Wednesday, October 7, 2015


Rather than my writing and asking you to read a long blog about Monday night’s discussion and the Council’s action on the resolution which proposed termination of employment of all in the Planning Division, I would invited you to read Bernice’s blog and her posting of Nierstadt’s comments. (scroll down)

Needless to say, Smiley and Watson’s arguments for this move proved once again the adage “figures don’t lie but liars do figure”

Yes Watson did say that there were 4 bids in response to the PR ranging from $106120.00 to $262150.00 with two around 139K. He did not mention what each proposal contained; instead he said that the services and staffing would be no different than it is now.

It has been reported that one proposal would have a junior staff member on site for 7 hours a week. I have not read the proposals which should be public property, but cannot conceive how the present services would be duplicated at those prices. There has to be extras at an additional cost or they may represent a common underbid practice to secure a contract and then request additional sums latter on to meet “unexpected expenses”.

I will note that I the extended public comment period there was only two who spoke for the disbanding of the Planning Division; one a woman who has had a long standing dispute and the other was Yates of the North Ave. fiasco who mentioned that his “rooming house” across from the City Hall was beneficial to the City despite Planning Division’s objections.


  1. The administration may have the facts, but they do a lousy job relaying them to the public.

  2. The administration is awful at communicating their positions but on this one they are smart to send Watson and Smiley to present the information. The two of them can't answer the simplest of questions without confusing the issue further so it is perfect when no transparency is the goal.