It's the little things a city does that make it annoying. Like the four-way traffic stops at every other street corner. The City Commission approved another one Tuesday— reluctantly, but inevitably.
It must be tough being a City Commissioner and having everyone expect you to "Do Something" about this, that and the other. Many of the big issues— affordable housing, China trade policy, busting Bill Gates' chops— are beyond their scope. So when they can get off the hook with the residents of Florida and Catherine Streets for the price of a $500 four-way traffic stop, why not go for it? That's the inevitable part.
The Commissioners— and City staff— were reluctant to approve these four stop signs because we are reaching critical stop sign load, and when that level of stop-and-go signage is reached, people simply disregard the signs and speed on through, staff said.
Another so-called "traffic calming" device considered at Tuesday's meeting was the Speed Bump. (Its merits were contrasted with those of the Speed Hump. I'll explain later.)
Some residents wanted one (Bump) put in the 1500 block of Fifth Street. Staff said speed bumps are not considered a legitimate traffic calming device and are dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists, as well as being a nuisance to motorists. Commissioners asked staff to study the traffic situation and the alternatives, including . . .
Speed humps. These are the 10-to-12-foot long but relatively flat patches (affectionately dubbed a "reverse pot hole") which gently awaken slumbering speeders, but without spilling bicyclists' blood.
"Traffic calming." Hmmm. How calm is calm enough? Twenty miles per hour? Ten? Five? If enough signs and speed traps are erected here, would could perhaps achieve a vegetative state just a little higher-functioning than gridlock, but somewhat short of restful REM sleep. If we achieve this in my lifetime— just shoot me!
The City's liability came up quite a bit in both discussions. Can the City be sued if a child is injured at the blind corner of Catherine and Florida, or if a bicyclist is flung headfirst from his machine at Fifth by Flagler?
Seems to me the answer would be: "the City is sooner or later going to be held liable for everything for which it assumes responsibility." But the City just can't seem to get its fill of liability.
It is trying to register bikes (assuming responsibility for bike recovery) and now it wants to take charge of newspaper distribution boxes. The "newsrack" ordinance, unanimously approved by the five seated Commissioners (Harry Bethel and ordinance sponsor Merili McCoy were absent), makes the City Manager the administrator of all newsracks, requiring that he license, locate, and control them, and that his permission be sought if one is to change the location of a newsrack.
If that newsrack is in a problematic spot because of rapidly changing conditions— public works or weather, for example— and the City Manager is slow in providing his required written permission to move it, then who is responsible if someone is mauled, crushed, poisoned, gored or sexually assaulted by said newsrack? The City, and not the newspaper company, thankfully!
All the newspaper companies have to do is supply their written applications, personal data, and photographs of all newsboxes in their present locations, pay their fees (two dollars per rack in the ordinance; City Manager Julio Avael said he wants five), and then the box becomes the headache of City legal staff. A bargain, if you ask me!
But again, it's the small things that are killer, and I wouldn't want to be KWTN's publisher, Dennis Reeves Cooper, on deadline, trying to get his newsrack re-permitted in front of Mayor Jimmy Weekley's grocery store.