November 2, 2009

City Claims: Residents seek money for damaged car, stolen bicycle

Several claims will be submitted to the City Council on Tuesday. They include:

* Caroline Stephens is seeking $189.18 for repairs to her vehicle which was vandalized while it was in the city's impound lot.

* Scott Tuska is seeking $500 for a bicycle that was stolen after being found in the middle of the street by a police officer during an unrelated investigation.

* Celeste Balcer is seeking $50,000 for injuries arising out of an accident involving a snowplow on Goold Street near Blake Avenue on Feb. 21, 2009.

* Jessica Salgado is seeking $2,000 for the loss of her dog, which was shot by police

City Attorney Rob Weber also wants to discuss the city's proposed $33,000 settlement with Clara Bridgeman, who was hit by a police officer's squad car while crossing Packard Avenue on a scooter. (JT's courts reporter Janine Anderson has the story here.)

All claims will be introduced to the City Council on Tuesday night and referred to the Finance and Personnel Committee for action.

29 comments:

  1. NO to all claims! Personal responsibility should cover all these incidents, not our wallets!

    ReplyDelete
  2. What a joke, stick those claims where the sun doesn't shine. My claim is that the plow hit my car this morning... but wait, it didn't snow! Lets screw the tax payer again.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hello from Russia!
    Can I quote a post "No teme" in your blog with the link to you?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The lady whose dog got shot deserves nothing - the JT had that story a few days ago. Check out the whole thing!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Racine Police do have a bad repore with dogs. I dont no if there afraid or trigger happy. I haven't seen any other dept having these problems, mail,water,fire,solid waste. Maybe they should be watching the dog wisperer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. ^^^^ FYI:
    All in those other "departments" leave when there is a dog acting aggressively; the police are called to come in and make the area safe.

    Many of my fellow dog owners need to act much more responsibly, if nothing else for the sake of their dog(s).

    ReplyDelete
  7. There is clearly not enough information here to make a sound decision for "Yes" or "No" to these claims. Look at them individually:

    *Caroline Stephens should receive payment for damages done in the impound lot. While a vehicle is there is it the responsibility of the city to insure it is not damaged.

    *Scott Tuska's claim doesn't make sense to me; if the "bicycle that was stolen after being found in the middle of the street by a police officer," how is it that the bike wound up in the middle of the street to begin with? And if it was found by an officer, how is it that it's missing. This sounds like neglect on the part of the bicycle owner. No payment here.

    *Celeste Balcer only has a valid claim if the insurance company investigators for both her insurer and the city's insurer come to that conclusion. If she was driving with no insurance, then, as far as I'm concerned, she's on her own, or if it was determined that she was at fault. Was a police report filed? Did the police ticket either driver? Did the police make an evaluation as to liability? Were there any witnesses? There simply isn't enough information here to make a sound decision.

    *Jessica Salgado may have a claim depending on the circumstances. The dog being at large in the community is solely her responsibility, and based on that alone, I would say she has no claim. But, if there are witnesses to the shooting (which is rather extreme), then question arise about how the police handled the situation. Did the police try to coax the dog to them? Did they call Animal Control? Was the dog being aggressive? Again, there's not enough information here to make an intelligent decision.

    To those that just scream "NO!", you give a bad name to thinking conservatives. To just say "no" because tax dollars are involved, or because you think someone is getting over on the system (without grounds for reasonable suspicion), or just because a liberal, a democrat or someone from city government is involved is bad enough. But, when you do so when there is obviously not enough information to for an intelligent do be made, you not only make a fool of yourself, but also those you purport to be affiliated with you.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rees Roberts11/03/2009 9:47 AM

    Graham,

    Again, totally agree with your comments. Especially, those of the last paragraph. Whatever happened to critical thinking? Even a little bit?

    ReplyDelete
  9. PR
    Not true. I worked for 2 of those dept. I didnt have the luxury of going for my Glock. I had to out smart the dog. On several occasions I had. I can honestly say no dog ever out smarted me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Correction, sorry that should read:

    But, when you do so when there is obviously not enough information available for an intelligent decision to be made, you not only make a fool of yourself, but also those you purport to be affiliated with.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Graham -- you are quite right. But, I would ask you (and everyone else here) to do the same with ANY of the stories that Dustin writes here. Take for example, the one about Spodick (sp?) and the $650,000 claim. Dustin did not contact multiple sides before writing his piece; he just took what Pete Karas gave him and assumed that was enough. Other than his layman's opinion about the issues, is there enough there for you and others to scream "fire them all!"? This kind of investigative journalism is necessary in a free society, but good journalists - like the one in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that uncovered the childcare fraud - take their time and do some research before going to press. That not only makes the news story even harder-hitting, but it also gives the readers a better basis for making decisions (and comments.)

    I'm not meaning to pick on you directly Graham, but you are one of the only ones here who seems to have the nerve to at least use a consistent log-in instead of hiding behind "anonymous" the way that Pete and Dustin have encouraged us to do.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Graham - I am not a conservative and may or may not agree with the individual stories you mentioned, but the overall nature of the comment is exactly like the things that run through my head most of the time I read these comments. Thank you.

    Anon 9:51 - I always log in to my account before commenting anywhere, how are Dustin and Pete "encouraging" you not to?

    Dustin - Is it not true that 90% of these claims are rejected by the boards anyways?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Graham - whether I agree with you or not on any subject - your posts are way to long - give it a break man. What you have to say is not that important.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon 10:42 - It's your choice to scroll.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Howeezy go back to your law books, that PD job is waiting for you.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Anon 1:13 - The day I become a public defender is the same day that anything you write contributes to a cause: never.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Howeezy - a lttle bit testy I see -maybe I was wrong. Maybe you'd be better as a prosecutor. But then again, you'll probably turn out to be one of those dime a dozen attorney's that struggles all their life.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Anon 8:22 - I still don't care what you have to say. I'm here to engage people with real conversation, not personal shots.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Howeezy apparently you do care or you would not respond to me. Does the truth hurt? You better get back to your books - ha!

    ReplyDelete
  20. Graham

    1. She never should have put herself in a position to have her car in impound. Having full coverage insurance should take care of this for her on her vehicle.
    2. Lock your bike!
    3. Not enough info to make a decision.
    4. Control your dog! We all know this breed has a reputation.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anon 9:51, I do endeavor to think things through before posting them, I do try to look at both sides of a story, and you will often see my remarks start with something like, "There's not enough information here..." I have also posted, more than once when someone points out an inaccuracy or error, "I stand corrected and apologize." I think that is what makes one responsible and fair. I did not interpret your remarks as "picking on me."

    Anon 10:42, there is a limitation on how long a post can be on this blog. I stay within that specified limit and do not continue the post by adding a second or third after it, like some do. If you don't like my posts or their length, then don't read them. When you see my name, just pass it by.

    Anon 10:09, I don't know the circumstances that brought her car to be held at the impound lot. Do you? If so, enlighten us. You may be absolutely correct that, if she has full coverage, her insurance company may take care of the damages. On the other hand, the impound lot has a responsibility to take reasonable care of any vehicle on its premises and in its care. As far as the dog is concerned, you evidentially know more about the case than the rest of us. I did not read any article in the JT about this and don't know what the breed of dog is. But, regardless of the breed, any dog (even pit bulls and Dobies) will only respond based on their training. I have seen the consequences of police over-reacting to specific breeds of dogs and it's appalling. But, in the final analysis, you are correct, it is the owners responsibility to control the dog.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Grahamy - your thoughts are just not that important to take up that much space.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Anon 1:23,and I should care what you think, because...?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Grahamy - because of my superiority.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Anon 1:23/8:44, you're just too stupid to respond to.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Grahamy - good job in shortening your posts - keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Grahamy - if I'm too stupid to respond to, then why did you? Who's stupid now - ha!

    ReplyDelete
  28. This "lady" you are all talking about is my grandmother,come on police officers actually hit a elderly woman in a kart. I dont know where you all are from but, where I live officers are here to serve and protect, not injuring elderly woman because they were not paying attention while driving. What the hell the world coming to?

    ReplyDelete