Tuesday, October 30, 2007

QC Times asks: Basic services or amenities?

Below is how both current 2nd ward Alderman Shawn Hamerlinck and his opponent Tom Carnahan responded to an article in the Quad City Times

Shawn Hamerlinck: “Necessary community investment has been neglected as public funds have been utilized to develop amenities which have resulted in little return. The next council must re-examine their priorities and place attention and resources back into infrastructure improvements which will better assist in sustaining neighborhoods. Only once we fully fund necessary and long-needed infrastructure improvements can future city councils look toward amenity development. Recently the city has invested heavily in amenities and it is time for us to digest these projects before moving forward with new amenities.”

Tom Carnahan: “Obviously the first role of a city is to provide basic services for its citizens. Most people want good streets, safe neighborhoods and a solid infrastructure. However, what some people consider as amenities might be considered basic services. For example if we provide recreational opportunities to our youth this could lower our crime rate which then may be a basic service. My approach will be to look at each proposal and make a decision based on its merits.”

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Tom,

Public services and Safety seem to be key phrases in this election. Do you feel the demise of the NEO was a direct hit on both of these basis services. What would you do, if elected, about supporting our housing inspection services?

TC2007 said...

Here is the response I received to your question from Tom:

To Anonymous:

I was involved with the restructuring of the Rental Inspection Department which includes NEO. First of all when this council decided to eliminate NEO and move the Rental Inspection Department to the Fire Department I opposed what resulted in their version of realignment. The demise of Rental Inspection and NEO WAS a direct hit on the neighborhoods. What resulted in the aftermath was to give the slumlords a free pass for about one year. I still feel that this department became a political football because what was said by the council that the choice was to keep a fire engine company or rental inspection. I don't believe this had to go down this way. Why not impose a 5 or 10 per cent cut across the board to all departments to minimize the impact on the city. Anyway, the problem is that we are in a fight against crime. Having an aggressive inspection department and NEO is essential in fighting crime. I have seen this happen first hand in Goose Creek. When the NETS officer went into this area they also assigned a NEO to work in concert. What resulted was an extra pair of eyes in that neighborhood and gave the police probable cause to come in after NEO to ferret out crimes that go along with bad rental property conditions. On a larger scale, I worked to form a committee to look at the entire rental property program in Davenport. Among the things that were discovered was that the right to be a landlord was only conditioned on the physical condition of the unit. What we added to the mix was behavioral problems. What we are saying to the landlords is not to tell them who they can rent to, but if they rent to individuals with questionable backround and these individuals act out, the landlord's license could be in jeopardy if they don't address the problem. However a system has to be in place to notify landlords when the police are called to their property which wasn't in place, how can you take any action if there is no proof that any landlord was aware of the problem. I have personally looked at other cities that were successful in these endeavors and cooperation between the departments was very essential. Therefore if we are going to fight crime in this city the NEO is and should be an essential part of these efforts. My position would be to increase their presence in our neighborhoods and make that unit part of the crime package that the police officers are lobbying. I believe that by simply increasing officers on the streets is not the whole answer.

Anonymous said...

Interesting to know.