by the Department of Public Works. There could be fines and towing for those who don’t obey.

The public not notified of the ordinance or provided an opportunity for input before the measure was  debated and approved, 10-4, by the council Tuesday morning.

The $40 fee already is in effect in small areas of the city, and Ald. Joe Davis asked the council’s Public Safety Committee to extend it to his district as well. The committee, instead, recommended Tuesday morning that it be extended to the entire city and the council agreed a short time later.

A portion of Ald. Robert Donovan’s district was the first to be subject to the $40 fee. Donovan told the committee that the large volume of car sales on the streets were causing problems in some areas. He said some of the cars sold turned out to be stolen.

Ald. Robert Puente said it would be easier for police to enforce the ordinance if it were citywide.

Voting against the measure were Aldermen Jim Bohl, Michael Murphy and Joe Dudzik and Alderwoman Milele Coggs.

Barrett on stimulus money: fix the potholes

Monday, April 13th, 2009

Mayor Tom Barrett on stimulus funding:

“People in this city are much, much more interested in seeing potholes and local streets repaired than expanding Interstate systems…That’s a message we have to deliver both to the state and the federal governments. There has to be a basic realignment of spending priorities.

DNR failing its water quality enforcement duties

Monday, April 13th, 2009

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources is failing to adequately enforce federal Clean Water Act provisions that are under its purview, according to an environmental legal agency.

The agency has failed to “limit discharges of nutrients (e.g., phosphorous and nitrogen), determine the “reasonable potential” of a discharge to violate a water quality standard, and to keep clean waters clean,” Midwest Environmental Advocates said.

Gov. Jim Doyle’s proposed budget will make matters worse by cutting 85.5 full-time jobs beyond the 300 vacancies that already exist. MEA urged the Legislature to adequately fund the DNR.

“Despite the agency’s best intentions, DNR is incapable of implementing its responsibilities with insufficient resources and staff,” says Karen Schapiro, MEA’s Executive Director. “The consequences of further staff reduction at DNR put Wisconsin’s lakes, rivers and streams at great risk. The budget cut-backs also put DNR at risk of having citizens petition the EPA to de-delegate the authority of DNR to implement the Clean Water Act. If the DNR is unable to properly implement and enforce the law, the only option may be to call upon the EPA to step in and take over the program in Wisconsin.”

WisDOT attack on property owners dropped from budget

Wednesday, April 8th, 2009

Gov. Jim Doyle’s attempt to strip homeowners and other property owners of legal rights in condemnation disputes with the Wisconsin Department of Transportation was dropped from the proposed 2009-11 budget after key lawmakers determined that the proposal was a policy issue, not a budgetary one.

Doyle wanted to make it harder and more expensive for property owners to appeal WisDOT low-ball offers for private property the agency wanted to take over to make way for transportation projects. The proposal would have limited lawyer’s fees for property owners who take their cases to court and win, thus leaving property owners hugely wronged by WisDOT with the prospect of large lawyer bills for taking on the state.