Archive for the 'News - Chattanooga' Category

Letter from Mayor Littlefield

Published
by
Jeremy Clifton
on December 27, 2006
in Chattanooga and News - Chattanooga
. 0 Comments

Oooh, it’s my lucky day! I strolled out to the mailbox to see what the Postal Fairy had brought me, and discovered a nice, chatty letter from our quasi-distinguished mayor himself, the one and only (thankfully) Ron Littlefield.

“Dear Fellow Recycler,” begins he-who-decimated-our-recycling-program, “On behalf of our city and Orange Grove Center, I would like to thank you for your participation in the curbside recycling program. You are receiving this letter because we know you are dedicated to making recycling in Chattanooga more efficient, effective, and environmentally friendly.”

Uh-huh. Pardon me for a minute while I work up some warm fuzzies. While I’m doing so, why don’t we reflect on exactly how we can make recycling more ‘environmentally friendly’ … isn’t that a bit like making motoring a little more mobile?

“We are working diligently to improve our recycling program and to encourage our citizens to recycle and recycle correctly. Please review the improvements we have made below and we hope that you will share this information with neighbors, family, and friends.”

Well, I’m certainly doing my part!

I must admit, though … the guy has guts. The application of the phrase “improvements” to the gutting of the recycling program is the sort of spin that the world hasn’t experienced since the heyday of Pravda prior to the fall of the Soviet Union.

Let’s review what’s happened here.
  1. Complain that the $11 million the city is spending on the recycling program is way too much.
  2. Propose cutting weekly curbside pickup to monthly pickup, and add a few convenience centers to compensate, at a projected yearly cost of … you guessed it, $11 million.
  3. Call the resulting reduction in services for the same cost an ‘improvement’ while ignoring the fact that the city is saving no money.
To borrow (and butcher) a phrase we’ve all heard before, with improvements like these, who needs enemies?

What I’ve said before on the subject bears repeating … if the city is bound and determined to offer garbage and recycling pickup, and it’s serious about being environmentally friendly, then the thing to do is to start fining people who put garbage in the recycling, and recycleable items in the garbage.

Let’s think about this … right now, every week, the total volume of stuff we set out for recycling is 1.5x - 3x what we set out for garbage pickup. Generally, we have two large plastic bins full, plus at least one blue bag, and maybe a few cardboard boxes as well. That means that under the montly pickup schedule, we should have at least eight bins worth of stuff, and four blue bags.

That’s a lot of recycling stuff.

Now, let’s think about “Joe Average” in Chattanooga. Faced with the options of A) letting the recycling pile up and then having to make 8-12 trips to the road on recycling pickup day, B) making a trip to the nearest recycling center 3-4 times a month, and C) just stuffing most or all of it in the enormous green trash can we have … which one do you think most people will gravitate towards?

My money is on option C. Nobody wants to have to figure out where to store that much recycling stuff for the monthly pickup (heck, my wife complains about how much space it takes up during the week), and when it comes down to choosing between letting the city pick it up with the garbage or having to spend a half hour each week driving to the drop-off site … I’m betting Joe Average elects to open a beer and watch football and skip the recycling run.

After all, the mayor himself has pointed out that less than 15% of our residents recycle EVEN WITH WEEKLY PICKUP. If he thinks these “improvements” are going to encourage the remaining 85% or so of Chattanooga to recycle … well, he’s been smoking something stronger than the stuff you can pick up at the tobacco aisle of the CVS.

Come on, Ron … either drop the BS about “improving” and “enhancing” the recycling program, and all the “environmentally conscious” stuff that rings as true as a David Duke speech about equality for all American citizens … or get with the program and hit the slackers who don’t recycle where it hurts … in their wallet.

Tags: , ,

More on the Cell Tower Controversy

Published
by
Jeremy Clifton
on December 22, 2006
in Chattanooga and News - Chattanooga
. 1 Comment
Earlier in the week I wrote about the foolishness of trying to disguise a tower as a tree or something like that. My brother hasn’t had a chance to get out to Cary to photograph the tower there that looks like some sort of alien life form, but fortunately, today the Times Free Press published an article about the controversy, and included a photo of a ‘disguised’ tower on Bonny Oaks, and I’ve shamelessly linked to said photo:

http://www.tfponline.com/absolutenm/thumbnails/8749.gif

Hint: it’s the one on the right. Now … does that look like any kind of tree you’ve ever seen before. Personally, I think it’s pretty ugly. In fact … it’s even uglier than the one I wrote about previously. The TFP rightfully notes that
Towers can be camouflaged to look like trees, cacti, chimneys or other objects with varying degrees of success. One tower in Red Bank is shaped like a tree but dwarfs the rest of the real trees in the area.
I’m going to have to go out and check out the Bonny Oaks and Red Bank towers.

Alli over at Chattanooga is Home also blogged about the topic this morning. This particular issue is now of interest to her family, as they have just acquired a cell phone.

Something New is Afoot at Krystal

Published
by
Jeremy Clifton
on December 22, 2006
in Chattanooga, Krystal, Misc. Notes and News - Chattanooga
. 0 Comments

There’s a new item on the menu at Krystal here in Chattanooga as of today (Thursday). I’m not going to tell you what it is, but I will point you to the marketing team’s blog for a hint. Since I’m signed up as Krystal Lover on their web site, I got a coupon for a free one via email today. I’m going to have to revise my mantra; now it is “What more does a guy need than a #1 combo with Coke, free wireless, and a {fill in new product name here}?” You owe it to yourself to go try one.

Marion Memorial Bridge

Published
by
Jeremy Clifton
on December 3, 2006
in News and News - Chattanooga
. 0 Comments

img_0796_500.jpgWell, when I posted some photos of the Marion Memorial Bridge (Post 1, Post 2) a few weeks ago, I noted that it was slated to be replaced, and thus would probably end up being demolished, since it was in such a remote location.

Turns out that there is a campaign out to save it, and perhaps turn it into a pedestrian bridge, a la our own Walnut Street Bridge. I’m hoping for success … there are far too many of these cool bridges being taken down.

Read More: Committee Working to Save Marion Memorial Bridge

Oh, and I’m proud to say that one of my photos of the bridge is being used on its Wikipedia article. :-)

Technorati Tags: , ,

Ken Lay no longer guilty because he’s dead …

Published
by
Jeremy Clifton
on October 17, 2006
in Just Plain Random, Life, News - Chattanooga and News - United States
. 0 Comments

So, while browsing MSNBC today, I stumbled upon this surprising bit of information: “Judge throws out convictions of Enron’s Lay: Fraud ruling vacated since company’s founder died before he could appeal.”

Huh? Say again?

Yes, that’s right boys and girls, since he appealed, and then died, his conviction has been vacated. Erased. Gone. Kaput.
U.S. District Judge Sim Lake, in a ruling Tuesday, agreed with Lay’s lawyers that his death required that his conviction be erased and his indictment dismissed. They cited a 2004 ruling from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found that a defendant’s death pending appeal extinguished his entire case because he hadn’t had a full opportunity to challenge the conviction and the government shouldn’t be able to punish a dead defendant or his estate.
I’m not sure what’s more surprising … that a judge would “un-convict” Lay for such an asinine reason, or the fact that there’s precedent for such a ruling because some brain-dead nitwit ruled in a similar matter two years ago. And that’s not all … check this out:
Prosecutors offered no counter legal argument in the case, but asked Lake to hold off on a ruling until next week so Congress could consider legislation from the Justice Department that changes current federal law regarding the abatement of criminal convictions. Congress recessed for the elections without considering the legislation. In their motion to Lake last month, prosecutors Sean Berkowitz and John Hueston wrote that certain provisions of the proposed legislation would apply to Lay’s case, including “that the death of a defendant charged with a criminal offense shall not be the basis for abating or otherwise invalidating either a verdict returned or the underlying indictment.”
Yes, that’s right … Congress was going to consider legislation that would have prevented the sort of ruling issued today, but somehow that legislation would have then been applied to something that happened before the legislation was even considered. Completely mind-boggling. Saith the US Constitution in Article I, Section 9:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
If the Latin there is causing smoke to boil out of your ears, here’s a bit more explanation from Wikipedia:
An ex post facto law (from the Latin for “from something done afterward”) or retroactive law, is a law that retroactively changes the legal consequences of acts committed or the legal status of facts and relationships that existed prior to the enactment of the law.
Sounds an awful lot like what the prosecution wanted was a violation of the spirit of that principle, if not the letter. Of course, how many of you out there are surprised any more when the US Government ignores the intent of the Constitution? It’s been happening for a good 170 years or more now, so we’re all used to it.

What an all-around mess …

Read more: Judge throws out convictions of Enron’s Lay 

Whooping Cranes Follow Ultralights

Published
by
Jeremy Clifton
on October 14, 2006
in News and News - Chattanooga
. 0 Comments

While reading today’s Times Free Press, I ran across an article about how some folks are using ultralight aircraft to help parentless whooping cranes learn to migrate.

Currently, eighteen of the birds are being led south, and will stop at the Hiwassee State Wildlife Refuge in Meigs County (just north of here) in early November. Their final destination is the Gulf Coast of Florida. All told, the 1,200-mile trip from Wisconsin will take them two to three months.

This will be the fifth year this technique has been used, to great success. I find it pretty interesting that the cranes would follow a noisy aircraft, but hey … if it works, cool!

Read more: Whooping crane comeback

Oh noes!?!!?? Corker uses city email account for campaign purposes!

Published
by
Jeremy Clifton
on October 13, 2006
in Misc. Notes, News and News - Chattanooga
. 0 Comments

So, Harold Ford, Jr. has “discovered” that Bob Corker used his mayorial email account to exchange emails related to his potential run for the Senate. Does this really surprise anybody? Let’s see a show of hands here … Now, I seriously dislike Corker, and I sincerely hope he doesn’t get elected (and that goes for Ford too, but I suppose we’re getting one or the other), but this just smacks of desperation. If there were some proof he spent hours sitting behind his desk starting his campaign, that would be one thing. But a few emails? Leave it alone. Who hasn’t sent a non-work-related email from their work account? That’s what I thought. Now put your stones away. Read More: E-mail replies mixed politics, city business

Chattanooga’s Recycling Debacle, Part II: The City Spends More

Published
by
Jeremy Clifton
on October 13, 2006
in News, News - Chattanooga and Politics & Other Objectionable Subjects
. 0 Comments
During lunch I actually took time to read my copy of the Times-Free Press, and discovered that the city is fudging on their promise to begin their “money saving” recycling program on November 1. They’ve now moved the start date back to January 1 of 2007, ostensibly because the new program might confuse residents.
“We thought it would be best to not make any major changes to the trash/recycle pickup until after the holidays,” Lee Norris, deputy administrator of Public Works, said in a statement. “People have enough on their minds through the holidays without wondering if this week is brush pickup and recycle Wednesday.”
So, why aren’t we going to do brush pickup weekly during that time period too? Surely it’s as important as recycling pickup. Heaven knows, we don’t want citizens confused about when brush pickup will happen. After all, we’re very concerned about our citizens … otherwise we wouldn’t have introduced this fine new “money saving” recycling program!

Or, maybe they’re trying to come up with some way to justify the fact that their new program does less for the same amount of money. You know, calm the restless natives around town.

Actually, it looks like perhaps that explanation is correct. Turns out that the TFP is reporting that the city has retained the services of a public relations agency, Waterhouse Public Relations, to create some sort of “outreach and marketing program” for the new plan.

So, how much are we spending on this “outreach and marketing program”? $100,000. I suppose they are going to try to blitz those of us who think that our city government would be better off in the hands of a few trained monkeys than our current mayor and “councilpeoples.”

Now, at least for the first year, this revamped plan is going to cost $100,000 more than the old plan. (Yes, the TFP says today that the new plan will cost $1.1 million, but then it also states the Herr Littlefield the Mugu claims that the cost of curbside pickup is $100,000 a month … which adds up to $1.2 million by my math … unless we use an eleven-month calendar here in this town.)

Thanks again, Herr Littlefield. Look at it this way … once you retire from your current position as our mayor, you can be the chief of police in Lamar, SC. You and the fellow who currently fills that position appear to be equals as far as IQ goes.

Read More: Monthly recycling won’t start until Jan. 1

Another Victory for Local Government: Hamilton County (TN) Really Screws Up

Published
by
Jeremy Clifton
on October 13, 2006
in News, News - Chattanooga and Politics & Other Objectionable Subjects
. 0 Comments
Last week, I wrote about Chattanooga’s recycling debacle. Just to show that I’m an equal opportunity critic, I present to you this impressive failing, which goes to show that Hamilton County government entities can be equally as inept as the city government.
“Finance officials said employees in auditing and finance have been working 60 to 70 hours per week for months to make it possible for the office of Trustee Carl Levi to generate reports on the IFAS software that cost the county $2.3 million.”
Software Problem Puts Trustee Behind On Filing Reports What I want to know is is the above quote means:
  1. “… employees in auditing and finance claimed to have been working 60 to 70 hours per week for months, but they were really surfing for pr0n on the county’s dime …”
  2. “… employees in auditing and finance have been working 60 to 70 hours per week for months, but are too incompetent to understand the new software …”
  3. “… employees in auditing and finance claim to have been working 60 to 70 hours per week for months, but in reality they are irascible busybodies who can’t be bothered to learn a new product …”, or
  4. “… employees in auditing and finance have been working 60 to 70 hours per week for months to avoid having to admit they spent a truly exorbitant amount of money on software that doesn’t do what it is supposed to do …”
And, while I’m on the topic of government stupidity, here’s something else I forgot to gripe about a few weeks ago …

After moving to the area, my wife dutifully reported to the proper offices to get myself licensed in the Great State™ of Tennessee, and also take care of the requisite paperwork to make her car legal (she went a few days before I did, because I was busy with work). Upon presenting herself at the county clerk’s office to get the license plate, the clerk at the counter asked her if lived in the city limits of Chattanooga.

Of course, Rachel asked why. Turns out there is a $5 (or something like that) sticker for your plate you can buy if you’re a resident. I say “can” because this particular clerk stressed that this is an optional sticker … but, if a Chattanooga police officer stops you for some reason, and you don’t have this sticker affixed to your license plate, they can fine you something like $100. And, apparently they have the authority to stop you just to find out if you have the sticker and are a resident of the city … although I doubt this happens much in practice, unless they are looking for an excuse to check out somebody who is acting suspiciously.

Optional sticker. Fine for not having it. Only government …