At our Agenda Setting meeting, we discussed the plan for cutting off many, many streetlights across our community. This plan was agreed to as a cost-saving measure during our mini-budget crisis. As an added bonus, it also is an energy conservation measure. As the article indicates, some of us expressed some concerns about the process. I asked that we just cut off power to the lights but not remove them for some fixed period of time so that we can assess any severe negatives for particular locations.
Keep in mind that these are not our lights - they belong to Georgia Power. But they have indicated they are willing to work with us. Others voiced concerns about turning off light in high crime areas. These were just execution concerns, not concerns about the entire concept of cutting off the lights, which is why this editorial is the most inane, unfounded, misleading, and mean spirited thing i have read in the paper in a while.
It starts with “Actions have consequences, and it's a bit disturbing that Athens-Clarke County commissioners apparently don't have a grasp of that self-evident proposition.” For anyone who was at the meeting, it is clear that everyone grasps that quite well, and we were merely looking to make sure the lights-off made the least impact on safety possible. That is our duty as elected officials. Commissioner Lynn was merely making the point that maybe we could add crime stats to our list of criteria for selecting the lights to remove.
Maybe that will not work out and maybe it is not possible, but it was a very responsible question to ask and it did not deserve the wrath of that editorial.
2 comments:
The ABH has elected not to publish this letter sent on Sunday:
I believe your editorial on the ACC Commission’s recent decision to revisit their decision to turn off street lights, misses the mark, is unfair, but worst of all is counterproductive to good government. It would seem you suggest that either the Commissioners a) forestall all decision making until they have weighed every variable and contemplated every impact each decision might have, and b) once coming to a decision, defend it and maintain it despite any new information that may come to their attention.
Budget cutting is a difficult task in a county that has added more than 12,000 people in the past seven years, and continues to do so. Cuts have real impacts on this community. I am certain the commission was aware that turning off street lights would have an impact, just as they were aware that cutting the street lights avoided other negative impacts. Choosing the lights might have meant not cutting several jobs, for instance, or perhaps not cutting police or fire coverage in some neighborhoods. In the final analysis, it may not be the best place to cut, and our government may have to look elsewhere.
I am pleased, however, to have a government that is willing to go back to the difficult budgeting process and have another look when presented with good reasons for reconsideration. Whether they end up affirming their decision, or changing it, the decision making process will be strengthened for it.
On August 15, the ABH's editors indicated that they now believe that considering this issue until the September 2, 2008 voting meeting “might be workable.”
That's quite a change from the editorial written on July 20 that motivated this original posting.
Post a Comment