August 25, 2009

Council headed for showdown over Lathrop Ave. lights

The City Council is headed for a showdown over six street lights on Lathrop Ave.

Alderman Aron Wisneski appeared before the council's Finance and Personnel Committee Monday night hoping to secure $16,250 for six decorative light poles in the 700, 800 and 900 blocks of Lathrop Ave. The poles would match the lights installed on Orchard and Russet streets one and two blocks to the west.

The city's Public Works Department intends to install standard new lights on the street, which are the basic black poles used throughout the city. Here's a breakdown of the lights in question (there are taken from city records; we didn't add the labels):

These are the lights that need to be replaced. According to residents,
the lights haven't worked for over a year.


The type of light proposed for Lathrop Ave.

The type of light residents want installed, but will cost the city $16,250.
You can see more detailed photos of the lights here.


Wisneski and about 10 residents attended the meeting to make a case for the decorative poles, which in addition to cost an additional $16,250, are also less efficient than the standard poles (though the decorative lights are far more efficient than the current poles and only slightly less efficient than the standard poles). That would cost the city an estimated $200 per year in lost energy savings.

Their main argument was this section of Lathrop Ave. should be included in the Manree Park historic neighborhood and receive the historic looking lights. But the street isn't included in the district, and that left them with the standard lights.

They took their case to the Public Works Committee and got approval to install the historic lights. But the Public Works Committee sent them to the finance committee to find money for the lights. Members of the finance committee were skeptical.

Alderman Mike Shields, who sits on the Finance Committee, outright opposed the request, saying he wouldn't support spending city money on the lights. He called the proposal "fiscally irresponsible" and made a motion to reject the request. The motion failed for lack of a second.

Alderman Bob Anderson backed Wisneski's request, but Alderman Q.A. Shakoor II said he wasn't comfortable voting until he had more information. He motioned to send the proposal to a Committee of the Whole meeting (that's the entire City Council meeting as a committee) to discuss the request, which he said could set precedent for other areas of the city.

Alderman Jim Spangenberg, chairman of the committee, was non-committal. But he did point out sections of his district are near an historic area, but still had standard lights installed. He also wondered where the money would come from for the lights. Kathleen Fischer, assistant finance director, said the money would come out of the city's reserve fund.

One option not discussed by the committee was the city staff's recommendation to consider charging residents a special assessment to cover the additional cost of the lights.

The committee voted 2-1 to pass Shakoor's resolution and recommend sending the proposal to Committee of the Whole. Shakoor and Shields voted yes; Anderson no. Spangenberg, as chairman, didn't vote.

The committee's decision sets up a debate at next Tuesday's City Council meeting over the proposal. The Public Works Committee supported the decorative lights and it seems likely that Wisneski and Anderson would support dipping into the city's reserves to cover the upgrade. The council could vote next week to approve the lights, send the issue to committee or simply vote it down.

It'll be interesting to see how the council proceeds.

A couple more notes ...

Anticipating comments about wasting time on small issues like lights, this is important to residents. Forty-four residents on Lathrop or nearby streets signed a petition asking for the historic lights, and about 10 turned out for Monday night's meeting. One resident stood up Monday night and said she'd rather the city wait a year and install nothing rather than put in the standard poles, which they feel will detract from the street. This matters to people. Now, whether it fits with the city's budget is for the council to decide. But it certainly seems worth their time.

The city spends about $1.2 million a year lighting its streets. Stimulus money to install LED high-efficiency lights should help control that number, which had been jumping close to 10 percent a year in recent years. Spangenberg said he recalls not long ago the number being close to $400,000.

Anyone know why it's called Manree Park? If so, post in the comments. If you want to see more names for Racine's neighborhoods, check out this map that includes areas in the city such as: Westown Heights, Maple Grove, Slausondale and Garden City.

43 comments:

  1. Maybe a certain lady that lives on Lathrop can pay for the lights with the money her husband makes illegally or what is known as "SKIM MONEY". Sometimes the one with the most to hide has the biggest mouth and the smallest brain.

    ReplyDelete
  2. big mouth - Can you tell us who this lady is that is making money "illegally" and what it exactly is that her and husband are exactly doing that is illegal. I sure the rest of the neighborhood would love to know.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Maybe an all cash business like the 10 slot machine that will end up in West Racine. Great way to skim cash and a fantastic attraction to West Racine. Beats a Farmer's Market who wants families shopping the area when you can have slot machines?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let the 44 people that signed a petision pay for the lights and the extra power they use. Maybe everyone in Manree Dist. should pay.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here's another case of throwing away MORE taxpayer dollars. If the current lights are not working, fix them. If it costs more to fix them than to install new standard lights, install the new standard ones. But don't throw away over $16,000 of EVERYONE'S tax dollars just because a FEW residents want to. As I understand it, the "reserve fund" is there for emergency use, not frivilous crap like this. And if the street in question is NOT part of the historic district it should not be considered for the wasteful, less efficient historic lighting. I say if the City Council approves this, we should take the $16,000.00 out of thier paychecks.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Why should the rest of Racine pay for their expensive lights. The ones on my street are the regular kind, why should they have anything better than me, are my taxes any cheaper than theirs?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I hope Jim Spangenberg votes for this too! Or maybe he can hire a consultant with our taxpayer money to see what the rest of the city wants for lighting on their streets. I'll do the study for you Jim for the small amount of $250K, the city has plenty of money to pay for this! I almost forgot we have a budget deficit, my bad!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I want a new window air conditioner, can I get that from the city? I am entitled to everything for free too! I have a petition with signatures from my wife, kids, grandma and my pastor does that count?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I agree with 12:57. Let's see, $16,250 in additional costs divided by 44 is $369.32 each. Checks payable to "City of Racine" should please be sent to City Hall.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Translator8/25/2009 2:03 PM

    As a proponent for lighting up neighborhoods as a safety measure. I am all for fixing the lights. However, unless the neighbors wish to be assesed the cost over and above a standard light, then a standard light should be installed.

    ReplyDelete
  11. If the Neighborhood agrees to the extra assessment, then I would say go for it. Anything to improve the appearance of neighborhoods are good, but at what cost. The community as a whole should not have to pay the costs for the few.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey I like the new lamppost style lights - they should put them throughout the city - at least those neighborhoods where someone won't wreck them. Don't be so cheap.

    ReplyDelete
  13. We have a budget deficit folks. Where do you want this money to keep coming from. If you haven't noticed this is the exact reason the country is in trouble. Spend now pay later doesn't work forever.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I would look to the slot machines coming to West Racine to pay for the lights.

    ReplyDelete
  15. 2:54 - let's take it out of your pocket - furthemore how do you know there is not money for this, maybe something else can be cut. The estetics of the city are important to me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Other cities are taking stimulas grants to convert to energy saving LED lights. These idiots should be working on bringing business and jobs into the area!

    ReplyDelete
  17. "...though the decorative lights are far more efficient than the current poles..."

    If the current light do not work, then the current ones are by far the most efficient.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Heh this is kind of funny I would like to know who thinks they have inside information on the lady who lives on Lathrop Ave. I mean I live on Lathrop Ave and want the lights we pay high taxes we deserve them. I don't know anyone on Lathrop Ave who does anything illegaly. I have lived here for 33 years. So Big Mouth if you want to say who you are with this inside information please let us all know, so you can be proved wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Urban Pioneer8/25/2009 8:29 PM

    Anon 3:32 Nailed it!! If they don't light up they use ZERO electricity. So if we don't light them for another year would we save enough money to pay for the prettier lights? I would wait a year, and also asses the residents..sound fair to me.. I like nice and pretty..i also like to tax everyone less.

    ReplyDelete
  20. http://www.britastro.org/dark-skies/crime.html

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dear Santa, I've been a good citizen all year long. I want lights in front of my house and I want them to be nice lights, very expensive nice lights. I don't want the lights that everyone else has because I am special. I want you to make everyone else pay for those lights, because I am special, very special. Please santa get me my lights.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon 2:54 nailed it, too. We have a budget deficit of over $250 million dollars. The interest on that eats up a good portion of our annual budget. We should be concentrating on eliminating that deficit, not throwing money away on ornate light polls that are less efficient than the new standard style ones, bike trails and face lifts for City Hall. Graham nailed it too: fix the existing ones if you can, else put in the more cost effective standard lights. Quit wasting our money City Council!

    ReplyDelete
  23. The city has a debt, not a deficit. Big difference.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Anon 12:55- We get it, you want the gravel pit on the corner of Washington and West Blvd to remain. You do not have to list the same false info on every single Racine Post article.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I want, we want, I want! Sounds like the voice of a spoiled child that needs a good spanking. You people are grown adults that act like spoiled brats. I guess that you don't watch the news, people can't buy food for the kids and you want fancier lights. You guys are really ignorant and selfish.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Debt and deficit both mean that the city is short one way or another. You don't have debt or a deficit if you have enough money to pay the bills, which Racine does not.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Debt does not mean you do not have enough money to pay the bills. People have mortgages because they want to buy a house without saving forever first. The city owes most of its debt because it built out sewer and water infrastructure. Do some research before you spout your bullshit, Jody, George, Denis, et al.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Stick to the subject at hand Big Mouth. This is about lights for the neighborhood, which in turn assist in keeping the neighborhood "safer". This is not a place for you to be bashing citizens of the city. We realize you have the right to your opinion, but that is all it is... your opinion! I don't know the "Lady on Lathrop" that you are speaking of, I would hope anybody would give her a fair shake... and anonymously calling them "crooked" for a lack of better terms, on a blog without their knowledge is just not fair. Again - keep to the subject at hand... lights for the community. If you don't agree with future slot machines in West Racine... another subject for another blog!

    ReplyDelete
  29. 11:49 - tell them to go to the food pantry. Most of these people could work if they wanted, but they enjoy the entitlements - get the new lights and get ajob..

    ReplyDelete
  30. Give me, Give me, Give me. Do the people that live on Durand not pay taxes? Are they not nice people too? Maybe they should get the lights too. Where does it end when it comes to handouts?

    ReplyDelete
  31. "This is about lights for the neighborhood, which in turn assist in keeping the neighborhood "safer."" There it is again, reinforcement that the new standard lights are the better lights for keeping the area safer. It is stated right in the article that Wisneski said, "...the decorative poles, which in addition to cost an additional $16,250, are also less efficient than the standard poles..." That's right out of Wisneski's mouth! So what's the debate all about? Don't waste any more of our money Wisneski! And quit putting forth programs that target your special interests, like free land and half-priced houses to city employees and no one else, or you'll find yourself off the city council next election!

    ReplyDelete
  32. 12: 57 and 1:22 have it right. let the 44 pay for the lights if they want them.

    i want someone from the city to shovel the street end of the drive every time the plow comes by after i clean the drive. can the city pay for that? NO!! just as the city should not install special lights for an elite group of homeowners.

    the city reserve fund should be used for important matters not cosmetic fluff like these lights.

    you want them? ante up!

    ReplyDelete
  33. I'd pay for them in my neighborhood.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Somebody just unloaded a red pile of scrap metal in the city, maybe the Lathrop folks are interested.

    ReplyDelete
  35. The city should sell the posts including the light fixtures for some $ amount. That way they won't be favored out or skimed out. Funny how those concrete poles wind up on private property outside of the city.

    ReplyDelete
  36. They need to make sure the one's they have is working in the central-city. The Alderman of the 4th District should check out East Street.
    Oh that's where Lumpkin lives. No wonder the Alderman has not noted there are no lights working.

    ReplyDelete
  37. I love the ones on the north side -Michigan Blvd.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I think they should fund raise the 16k and be done with it. How bout a rummage sale?

    ReplyDelete
  39. Yeah, why do the loudest bigmouths get their way all the time? It never fails. Is this an election year or something?

    ReplyDelete
  40. If Ken Lumpkin was county Supervisor for 8 years its' a shame he didnt know to contact we energies for lights out on wooden poles and the city for burned out lights on metal and cement poles.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Why not just fix the current lights? They haven't worked in a year... I can't imagine new lightbulbs... and simple rewiring would cost $16,000. Who are you having bid this stuff?

    ReplyDelete
  42. I think sesame street has a cool lamp post. Mr. pooper used to sit under it. It was so nice. I dream about that light sometimes

    ReplyDelete
  43. I,m pat the cat and im proud of that

    ReplyDelete