Victor Talks About Troy

I was watching the city council meeting last night and my stomach turned as I heard the utter hypocrisy coming from Councilman Wade Flemming’s mouth. It was during the postponed public hearing for the proposed rezoning from B-1 to B-3 for the Harlan Shopping Plaza.

 

Wade Flemming supported the rezoning request and he was using the logic that because both city management and the Planning Commission supported the rezoning request, the city council should follow suit and rezone the property. Why, and here is where the utter hypocrisy occurs, do we have city management and an advisory board, the Planning Commission, providing us with their profession opinion if we (the city council) don’t follow it.

 

Hmmmm. Wasn’t it just a few years ago that City Management, the City Attorney and the Liquor Advisory Committee all recommended that the transfer of the liquor license for Hooter’s be approved. Now, did Wade Flemming act upon those recommendations in the same manner he was exposing upon last night. No way Jose! Wade strongly, yes strongly, opposed the transfer. Hypocrisy once again raises its’ ugly head. Wade. Practice what you preach or just zip it. Don’t give reasons for supporting your position that you yourself don’t follow.

 

Is Wade the only hypocritical council member? Don’t make me laugh. Wade is not alone. I am sure you have heard me talk about the hypocrisy of those exposing upon the subject of “Good Governance” or I was for it until it was better for my re-election campaign to be against it. Yes, hypocrisy has many followers on this city council. But what do you expect from a bunch of politicians, honesty. Yeah right.

I just read about the damage caused in the Solar House the city received because somebody forgot to winterize it or if there were no plans to winterize it, check up on it during the winter. The pipes burst and there was water damage done to the tune of $16,000. According to Ron Hynd, the city is looking for a grant to repair the damage. Good luck. It's one thing to seek a grant to restore old buildings that time has aged, it's another to seek money to repair a "NEW" building damaged through "Professional" negligence. I had to use the word "Professional" since that is all I hear from the city council concerning our staff. We have good staff but so do alot of cities. But according to the city council, ours are the best. If they are the best, this should not have happened, at least not the first year of owning the building. If they are good but not the best, then mistakes happen. I have always said we have good some people working for the city but we also have some that are just so so.

 

On another subject, what do you think of the city's new minimum 3 cut policy for grass cutting in right of ways? Don't be fooled by the "minimum" in front of the 3. It actually can be viewed as a maximum. All the city is saying is that they will cut it at least 3 times, not necessarily more. To cut the grass once a month would require 6 cuts during the growing season. That was the city's old policy. Why would they change the minimum cuts from 6 to 3 unless they didn't plan on cutting more than 3 times. If you cut your grass on your property only once a month, you would receive from the city a notice that your grass is in violation of the height requirements. So as you drive around town along the major roadways, what do you think the city would do to you if you let your grass grow as the city is doing? You would be cited for being in violation of the property maintenace code, but not the City of Troy.

I am amazed, just simply amazed at management’s attempt to set up (or fabricate as some would say) a situation where they think they can circumvent the city charter by adding another “Be it further resolved” to the 2009/10 budget resolution to be voted upon May 11, 2009. This was in response to Councilwoman Beltramini’s question concerning the impact of lowering the Capital portion of the City Tax rate (as it relates to the City Charter and the recently passed charter amendment).

 

They are adding the words:

 

“BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That the 2009/10 budget uses 8.03 of the maximum 8.10 millage rate levy, which was passed by the voters in 2008 with the Charter amendment adding Section 9.16.5 to the City Charter.”

 

Do they really think adding these words will override the City Charter? Do they really think that adding this verbiage makes the recent requirements of the charter amendment go away? If this resolution passes as worded, the new current rate that goes into effect July 1, 2009 will be 8.03 mills. On that date, the current rate actually imposed, levied, and collected by the city will be 8.03 mills. Next year, should council want to raise it back to 8.10 mills, the current rate actually imposed, levied, and collected today, would require a vote by the City electors to raise it back. These additional words in the resolution will have no impact. If on July 1, 2009, the city lowers the millage rate from 8.10 to 8.03 that will be the new current rate as authorized under the charter. Any future increase above 8.03 will require a vote of the City electors unless Section 9.16.5 is changed by the voters or ruled invalid by the courts.

 

But we know that government agencies don’t have to follow the rule of law. Just look at what the State Tax Commission does with the laws they enforce. They don’t unless they want to. Not only that, they are requiring Brownfield Authorities to VIOLATE the law at their insistence. That is why I recently voted against our TBRA proposed 2009/10 budget since it requires us to collect taxes we cannot legally collect. They have instructed our City to collect them regardless. More about that issue later on.

 

Just for your reference, Section 9.16.5 of the city charter states:

 

“The Council shall not increase the millage rate imposed pursuant to Section 9.16 of this charter above a current rate actually imposed, levied, and collected unless the increased rate shall be first approved by a majority of the City electors voting on the question.”

 

My comments are based on the memo listed on the city web site for Late Submittals for C-01 as of 5:00 PM Sunday, May 10, 2009.

During past study sessions, the city council discussed how to trim expenses to meet the projected 5 million dollar budget shortfall. One such method was to reduce the number of minimum grass cuts on certain city property from 6 cuts to 3 cuts per growing season. I wonder if the city can save money by not cutting grass as often would some resential owners of large lots also be allowed to reduce the number of cuts on portions of their property? To get an answer I just sent the city council members the following email. If they represent us, I would expect an answer since the priniciple of whether the City of Troy has to follow the rules that are applied to businesses and residents is a fundemental one. If the City is exempt, why is it?

 

To all members of City Council,

 

During your budget cut discussions, it seems you have agreed to reduce minimum grass cuts on selected city parcels or portions of them from 6 to 3 during the growing season. We all know that in a normal growing season, to keep grass from exceeding 10 inches, it takes more than 6 cuts. Since the city follows all the rules that the residents of Troy follow, can you explain to me what city owned parcels or portions of a parcel will not be cut when the grass exceeds 10 inches as long as they are cut a minimum of 3 times in the growing season? I ask that simply to better understand what portions or a parcel do not have to be cut when the grass height exceeds 10 inches except for a minimum number of cuts? If no such exemption exists, who does a resident call when city owned property has grass that exceeds 10 inches and how long after being notified will the city remedy the situation? As an example, last year the grass exceeded 3 feet on the city owned parcel on Square Lake Rd (South of Kensington Church and West of the Romanian Orthodox Church) before it was cut and the house on the parcel was demolished.

 

I ask these questions since grass height regulations are for Health, Safety or Welfare reasons and we are reducing the number of minimum cuts for financial reasons (I guess that comes under Welfare), would those areas that the city says only has to be cut a minimum of 3 times in the growing season also apply for similar situated residential parcels? Years ago, the city applied the maximum grass heights only to the frontage, side yards and back yard for a given distance. Grass outside those areas did not have to comply with the 10-inch rule but had to comply with a minimum cut rule. That language does not exist today or does it? I could not find it. The last time I remember reading that code as I just described was in the late 80’s.

 

Please provide me with the answers to these questions. I might have just misunderstood the discussion on grass cuts, but if you have not reduced the number of minimum cuts, you can still answer the question concerning 10 inches vs. minimum cuts.

 

I keep hearing talk about Good Governance and Bad Governance from the city council table as well as reading quotes from council members on this subject in the newspapers. One of the basic principles of Good Governance for governmental units is Following the Rule of Law. We know that our Federal Government doesn’t know the meaning of Following the Rule of Law, do you? Your individual answers to my questions will shed some light on that subject.

 

Respectfully,

 

Victor Lenivov

This past Monday I was able to talk to Red on the phone. He is still at the nursing home doing rehabilitation. The fire in his voice was gone. He spoke slowly and we discussed how he was doing. He talked about his rehabilitation routine. I could sense he was tired and he ended the conversation after only a few minutes. Unlike the Red of old where we would talk for an hour, this conversation was short and limited. Hopefully as he recovers from this latest mishap, Red will become more of the firery Red of Old. But even as I get older, I notice that I am also losing a step or two. I have his number but I know that Red has trouble working his cell phone. I will call him every few weeks and hopefully will be able to get him on his cell phone. Till then.