Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-19-14 Kaveney RE_ response to your letter to the editor about L+J Center.From:Carson Taylor To:Dan Kaveney; Chris Mehl Cc:Agenda Subject:RE: response to your letter to the editor about L+J Center. Date:Thursday, November 20, 2014 4:53:19 PM Thanks for your thoughts. Carson From: Dan Kaveney [dan.kaveney@gmail.com]Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 12:29 PMTo: Chris Mehl; Carson TaylorCc: AgendaSubject: response to your letter to the editor about L+J Center. Commissioners — This in response to Commissioner Mehl and Deputy Mayor Taylor’s request for feedbackabout the law and justice center bond that failed. Even though all of you are truly exemplary individuals with a public service ethic that I admire greatly, I didn’t vote for the issuebecause the commission as a whole has lately done some things that I have found disappointing. These things have shaken my confidence in the city's ability to decide what isneeded and to then accomplish it in a frugal, well regulated, and public spirited manner. My concerns can be summarized in three main categories: — A tendency toward the big-ticket. I was very disappointed when you decided to spend$7.5 million of the $15 million open space bond on a really big soccer field. While that certainly conformed to the letter of what the voters approved it didn’t fall into the spirit ofthat approval. I think most people thought we’d get parks and trails that pretty much everyone could use — not just those of us who like to play soccer and lacrosse. The sports complexmight be a good idea, but due to its size it should have been supported (or not) by a different bond issue so that the other HALF of the bond money approved by voters could have gone tosomething more community members could make frequent use of. I can’t come up with this information anymore, but if my memory serves me correctly about 60% of the people whoresponded to the Chronicle poll about the sports complex were against it. I know that isn’t scientific, but it does tell a story. The REALLY BIG community swim center the city iscontemplating is another example. I, personally, would like to see multiple small, localized swim places in town rather than one massive centralized facility that promotes driving aroundand will probably need a parking lot that will be visible from space. None of these decisions were wrong in any way, but they conflict fundamentally with the way I would like to seethings done and they make me wonder if this very expensive law and justice center is another example of a really big, plush facility when something smaller might be preferable. — The BearCat. The notion that Bozeman “needs” a BearCat is hard for me to swallow.When the same body that decides that the need for this thing should override the many community concerns about it goes on to explain that a law and justice center is also needed Ibegin to wonder just how great the need for that law and justice center really is. I agree that we fundamentally need a better law and justice center, but the BearCat thing made mequestion how well we were assessing the necessary scale. Since as a voter I only have an “up” or “down” option I expressed that concern by voting “down”. — Appropriate oversight of city employees. I was disturbed that Mr. Kukulski brought thatBearCat process forward without your required input,and further disturbed by his implausible explanation that he just forgot to tell you (Mayor Krausse outlines the implausibility of thisclaim quite elegantly in his Magpie interview http://www.bozeman-magpie.com/perspective- full-article.php?article_id=1299). But I am most disturbed by the fact that you seem not tohave investigated his role in this and/or censured him in any way. Before we can entrust the city government with lots of money for a law and justice center we need to know that properprocedures will be followed and that our ELECTED officials will exercise thorough oversight on the city staff. I don’t know what procedures are in place to discipline city staff, but Iwould have liked to have seen at least an investigatory procedure invoked. At this juncture it appears as though Mr. Kukulski can do pretty much whatever he wants to without having toworry about strong oversight from you. I want you to give strong oversight. This makes me nervous enough that I didn’t want to vote for the bond. So there you have it. My concerns, offered to you with both respect and admiration. Sincerely, Dan Kaveney