Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "The ORA, the County and Just What Do We Expect": Hi John. I miss your insight and additional source of information. Did you give up on your endeavor?
I guess the honest answer is I did give up for a while. The reasons are many.
First, I reached a point where I wasn’t sure I had much to say worthwhile and also began to question whether more than a handful of people cared in any case. I also feared I was in danger of becoming “snarky” about a couple of things that went on, and I don’t like that in others, let alone myself.
On a more personal level, I went through a bit of a mentally down period dealing with the continued frustration of unemployment and trying to hustle and complete some freelancing and consulting work. On the upbeat side, I’m once again gainfully employed, but have been awfully busy settling into the new job and we are also now grandparents (Samantha Audean Bartlett) and I have to say that has been the focus of a lot of my life.
And there is yet one other reason I hadn’t posted for the past two months: my computer ineptitude resulted in getting me locked out of the blog site after I changed a number of e-mail addresses and servers. Obviously, I’ve figured that out.
I do have a sense of not meeting a commitment I made, and for that I apologize.
As nearly everyone knows, I am running for re-election to city council. It was a difficult decision. I don’t really find serving on council fun, but I do believe I am an important voice and I do enjoy serving the city (There being quite a difference between fun and enjoy.) I do not want this blog to be a campaign tool, but I suppose to some extent that cannot be helped for better or worse.
So, time to comment on a couple of recent city issues.
First, council has taken some criticism – one individual in particular – about the purchase of a new aerial platform truck for the Fire Department. Believe me, no one on council spent $940,000 without a lot of thinking and soul searching.
Personally, I don’t think we had a choice. Our old snorkel truck would soon be unable to pass certification of the aerial devices. No responsible person would ask any firefighter or any other worker to use equipment that was dangerous and that could endanger lives if it failed.
Repairs to the snorkel would have run a couple of hundred thousand dollars or more with no guarantee of how long it would remain serviceable. Everyday parts for repair of the non-chassis equipment were also becoming increasingly difficult to find.
There are those who argue the city does not need a platform truck. I have to disagree, and I understand that insurance rating agencies do as well. Only a platform truck can reach the top floors for rescue and/or get water above four of the senior citizen high-rises, a number downtown buildings and our larger apartment complexes. In addition, even the lower buildings in our downtown by virtue of having joined walls, etc. require an aerial attack. Hitting them with streams of water from the ground is not sufficient. It becomes the difference between losing a building and losing a block. I’ve also been told by a number of firefighters, that given some of the slopes in residential areas, the aerial is important there as well.
(In the interest of full disclosure, my son is an Oil City firefighter.)
Our fire chief was able to secure a federal grant that covered more than a third of the cost of the truck. That money might not have been there if we waited out of hope for some better times, and the cost of the equipment would only increase.
And finally, a quick note on two other city items.
YESSS!, as you all know the city received Main Street Program designation. A Main Street manager should be aboard shortly. I firmly believe the future is looking increasingly bright for our downtown.
And, I’m deeply concerned about the 2012 budget, and we haven’t even started talking about it yet. Times remain tough, but you have to keep enough intact to be poised for a revival.
Friday, July 15, 2011
Monday, January 3, 2011
2011
Well it is 2011, a municipal election year.
I’m entering my fourth and final year of my term of office, along with that of Mayor Sonja Hawkins and Councilman Lee Mehlburger.
I will soon have to make a decision on whether to run for reelection, seek some other office or do neither and take life easy. I honestly don’t know what I’m going to do. I enjoy being on council and I like to think I’ve served the city well, but I would not call serving on council fun. I find there is a lot of agonizing and a lot of lying awake at night. As with everything, there are times it is more difficult, more frustrating than other times.
Time marches on and we can only guess what 2011 will bring for the city and what challenges for council.
I’m optimistic on several fronts, and concerned on many others.
I remain hopeful that the city will receive Main Street designation and Main Street program funding. I’m also convinced that whether or not we gain the designation, we are going to find a way to have a comparable downtown program.
I think the long dilemma of the Brody Block will come to an end this year. We need to credit the Oil Region Alliance and the Oil City Redevelopment Authority for their willingness to step up to the plate and assume some risk.
Our Waterways Study will soon be completed and it provides a good outline for better utilization of the river and Oil Creek to the economic, recreational and social benefit of the city. The difficulty will be in finding a way to fund some of the suggestions. Of course, much can be done with little or no money, and we will need to quickly implement those low-cost projects. I suspect we can also think a bit outside the box and look to more public/private partnerships to bring some of the other ideas to fruition.
On the concern side of things I’m really worried that the state will push a lot of its budget problems down onto municipalities, notably the state’s cities. I suspect this will come in many ways. Taxpayers need to understand that what they think of as savings at the state level could easily cost them a lot more at the local level.
The city’s long-term financial viability remains a great concern. We must continue to “right size”, but we also need to preserve core functions. I’m sure in coming years there will be never-ending debates as to what is a core function.
There is no shortage of things that council needs to think about.
I’m entering my fourth and final year of my term of office, along with that of Mayor Sonja Hawkins and Councilman Lee Mehlburger.
I will soon have to make a decision on whether to run for reelection, seek some other office or do neither and take life easy. I honestly don’t know what I’m going to do. I enjoy being on council and I like to think I’ve served the city well, but I would not call serving on council fun. I find there is a lot of agonizing and a lot of lying awake at night. As with everything, there are times it is more difficult, more frustrating than other times.
Time marches on and we can only guess what 2011 will bring for the city and what challenges for council.
I’m optimistic on several fronts, and concerned on many others.
I remain hopeful that the city will receive Main Street designation and Main Street program funding. I’m also convinced that whether or not we gain the designation, we are going to find a way to have a comparable downtown program.
I think the long dilemma of the Brody Block will come to an end this year. We need to credit the Oil Region Alliance and the Oil City Redevelopment Authority for their willingness to step up to the plate and assume some risk.
Our Waterways Study will soon be completed and it provides a good outline for better utilization of the river and Oil Creek to the economic, recreational and social benefit of the city. The difficulty will be in finding a way to fund some of the suggestions. Of course, much can be done with little or no money, and we will need to quickly implement those low-cost projects. I suspect we can also think a bit outside the box and look to more public/private partnerships to bring some of the other ideas to fruition.
On the concern side of things I’m really worried that the state will push a lot of its budget problems down onto municipalities, notably the state’s cities. I suspect this will come in many ways. Taxpayers need to understand that what they think of as savings at the state level could easily cost them a lot more at the local level.
The city’s long-term financial viability remains a great concern. We must continue to “right size”, but we also need to preserve core functions. I’m sure in coming years there will be never-ending debates as to what is a core function.
There is no shortage of things that council needs to think about.
Thursday, November 11, 2010
On Approach & an assistant city manager's title
You probably read in Wednesday’s paper the move by some council members to eliminate the position of assistant city manager and that I voted against the motion.
First, I think the approach was deeply flawed. The issue was brought up at the last minute as addition to the published agenda; and not for general discussion, but for the purpose of voting on a motion “directing the city manager to draft a resolution eliminating the assistant manager’s position.”
I strongly believe that the appropriate way to raise such issues is to inform council and residents of the city at a public meeting that you would like discussion of a certain subject, etc. placed on the agenda for a future meeting. That way, everyone knows what will be coming up and there will be no surprises, no one will feel blindsided and the public has the opportunity to respond proactively and not after the fact.
Furthermore, I strongly believe there should be general discussion prior to development of a specific directive to the city manager, ordinance, or other item. The idea should be to allow for as broad as input as possible early rather than later.
At the council meeting I asked the maker of the motion to amend it to simply place discussion of the position on the agenda for the following meeting. I would have supported that and been willing to argue the merits for the position at the appropriate time. My request was refused.
The approach taken offends me, which I let my fellow members of council know on Monday, just as did the approach taken calling a special meeting on the Administrative Code, which came in the form of a letter rather than at a public meeting.
Frankly, doing things that way strikes me as bully tactics and it makes hard for me to trust some fellow members of council. I don’t think that is good for the city.
As for the call to eliminate the position, which is only eliminating the title, I don’t get.
The assistant city manager’s position is just one of many hats worn by Janet Gatesman, who among other things is also the director of Community Development. It costs the city nothing and is a cheap way to ensure continuity in the event of illness or any other absence of the city manager. Perhaps more importantly, I think it allows for better coordination at the highest administrative levels of the city.
Those who oppose the title claim it takes focus away from community and economic development. I don’t believe it, and I find that argument somewhat specious. I can’t help but wonder if there is not something else all together behind it.
And finally, the city faces huge issues such as the parking garage, long-overdue capital improvements and purchases, blight, declining tax base, etc. etc. Why are we creating controversies where there is no need? Sometimes, even if you don’t like something or want to change something, the best thing to do is to let it go and get on with more important things.
First, I think the approach was deeply flawed. The issue was brought up at the last minute as addition to the published agenda; and not for general discussion, but for the purpose of voting on a motion “directing the city manager to draft a resolution eliminating the assistant manager’s position.”
I strongly believe that the appropriate way to raise such issues is to inform council and residents of the city at a public meeting that you would like discussion of a certain subject, etc. placed on the agenda for a future meeting. That way, everyone knows what will be coming up and there will be no surprises, no one will feel blindsided and the public has the opportunity to respond proactively and not after the fact.
Furthermore, I strongly believe there should be general discussion prior to development of a specific directive to the city manager, ordinance, or other item. The idea should be to allow for as broad as input as possible early rather than later.
At the council meeting I asked the maker of the motion to amend it to simply place discussion of the position on the agenda for the following meeting. I would have supported that and been willing to argue the merits for the position at the appropriate time. My request was refused.
The approach taken offends me, which I let my fellow members of council know on Monday, just as did the approach taken calling a special meeting on the Administrative Code, which came in the form of a letter rather than at a public meeting.
Frankly, doing things that way strikes me as bully tactics and it makes hard for me to trust some fellow members of council. I don’t think that is good for the city.
As for the call to eliminate the position, which is only eliminating the title, I don’t get.
The assistant city manager’s position is just one of many hats worn by Janet Gatesman, who among other things is also the director of Community Development. It costs the city nothing and is a cheap way to ensure continuity in the event of illness or any other absence of the city manager. Perhaps more importantly, I think it allows for better coordination at the highest administrative levels of the city.
Those who oppose the title claim it takes focus away from community and economic development. I don’t believe it, and I find that argument somewhat specious. I can’t help but wonder if there is not something else all together behind it.
And finally, the city faces huge issues such as the parking garage, long-overdue capital improvements and purchases, blight, declining tax base, etc. etc. Why are we creating controversies where there is no need? Sometimes, even if you don’t like something or want to change something, the best thing to do is to let it go and get on with more important things.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Frustrating absurdities and links with seeds
There is a cut-stone culvert probably better than a century old that carries a small stream and storm sewer collection beneath West First Street, a state highway. It is in danger of collapsing, a problem discovered quite by chance. The City of Oil City is responsible for its repair or replacement.
If that culvert was a mile further west where West First Street turns into Deep Hollow Road at the Cranberry Township line, the responsibility for its repair or replacement would fall on the state.
For some inexplicable reason, the state requires cities to pick up more costs for under-road infrastructure than it does of townships. That is an incredible additional burden for taxpayers in Pennsylvania’s cities, and means that in effect they are subsidizing their suburban neighbors.
I just learned of this and verified it with PennDOT officials.
The playing field needs to be leveled if our cities are going to be able to compete and thrive, but I have no expectation that the state legislature will anytime soon do anything to address such inequities.
My other big frustrating absurdity in recent weeks is best summed up by quoting Dickens – although a bit out of context: “the law is an ass.”
A couple of years ago in response to growing concerns, the city adopted an ordinance placing a number of restrictions on the operation of outdoor woodburners.
A city resident, unhappy with the restrictions, built a shed around his outdoor woodburner, claiming it was no longer an “outdoor” woodburner. District Judge Doug Dinberg ruled in favor of that interpretation.
Understand, the woodburner was installed as an outdoor woodburner, sold as an outdoor woodburner, advertised by the manufacturer as an outdoor woodburner and many outdoor woodburners now come with a metal, shed-like covering.
I’m no judge or lawyer, but ruling that by putting a shed up around an outdoor woodburner makes it something else entirely flies in the face of reason.
I suspect council will quickly amend the ordinance to prevent such sidestepping of its intent.
A person who commented on my previous blog post put up a link to an interesting article I thought worth sharing, along with a couple of others I’ve come across in recent weeks.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/09/05/how_to_shrink_a_city/?page=full
http://shareable.net/blog/what-so-called-slums-can-teach-american-cities
http://web.mit.edu/dusp/dusp_extension_unsec/people/faculty/lhoyt/Hoyt_Leroux_FC.pdf
I think all three might contain at least seeds for thought that can be helpful to Oil City.
If that culvert was a mile further west where West First Street turns into Deep Hollow Road at the Cranberry Township line, the responsibility for its repair or replacement would fall on the state.
For some inexplicable reason, the state requires cities to pick up more costs for under-road infrastructure than it does of townships. That is an incredible additional burden for taxpayers in Pennsylvania’s cities, and means that in effect they are subsidizing their suburban neighbors.
I just learned of this and verified it with PennDOT officials.
The playing field needs to be leveled if our cities are going to be able to compete and thrive, but I have no expectation that the state legislature will anytime soon do anything to address such inequities.
My other big frustrating absurdity in recent weeks is best summed up by quoting Dickens – although a bit out of context: “the law is an ass.”
A couple of years ago in response to growing concerns, the city adopted an ordinance placing a number of restrictions on the operation of outdoor woodburners.
A city resident, unhappy with the restrictions, built a shed around his outdoor woodburner, claiming it was no longer an “outdoor” woodburner. District Judge Doug Dinberg ruled in favor of that interpretation.
Understand, the woodburner was installed as an outdoor woodburner, sold as an outdoor woodburner, advertised by the manufacturer as an outdoor woodburner and many outdoor woodburners now come with a metal, shed-like covering.
I’m no judge or lawyer, but ruling that by putting a shed up around an outdoor woodburner makes it something else entirely flies in the face of reason.
I suspect council will quickly amend the ordinance to prevent such sidestepping of its intent.
A person who commented on my previous blog post put up a link to an interesting article I thought worth sharing, along with a couple of others I’ve come across in recent weeks.
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2010/09/05/how_to_shrink_a_city/?page=full
http://shareable.net/blog/what-so-called-slums-can-teach-american-cities
http://web.mit.edu/dusp/dusp_extension_unsec/people/faculty/lhoyt/Hoyt_Leroux_FC.pdf
I think all three might contain at least seeds for thought that can be helpful to Oil City.
Monday, July 26, 2010
Zoning Discussions
Council has blocked off a half-hour at tonight’s meeting (7-26) to begin some serious discussion on a totally revamped zoning ordinance for the city.
This is a critical issue and of great importance to all residents, whether they know it or not. I personally believe zoning can be a tool to help prevent deterioration of neighborhoods, spur development and ensure the best and highest use of available land and in general create a more viable and pleasant community.
I know not everyone thinks like that.
The re-do of the zoning ordinance has been planned and is being done in conjunction with the multiple-municipal comprehensive plan, although it is a separate project. As such, there has already been some limited public discussion about changes, notably to “up-zoning” several residential areas.
Currently we only have two residential categories: R-1 and R-2.
The R-1 district represents generally the area with the largest lots and newest developments. It is limited to single-family homes. The R-2 district is generally areas with smaller lots and allows for multi-family units.
I for one favor and I think there is consensus to creating additional R-1 districts (A-B etc. based on lot size) to bring several of the current R-2 neighborhoods into the single-family residence category. I believe this will tend to preserve several neighborhoods by making fewer rental units available and in a round-about way support home ownership. It is important to remember that the exhaustive study of county housing said strongly that additional lower-cost rental units are not needed in Oil City and in fact can be detrimental to the overall market.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to me why under our existing zoning categories we encourage transformation of single-family homes into two or more family rental units where the lots are the smallest and the parking issues often the greatest.
Currently we only have one industrial category and do not differentiate between heavy and light industry. The Industrial zones are located in a wide sweep along the river on the West End, East End, Siverly and downstream from Relief Street along Route 8. There is also an industrial zone along Oil Creek and extending along parts of Seneca Street and “inland” to Duncomb.
Much of what is zoned industrial on the southside has great potential for other uses and little industrial development potential. That needs to be changed. Furthermore, I think it would make sense to make the industrial zone in the West End light industrial to better reflect the adjoining property uses and what is actually there now.
I would like to see creation of a special “Waterfront” zoning category that would encourage residential development and recreational businesses, such as restaurants, etc. to best make use of the waterfronts. There needs to be a lot of thought given to what would be appropriate and how to use zoning to preserve viewscapes, etc.
The areas I would place in that “waterfront” zoning category include:
1) Between Route 62 and the river from Pumphouse Road to Veteran’s Bridge.
2) Everything on the river side of Front Street (perhaps North Street) from Petroleum Street to at least Blair Street and then extending on the river side of the old railroad right-of-way to the city line.
3. Colbert Avenue to the river out to the Industrial Park and then upstream of the Industrial Park to the end of Colbert and then all the remaining upstream property within the city.
Perhaps a “waterfront” area overlay for our downtown commercial districts would also be beneficial.
Obviously we need to take a look at the former hospital property, now zoned as residential office to see if the uses prescribed in that zoning category still fit.
Oil City does not have a lot of remaining undeveloped land, but for what we do have I think it would behoove us to explore zoning rules that provide for single-residence and townhouse condominium developments that are of growing popularity.
Council will have a lot to think about and the staff a lot of work as we develop a comprehensive zoning ordinance update. Our residents need to speak up and express their desires and concerns as well, and sooner rather than later.
This is a critical issue and of great importance to all residents, whether they know it or not. I personally believe zoning can be a tool to help prevent deterioration of neighborhoods, spur development and ensure the best and highest use of available land and in general create a more viable and pleasant community.
I know not everyone thinks like that.
The re-do of the zoning ordinance has been planned and is being done in conjunction with the multiple-municipal comprehensive plan, although it is a separate project. As such, there has already been some limited public discussion about changes, notably to “up-zoning” several residential areas.
Currently we only have two residential categories: R-1 and R-2.
The R-1 district represents generally the area with the largest lots and newest developments. It is limited to single-family homes. The R-2 district is generally areas with smaller lots and allows for multi-family units.
I for one favor and I think there is consensus to creating additional R-1 districts (A-B etc. based on lot size) to bring several of the current R-2 neighborhoods into the single-family residence category. I believe this will tend to preserve several neighborhoods by making fewer rental units available and in a round-about way support home ownership. It is important to remember that the exhaustive study of county housing said strongly that additional lower-cost rental units are not needed in Oil City and in fact can be detrimental to the overall market.
Furthermore, it makes no sense to me why under our existing zoning categories we encourage transformation of single-family homes into two or more family rental units where the lots are the smallest and the parking issues often the greatest.
Currently we only have one industrial category and do not differentiate between heavy and light industry. The Industrial zones are located in a wide sweep along the river on the West End, East End, Siverly and downstream from Relief Street along Route 8. There is also an industrial zone along Oil Creek and extending along parts of Seneca Street and “inland” to Duncomb.
Much of what is zoned industrial on the southside has great potential for other uses and little industrial development potential. That needs to be changed. Furthermore, I think it would make sense to make the industrial zone in the West End light industrial to better reflect the adjoining property uses and what is actually there now.
I would like to see creation of a special “Waterfront” zoning category that would encourage residential development and recreational businesses, such as restaurants, etc. to best make use of the waterfronts. There needs to be a lot of thought given to what would be appropriate and how to use zoning to preserve viewscapes, etc.
The areas I would place in that “waterfront” zoning category include:
1) Between Route 62 and the river from Pumphouse Road to Veteran’s Bridge.
2) Everything on the river side of Front Street (perhaps North Street) from Petroleum Street to at least Blair Street and then extending on the river side of the old railroad right-of-way to the city line.
3. Colbert Avenue to the river out to the Industrial Park and then upstream of the Industrial Park to the end of Colbert and then all the remaining upstream property within the city.
Perhaps a “waterfront” area overlay for our downtown commercial districts would also be beneficial.
Obviously we need to take a look at the former hospital property, now zoned as residential office to see if the uses prescribed in that zoning category still fit.
Oil City does not have a lot of remaining undeveloped land, but for what we do have I think it would behoove us to explore zoning rules that provide for single-residence and townhouse condominium developments that are of growing popularity.
Council will have a lot to think about and the staff a lot of work as we develop a comprehensive zoning ordinance update. Our residents need to speak up and express their desires and concerns as well, and sooner rather than later.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
The State and Oil City
Make no mistake about it, the budget crisis facing the state is going to have a direct impact on Oil City and the region, and it is not likely to be good.
The question is how bad will it get?
We need to be prepared and we need to fight for those programs we think critical to our future.
Among the state programs high on my priority list are the Main Street Program and Weed and Seed.
In the budget proposals now floating around Harrisburg both are slated for significant cuts, in some proposals to virtual elimination. Both programs have had real success in local communities, revitalizing many of the state’s older cities. Oil City is poised to be a beneficiary, but will largely lose that opportunity if deep cuts are made to those programs, flushing countless hours of local work down the tubes.
The Oil City Weed and Seed program was just approved and funded by the state after months of local efforts to make it a reality. It makes no sense to me for the state to initiate the program and then cut it just as it begins to make a difference.
Main Street is much the same story. The community really came together to develop a Main Street Program application, including detailed five-year plans and raising more than $100,000 in local money to match and leverage state funding. We – the community – did our part in good faith. The state legislature needs to follow through.
I recognize the financial problems facing the state and nation. We are in an era of tough choices and we must get our fiscal house in order. But if we don’t save our communities what do we have?
I also recognize that I am like most and somewhat hypocritical when it comes to state and federal government programs. What benefits me and my community I view as essential, what benefits someone else’s community (especially if it is Philadelphia or Pittsburgh) is pork and waste.
We are all going to have to make compromises and that means a willingness to look at the needs of others.
And that comes back to prioritizing based on real needs and real value.
I wonder if our legislature is up to that or if this year will be like past years; simply Pennsylvania politics as usual – posturing for political gain, acting on personal animosities and a concern for “what can I get” rather than what will benefit the Commonwealth.
The question is how bad will it get?
We need to be prepared and we need to fight for those programs we think critical to our future.
Among the state programs high on my priority list are the Main Street Program and Weed and Seed.
In the budget proposals now floating around Harrisburg both are slated for significant cuts, in some proposals to virtual elimination. Both programs have had real success in local communities, revitalizing many of the state’s older cities. Oil City is poised to be a beneficiary, but will largely lose that opportunity if deep cuts are made to those programs, flushing countless hours of local work down the tubes.
The Oil City Weed and Seed program was just approved and funded by the state after months of local efforts to make it a reality. It makes no sense to me for the state to initiate the program and then cut it just as it begins to make a difference.
Main Street is much the same story. The community really came together to develop a Main Street Program application, including detailed five-year plans and raising more than $100,000 in local money to match and leverage state funding. We – the community – did our part in good faith. The state legislature needs to follow through.
I recognize the financial problems facing the state and nation. We are in an era of tough choices and we must get our fiscal house in order. But if we don’t save our communities what do we have?
I also recognize that I am like most and somewhat hypocritical when it comes to state and federal government programs. What benefits me and my community I view as essential, what benefits someone else’s community (especially if it is Philadelphia or Pittsburgh) is pork and waste.
We are all going to have to make compromises and that means a willingness to look at the needs of others.
And that comes back to prioritizing based on real needs and real value.
I wonder if our legislature is up to that or if this year will be like past years; simply Pennsylvania politics as usual – posturing for political gain, acting on personal animosities and a concern for “what can I get” rather than what will benefit the Commonwealth.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
On Being Back and On Not being Snide
It’s been way too long since I’ve blogged – 11 weeks to be exact since I put up a new blog and seven since the last post on the subject.
A regular reader/commenter made that clear with the following note:
“John,Time for a new blog buddy.”
He’s absolutely right. And I need to make a commitment to blog more regularly. To do so you might see a slight change in format on occasion where I will put up more of random thoughts on a variety of topics, rather than focus on one basic subject. I might even veer off of government and local issues on occasion. But more than anything, I hope that all of you will participate, but remember the basic ground rules and understand that when the end of a subject is reached I reserve the right to call a halt so that we don’t simply continue going round and round.
So to get back in the saddle I thought I would write a bit about the writing exercise that runs in the Derrick on Fridays called the Spray.
Simply put, I don’t like it. I’m not sure what it is supposed to be or what purpose it is supposed to serve, but so often I find its comments snide.
Among the primary definitions of snide are: derogatory in a malicious, superior way; contemptuous; disdainful; supercilious. The secondary definitions include: counterfeit; sham.
(I might add that if I spoke or acted in any of those ways growing up it would have resulted in pretty serious lecture from my mum, if not also a crack on the rear. They are not admirable traits.)
I think both the primary and secondary definitions pretty much describe what is too often found in the Spray. Certainly, at least from my point of view, that was the case last Friday with a remark regarding the Main Street Program.
Main Street volunteers interviewed in a recent article said one way to brighten up the downtown would be to put up window displays in vacant buildings. They were not suggesting that as the ultimate idea or a long-term solution to our downtown’s ills, but simply a quick stop-gap measure that could clean things up a bit. It makes sense to me, both as a resident and a member of the Main Street Steering Committee.
But apparently the anonymous staff writer at the Derrick who commented in the Spray, which is always anonymous, did not think much of it, and did not put it in context. If you read the comment, you understand. I’m not going to bother repeating it because it isn’t worthy of repeating. I will say it was derogatory in a malicious, superior way contemptuous, disdainful, supercilious and counterfeit and sham -- in a word, SNIDE.
Positive and effective criticism is not snide. It is important and beneficial. It is how ideas and concepts are fully vetted and lead to the best outcome possible. I strongly wish the Derrick/News would do more of that with real editorials, a willingness to take a stand, more local columnists with signed commentary and by supporting in-depth reporting.
I’m not bashing the Derrick/News Herald. There is a strong tendency to do that, and it’s unfair. Actually, there is a long tradition in this country of loving to hate your local paper wherever you happen to be.
We are blessed to have a local daily newspaper. It is important to the community. It remains the best way to stay informed on local issues and its reporting is pretty good.
It would be a better paper if it dropped the snide comments in the Spray and stepped up to the plate and put some thought and effort into developing real editorials and adding some thoughtful local commentary and we would be a better community for it.
A regular reader/commenter made that clear with the following note:
“John,Time for a new blog buddy.”
He’s absolutely right. And I need to make a commitment to blog more regularly. To do so you might see a slight change in format on occasion where I will put up more of random thoughts on a variety of topics, rather than focus on one basic subject. I might even veer off of government and local issues on occasion. But more than anything, I hope that all of you will participate, but remember the basic ground rules and understand that when the end of a subject is reached I reserve the right to call a halt so that we don’t simply continue going round and round.
So to get back in the saddle I thought I would write a bit about the writing exercise that runs in the Derrick on Fridays called the Spray.
Simply put, I don’t like it. I’m not sure what it is supposed to be or what purpose it is supposed to serve, but so often I find its comments snide.
Among the primary definitions of snide are: derogatory in a malicious, superior way; contemptuous; disdainful; supercilious. The secondary definitions include: counterfeit; sham.
(I might add that if I spoke or acted in any of those ways growing up it would have resulted in pretty serious lecture from my mum, if not also a crack on the rear. They are not admirable traits.)
I think both the primary and secondary definitions pretty much describe what is too often found in the Spray. Certainly, at least from my point of view, that was the case last Friday with a remark regarding the Main Street Program.
Main Street volunteers interviewed in a recent article said one way to brighten up the downtown would be to put up window displays in vacant buildings. They were not suggesting that as the ultimate idea or a long-term solution to our downtown’s ills, but simply a quick stop-gap measure that could clean things up a bit. It makes sense to me, both as a resident and a member of the Main Street Steering Committee.
But apparently the anonymous staff writer at the Derrick who commented in the Spray, which is always anonymous, did not think much of it, and did not put it in context. If you read the comment, you understand. I’m not going to bother repeating it because it isn’t worthy of repeating. I will say it was derogatory in a malicious, superior way contemptuous, disdainful, supercilious and counterfeit and sham -- in a word, SNIDE.
Positive and effective criticism is not snide. It is important and beneficial. It is how ideas and concepts are fully vetted and lead to the best outcome possible. I strongly wish the Derrick/News would do more of that with real editorials, a willingness to take a stand, more local columnists with signed commentary and by supporting in-depth reporting.
I’m not bashing the Derrick/News Herald. There is a strong tendency to do that, and it’s unfair. Actually, there is a long tradition in this country of loving to hate your local paper wherever you happen to be.
We are blessed to have a local daily newspaper. It is important to the community. It remains the best way to stay informed on local issues and its reporting is pretty good.
It would be a better paper if it dropped the snide comments in the Spray and stepped up to the plate and put some thought and effort into developing real editorials and adding some thoughtful local commentary and we would be a better community for it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)