John Oliver from Last Week Tonight does a good job with this.
Everyone talked about the extra hour of sleep they got Sunday morning. Nope. Still woke up at the same time. Then tired all day. This morning was the same thing. I’ll be dragging all week. We really need to end this idiocy…
Granted, Fall is better than Spring when it comes to the DST change, but change is bad. Nope. Nope. Nope. I do not like it…
You can find a couple of my previous DST rants here and here or just search DST in the search bar. Nothing as good as John Oliver did in the video above, but still worth it if you want to laugh at my folly… or with a few of them, maybe even learn something. Ha!
I heard some great news today! Finally something good is coming out of 2020 Covid-19… Neil Diamond’s Sweet Caroline sing-a-longs are being banned at bars and sporting events around the world!YES!!!
I heard several weeks ago that Neil himself was trying to save the song by updating the lyrics. All that radical, pre-Corona B.S. about hands touching hands and reaching out touching me and touching you… NO TOUCHING!!! Stop it!!!
But now it’s been acknowledged that all the drunk yelling of the song into other drunk faces is not safe. To be honest, it was always just the chorus. No one actually knows the words to the song. Though groupthink has added “Bump-bump-bums” and repetitive “So Goods” sprinkled throughout the parts they do know. As stated in the article about the Irish Pub in Spain banning it, “Play it late into the night at any venue in either country and you are likely to get a vocal response from the intoxicated customers present. “
I also found where it has been banned at Penn State football stadium, though that’s more about the touchy-feeling part of the song and the connotations revolving around Jerry Sandusky scandal. Though is “reaching out, touching me, touching you” really appropriate at Beaver Stadium anyway?
It’s just become annoying and part of that is because it’s so ubiquitous at bars and sporting events. To paraphrase what Mr. Chamberlain said in his interview on the Balk Talk podcast, “Is it catchy? Yes. I won’t deny that. But at the same time… I don’t want to hear it.”
Pete & Wayne at Sloppy Joes in Key West
The last time I enjoyed hearing it even a little, was when Pete & Wayne butchered it on stage at Sloppy Joes in Key West. They professed their hate for it when a paid request came to them to play it, claiming they didn’t even know the words. A bidding war ensued in the bar upping the ante on both the play side and the no play side with Pete & Wayne raking in several hundred dollars in tips though the good-natured melee. Their version was funny and proved the sing-a-long idiots only cared about bump, bump, bumping through the chorus.
Much like Covid-19, I don’t think Sweet Caroline will die out anytime soon. Both seem to be way too infectious and often spread by drunk crowds. But one can always hope that this could be one of the few good things to come out of 2020… That would be Sweet! Maybe even worth a So Good! But please, no Caroline…
I went back through the ECC blog the other day, looking for a post that I wanted to reference to someone. Of course I reread it to be sure it said what I remembered. Yeah… it did… but I also found two grammatical errors. Ugh! That’s SO frustrating! When I post one of these, I generally read it a couple of times and if possible, read it out loud to myself before I post it. Unfortunately, both errors appear to be the result of previous editing where I apparently changed part of a sentence, but not the rest.
I struggle proofreading my own work. I know what I wanted to say and often gloss over my mistakes, apparently self-correcting them in my head. This is just the opposite of what I do reading other people’s writing. When reading someone else’s article, blog, etc., once I run across an error, I reset to proofreading mode and find myself looking for additional errors in lieu of absorbing content.
That said, let me throw this out there to my lurkers. While I don’t like it when I or others find errors in my writing, please don’t hesitate to tell me about them. Yes, I will be embarrassed, because I try my best to avoid them, but better that I’m told and correct them than let them continue to stand for others to stumble over. This blog celebrated its 12th Birthday in May. There are 178 pages of posts! No Kim & Ginny, I’m not going back and removing all the double spaces after periods! Ha! I’ve corrected that from when I learned I was in error, but those are going to stay in the older posts.
I’ve also chosen to write like I talk, so proper English often loses out to colloquialisms. While it is technically Easterday Construction Co., Inc.’s business blog, I often use it as a personal forum to vent about things that aren’t worth arguing in public. Some examples of that are here, here and here if you’re interested. Judging by the limited comments, I’m probably talking to myself most of the time here… which may be for the best! If you made it this far, thanks for “listening”.
I attended the Culver Plan Commission with a client Tuesday night. I was a little surprised to be called out in front of my client regarding another project, but so these things go.
Some Background: Last month I appeared for the Secondary Plan Review for the PUD (Planned Unit Development) needed for construction of The Paddocks. The project is one of the signature pieces in Culver’s Stellar Strategic Investment Plan and had been before the Plan Commission multiple times. It passed with one dissenting vote. I wondered about that vote, but never questioned it. It was their right to vote against the project. If they had expressed their objections before the vote, I could have provided a rebuttal to their objections, but after the vote it was a moot point.
Tuesday, that commissioner chose to elaborate on their no vote. To paraphrase, their objection was that all ordinances should be treated equal and since the Town had adopted a Complete Streets ordinance, and The Paddocks had agreed to provide a trail connection through The Paddocks property, the developer should have been required to exhaust all options to continue the trail through the adjacent property. The Developer should also be held to a higher standard due to the Tax Abatement awarded to The Paddocks.
A few things bothered me about that, but again, it was water under the bridge so I did not attempt to address it at that meeting. This is my venue to vent though, so here are my thoughts:
I was disappointed that this was brought up after the fact when I was there with a client for another project. I thought that was inappropriate as it put me in an undeserved negative light when the project I was there for had nothing to do with The Paddocks.
Complete Streets aside, this has not been a standard applied in the past. The last PUD developer was asked to provide trail access and as with The Paddocks, they provided access up to their property line. The adjacent property owner was not amenable to a trail through their property, so that was left to be addressed in the future… similar to what was done with The Paddocks. In that case, that development was not even required to provide the future Right-of-Way that was called out in the Comprehensive Plan because adjacent property owners were not supportive. The Paddocks PUD was required to dedicate additional Right-of-Way that wasn’t part of the Comprehensive Plan or part of the current project. The Town will be setting a high bar to hurdle if they choose to start requiring developers to purchase or negotiate rights to additional property outside the initial development.
The Paddocks PUD did receive some matching funds and a tax abatement from the Town, but this was done because incentives were required to get the housing that the Town had made a goal. This also allowed the Town to receive matching funds from the Regional Cities Initiative (RCI) and qualify for the IHCDA LIHTC program. These were very public negotiations. Making one sided changes to those agreements will make developers leery of working with the Town. On a side note, to my knowledge, this is the only RCI funded project where that funding is given to the Town through the Developer. In the awards of which I have knowledge, the RCI funding went to the Developer.
Originally, and in all the Stellar discussion, this property was to connect to the Town via the revitalization of the Jefferson Street corridor. That was to be the “Complete Streets” connection. It was not until later that a request came for a connection to Cass Street. The Paddocks did agree to provide a trail connection to Cass Street, but was required to do so now despite some objections, one of which was the lack of a connection through adjacent properties. The preference would have been to provide the connection at a later date when it would have connected to Academy Road. Connecting to Cass Street was also an option, but it would have made more sense to wait until the Town had worked out a route with adjacent property owners.
As I have said many times in the past, I respect the volunteers that serve on public boards and commissions. They take more slings and arrows than ever gets balanced out with accolades. That doesn’t alleviate their responsibility to know all the facts. In this case, some of the commentary was counter to things previously negotiated with the Town Council and the Plan Commission’s own Technical Review Committee. Speaking from the table at the front of the room gives their voice additional weight. That needs to be used judiciously.
Obviously this commissioner’s take differs from mine. Fortunately for me, the project and the Town, his position wasn’t shared by the other commissioners.
At the April meeting of the Culver Redevelopment Commission, an audience member repeatedly referred to the Commission as the Town Council’s “Fat Cow”. I assume this was a bastardization of “Kill the Fatted Calf” from the parable of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32). I found several references here similar to this: The allusion to the New Testament story of the prodigal son (Luke 15:11-32) in which the forgiving father ordered his best calf to be killed in order to provide a feast to celebrate the return of his wayward son. Fatted is an archaic form of the verb fat meaning ‘make or become fat’. Nowadays we use the forms fatten or fattened. – Farlex Partner Idioms Dictionary
Grandpa Murphy
Due to my Grandpa Murphy and my good friend Bobbie Ruhnow, I’m quite fond of idioms and colloquialisms which I use often… much to the chagrin of some of my nieces and nephews who look at me like I’m crazy. My grandfather often shortened/modified his use of colloquialisms too, so I got the “Fat Cow” reference, though I didn’t agree with the sentiment. The reference was used as a pejorative, implying that the Town Council was unreasonably taking advantage of the funds held by the Redevelopment Commission. I disagree with that assessment for several reasons:
First and foremost, the Redevelopment Commission members are appointed by the Town Council. The Town Council members are the duly elected representatives of the citizens. They answer to their constituents. As such, the Town Council should be, using another colloquialism, the pointy end of the spear, setting the direction for the Town. The underlying commissions and boards are made up of members appointed to follow the directions given by the Town Council. If the citizens don’t like the direction the Town Council is going, then they can voice that by electing new council members. Commission and board members are appointed because the council members can’t do everything or take the time to go into depth on issues like the commissions and boards can. But in general, they are there to support the Town Council, not defy it. They serve at the pleasure of the Council.
The money that the Redevelopment Commission has is captured tax dollars from the TIF Districts. The TIF Districts were specifically created for this purpose. A TIF district essentially reallocates funds from property taxes to encourage investment within the district. Any increased tax revenues collected as a result of an increase in property values then go into the TIF fund and can be used by the Town for a wide range of purposes to promote development. These are not new tax funds or separate tax funds from what would have been collected on the affected properties. The funds are being used for the purpose intended.
The funds collected by Redevelopment Commission from the TIF Districts can be returned or redirected back to the underlying taxing bodies, but this would not change the amounts collected from taxpayers. But why would the Redevelopment Commission not use the tools (dollars) they receive? I would argue that the Redevelopment Commissioners are not doing their job if they cannot properly use these funds to benefit the districts as intended. And going back to #1 above, the Town Council should reevaluate their appointments if the commission members can’t support projects that the Town Council has designated as important to our community when they fit within TIF spending guidelines.
Our Town Council has done an above average job of soliciting citizen input over the past few years. The projects currently being pursued are ones that have come from community input in our Comprehensive Plan in 2014 and two outreaches used to complete our two Strategic Investment Plans used in our Stellar Community application in 2016 and our successful Stellar Community designation in 2017. These projects came from community input and our Stellar Community designation has allowed these projects to move forward with funds heavily leveraged from State agencies.
Culver’s Town Council has given the Redevelopment Commission much more autonomy than is seen in most communities. They are allowed their own separate agenda and often push back on Council initiatives. Once again though, they serve at the pleasure of the Council, so Culver’s Council has chosen to accept that autonomy, rather than replacing them with more complacent individuals.
Also somewhat unique to Culver is the interaction allowed to the public. Within limits, the public is allowed to comment and question throughout the Town Council meeting rather than just at the designated “Citizen Input” on the agenda. This new tradition has translated down through the boards and commissions. This is not something often seen in other communities and is likely behind the increased public attendance at meetings and public involvement in Town projects. Citizens may not always agree with the Town’s direction nor always able to sway the direction of the Town, but they cannot say they were not heard.
So it’s fine for citizens to voice their displeasure with the direction of the Council or any of the boards or commissions. It’s part of our local government system. Though a better understanding of the process, the chain of command and how we got here on projects would allow them to make better arguments. An educated debate carries more weight than random heckling.
