In a separate posting I'll give a report of what happened with the newspaper vending machine ordinance. Here's the text of my speech:
I'd like to clear the air about things that were said at last week's Public Services and Safety Committee meeting. Both Mayor Scherck and Council President Stevenson were absolutely right:
- That the people responsible for the newspaper vending machines in downtown Neenah have in large part fallen down on the job. They're not properly maintaining their boxes, especially in the winter.
- That the city has a responsibility to maintain the public right-of-way.
- That store owners are entitled to expect a clear path to their doors from that public right-of-way.
- And that the city has the right and the responsibility to step in -- even with a new ordinance -- when people don't pay attention to THEIR responsibilities.
I never suggested that these things were not so. Also, it was not my intent to suggest that the store owners weren't entitled to some sort of relief from the effects of the irresponsibility of the owners of the NVM's.
Now, about communication: both the Mayor and City Planner Haese mentioned several times in the past 8 weeks that contact had been attempted with the newspaper vendors. There WAS one success story: the Oshkosh Northwestern hadn't been aware that it still had a vending machine downtown. But, one phone call from the city and it was gone.
I sent a single bulk e-mail containing word of tonight's vote on the ordinance to every free newspaper represented in downtown Neenah but one. In it I mentioned that I am a former alderman; that doesn't have the gravitas of "Mayor" or "Principal Planner", but I went with it anyway. I then followed up with two phone calls. That bulk email and those phone calls resulted in me communicating with live people at three of the papers in question. I asked if they could be present at tonight's meeting. Why couldn't the same small effort have been made by the city?
Council President Stevenson has made multiple suggestions that the city already has on the books ordinances that would cover the safety, irresponsibility, and public nuisance aspects of this situation. I've heard no discussion of handling nuisance NVM's with existing ordinances; it's all been geared towards creating a brand new ordinance. Why is that?
My point is that Ordinance 1374 establishes criteria for NVM's that are way over the top. There are many other routes to go:
- President Stevenson's suggestion that the nuisance caused by NVM's could be handled by ordinances already on the books.
- Require a contact phone number label on the side of each machine and require the vendor to take care of displaced, empty, or broken machines within 12 hours or suffer removal of the unit.
- Require the machines to be bolted to the concrete but let the vendors accomplish that themselves without the onus of having to shell out a wad of dough for a standardized machine and bolt THAT to the concrete.
Or you could make it really simple. You have in front of you Green Bay's licensing ordinance for NVM's. It contains just five brief requirements. The sixth one simply requires that the other five requirements be met. Green Bay charges an annual license fee. That's reasonable. Green Bay requires a hold-harmless agreement or a certificate of liability insurance. That's reasonable. Green Bay does NOT require standardized machines. Why can't Neenah do that?
One thing has been bothering me this whole 8 weeks: this ordinance, like many others, enshrines in legal language aesthetics, comfort, and convenience and raises them up to the same level as that of public safety. Thus it opens the door to turn Neenah into a condo association where clotheslines can't be strung in homeowners' back yards, or satellite dishes have to be screened, or mailboxes can no longer look like large-mouthed bass or hula poppers.
A public good – for example, the reduction of traffic accidents -- is conferred through the laws requiring us to drive on the right-hand side of the road. But aesthetics and convenience don't rise to anywhere near that level; thus they should not be the basis for a city ordinance.