Just some post-convention thoughts

Our local political and business leaders were exultant when it was announced that the GOP convention was coming to town. They are all educated and plugged-in men and women who should have known what all was involved.

There are things that we all should have known the day that announcement was made.

> There would be extensive media present, both traditional and non-traditional.

> There would be protesters, both traditional and confrontational.

> There would be police action required both to make the site secure and to observe the protesters and take whatever action needed to be taken.

> There would be confrontations and post-convention second-guessing about everything, including the degree and type of police involvement. Security concerns would entail street and sidewalk closings and making innocent people of whom nothing evil could be reasonably inferred subject to stops, searches, and even seizures.

> While some businesses in the host city would see improvement in their business climate, others would suffer.

.

Every city which was trying to get the convention knew these things and yet they tried to get the convention anyway. We were the winners who of course received no victory. [And in our case since we had a larger city immediately adjacent, we didn’t even get our name on many of the stories.]

Now our leaders are telling us how well we [and they] handled it all. Well, we did get through things relatively well, but there were problems. We knew that would happen too when we learned that we were the winners in the contest to host. Neither protesters nor police nor anybody else always act in the best and most professional manner even in the most normal and sedate circumstances, so mistakes were inevitable. Nobody is perfect. So now we are going to have second guessing ad infinitum about whether the reaction of our police and the officers from other cities who came to help handled things well or whether they may have overreacted.

I have heard from both protesters and people sympathetic to the police regarding the events of the first four days of this month. I am unsure who deserves the most blame and even more unsure that we can ever know and wonder why we really want to put up our own tally sheets on these things.

We do need to have our political and police leaders check into what happened to find out where they erred so that they can take action against appropriate parties and adopt measures to avoid repeat behavior, but they need to be doing that all the time anyway. And we can hope that the protesters and “anarchists” do similar introspections.

And, unfortunately, we know that some of the same things will happen again, here and elsewhere, no matter what approach we take.

And we might consider removing a sheriff who believes in holding people until a warrant can be obtained. O.J. Simpson is on trial right now for doing pretty much the same thing, but for him they call it “kidnapping.”

They are gone

Well, the GOP people have left and the process[es] of assessment/reassessment has/have begun.

I think that Joe Soucheray has it right when he thinks that Mpls. pulled one over on our civic leaders. They got the money spenders and partiers and we got the barricades and protesters. And despite what our leaders say, they had to know that you cannot invite a convention without inviting protesters, both “legitimate” and other, when you invite a major party, especially the party in power to come to your city. I don’t know whether we will find out that our authorities overreacted to them or not. I suspect that the officials will have the official version, but history never has clear consensuses.

Mayor Coleman the Second tells us that the whole extravaganza was a success, but tell that to the people who tried to navigate through our city, to the businesspeople whose customers who could not find them, to the people whose medical procedures at United or St. Joseph’s had to be delayed, to the locally-licensed taxi drivers whose once-in-a-lifetime chance for a bonanza was taken away by authorities who decided to let anybody in the world with a top light on his/her car pretend to be driving a taxi. [Taxicab drivers in this city can tell you that this is nothing new, but the magnitude of the event made it seem worse. Check Grand Avenue late at night on any weekend or the Excel/NSP arena after any hockey game or big concert and take a look yourself, if you wish.]

Mayor Coleman the First was in his glory, bragging to delegates and whomever else was listening that he had made the building possible. Running for reelection to the Senate, he needed every chance he could want to bow.

Mayor Coleman the Second had assured us that business would not only be normal, but that there would be extra things for us to enjoy, including the display of an “original copy” [lovely oxymoron] of the Declaration of Independence at City Hall from Monday through Thursday.

That was a lie. I went there on Wednesday about noon and could not find it. CH/CH staff did not know where it had gone, but the man in building operations thought it might have gone to someplace on Summit Avenue. My own email inquiries have told me that it was there as late as Tuesday and have raised the suggestion that it was moved to a Summit Avenue residence for GOP fundraising purposes. I have not been informed of any more likely possibility, but am still willing to accept suggestions.

Eagle Street Grille hedged its bets by renting the whole place to CNN which brought in its own chef but allowed the local wait staff to work. But Soucheray notes that Mancini’s was almost empty. How can that be possible? And how can anybody think that any event designed to attract so many people with that much disposable money just a mile away who don’t make it to Mancini’s can be a good thing?

Of course, we did get to see “Saint Paul” or its truncated cousin “St. Paul” on a lot of printed and visual media, but does that make us feel that much better? And Minneapolis still got first billing on the convention logo.

They say that this was a “once in a lifetime’ event. Let’s hope that they are right.

What every cab driver needs to know

I was indeed curious about what taxicab drivers needed to learn to be able to transport Republicans. [Cf. Republicans are SOO Special (8/7/2008)]

So I went to this morning’s meeting to which our friends in DSI had sent all licensed taxicab drivers a summons. The summons said that there would be two meetings, the first of which was scheduled for 7:30 this morning at the North Dale Recreation Center. Attending either this meeting or one Thursday afternoon at the Wellstone Center is supposed to be a requirement for drivers who wish to operate under a “reciprocity” agreement which includes Saint Paul, Minneapolis, Bloomington, and the International Airport. [Although there is no reciprocation at all by the Airport and Bloomington has put the megamall off limits, so “reciprocity” must have a new meaning.] The room was full with no more than fifty present which means that either they can expect a really large crowd Thursday or they are conceding that there will be a lot of taxi owners who are not applying for the extra-fee and expense “reciprocity” stickers.” [Of course, as anybody who was at the West Side Citizen’s Organization 2006 annual meeting knows, there is a room at Wellstone Center which can hold a lot of people. And one might expect that there would be very few drivers or owners from the other jurisdictions applying for the chance to work here since locally our licensing department never looks for unlicensed cabs anyway.]

Handouts on the table in the front for us to grab included copies of Mpls. ordinances referring to taxicabs, a list of cab stands there, maps of downtown Saint Paul, a notification that Minneapolis 311 will be extended to other metropolitan locations during the RNC season [cell phones only], flyers promoting the Mpls. Civic Fest, a Roseville Visitor Guide, a list of events scheduled for Mpls. for August 29^th through September 5^th, and a Venue Guide for both cities.

The meeting did not get started until almost 8:00 apparently since there had been some confusion among DSI or Host Committee or somebody about the starting time. Richard Jents who takes care of enforcing taxicab regulations in Saint Paul when he has time arrived at about 7:50. His boss, Bob Kessler arrived shortly after 8:00.

It seems as if nobody from our own officialdom in DSI has the expertise to address local cab drivers on local rules and regs, since the person leading the session was a Minneapolis licensing official who was there with another man from that city well before the publicized 7:30 opening. Neither of the Mpls. people introduced himself. For that matter, neither did either of the Saint Paul DSI people mentioned, but we know who they are. There were also a couple of women there who were not drivers and who seemed to act as if they had something to do with things, cut it was never clear whether they were from government or the host committee.

The Mpls. presenter began by telling us of a bad experience he had with a taxi driver in Okinawa in 1969 when he was on his way back from service in Viet Nam and then went on to tell us many things, some not particularly germane since he kept referring to provisions in Mpls. codes and places.

Among the things our drivers learned:

> to stop at red, octagonal signs. [No kidding. It was prominent on the PowerPoint or similar presentation.]
> good service can lead to good tips.
> the number of people expected in the metropolitan area is comparable to the number who go to Viking game, but they will have fewer cars at their disposal.
> distribution of business cards can be good business
> it is illegal to talk on a cell phone while driving. [Mr. Kessler corrected the man on this, noting that there is no such prohibition in our city.]

> drivers should wear slacks, collared shirts, and shoes. This means no tank tops, shorts, or sandals. T-shirts also are not allowed. [Once again, Mr. Kessler had to correct the man, noting that local code has no dress requirements. Additionally, a driver asked if t-shirts are not allowed why were t-shirts being distributed and was told that even in Mpls. one can wear t-shirts if they are part of a community event and their licensing office has approved it.]
> customers are entitled to receipts.
> drivers should check for lost items after every trip and if a found item is not called for during a shift, it should be turned into one’s dispatching center at the shift’s end.
> drivers cannot smoke with passengers in cab
> drivers must take people by the most direct route unless the passenger requests otherwise.
> drivers cannot overcharge.
> drivers cannot refuse service to an orderly passenger.
> if Minneapolis authorities catch an unlicensed cab picking up there they will impound the car and issue citations. The fee to get a car out of impound is $638. The civil citations carry fines of $250 for the driver, $250 for the owner, and $250 for the dispatching company, although in the last case there is usually just a warning sent. Nobody knows what the penalties for a similar violation in Saint Paul would be since nobody has ever been cited.
> drivers should have a map book [GPS does not count] and a Braille business identification card in their cabs. [Once again local officials had to note that there are no such local regulations.]
> there may be traffic jams during the convention. Don’t honk. It won’t do any good.
> call 911 for emergencies or when you need police. [This is pretty much what I have heard police say at community crime prevention meetings, but when I tried to call the new Ramsey County 911 for a driver who had a passenger refusing to pay the fare a couple of months ago, the operator told me that I should not use that number since it was not an emergency.]

We also learned what has been pretty much released locally lately, that vehicles will not be allowed between Walnut, Shepard Road, St. Peter, and I-35E, but that traffic will be allowed on all of those perimeter roads. Access will allowed to St. Joseph’s Hospital, but how one gets that access or how much hassle one will face was not made clear. Let’s hope that we can get the passengers in before the patient dies or the baby is born.] Access to Chestnut from Shepard Road will not be allowed.

I suspect that he could not commit to much because there are so many security authorities involved, but Mr. Kessler was unable to comment on how many existing cab stands will continue to be usable. [One has to assume that guests of the Saint Paul Hotel will have to get off by the back, formerly front, door on St. Peter and schlep their own bags.] He did indicate that there would be two temporary cab stands set up for convention people, but that they would have to walk a bit. One would be on Walnut Street between Seventh and Exchange. The other would be on Wabasha between Fifth and Sixth. This announcement was made late in the meeting and nobody seemed to notice that creating that stand on Wabasha means that there will be a stand where most people approach from the rear. Anybody who has driven a cab more than a week or so will see the interesting situations this can create.

When I tried to ask who was paying the expenses for the meeting since there were at least four people who were on municipal payrolls present, I could not get any usable answer. I understand that this may be a bit tricky since last week I watched the City Council try to figure out who was funding the police for things, but the lack of response seemed unnecessarily evasive and hostile. The other Mpls. guy assured me that he was being paid by his city just as usual, that his presence at the meeting just meant that other things were not getting done. That certainly did not help much. I am convinced that somebody’s taxes or fees were paying for the totally unneeded meeting, but have to guess that nobody thinks it is any of my business.

Anyhow, good luck to all of the city’s drivers who still want to make a living despite the RNC.

What to do about Sober Houses?

The City Council is about to pass an ordinance defining “sober houses” and establishing spacing and other requirements for some of the larger ones. There are a lot of them in our City. Merriam Park and West Seventh seem to be the most desired neighborhoods for sober house landlords to set up shop in. After pressure from District Councils and other community groups the city did authorize the Planning Commission to study the matter and submit suggestions. Simply speaking, that is why the Council is looking at this ordinance now.

The issue gets tricky for several reasons. Application of the Federal Fair Housing Act has stated that recovering alcoholics are protected from housing discrimination as disabled people. Nobody seems to know just how many of these places there are or how well the “clients” are doing in their recovery. Neither does anybody seem to know how many automobiles the residents need to park in the neighborhood and nobody seems to know what other problems the residents may have.

Local and/or state land use regulations and/or funding requirements control treatment facilities, but nobody receives any treatment at a sober house. These facilities have various requirements that they need to meet, including spacing requirements. One reason for spacing requirements is to avoid creating disability-concentrated, ghetto-like areas.

The advocates for this housing speak of creating new “families” of recovering people and seem to think that those who oppose them are either near-sighted, bigoted, or both.

But when a family lives in a house, they just sign one lease and send one check to the property owner. In other cases where each individual sends his/her own check to the landlord, they are covered under Boarding or Rooming House licenses. These are licensed by the city for safety, spacing, and consumer protection reasons.

The owners also use the analogy to housemates who share living units. This analogy breaks down for some of the same reason that the family argument does, that there is only one lease and one check. And the law specifically limits housing units in this city to four unrelated adults. Following this train it seems that the sober house advocates seem to feel that being a recovered alcoholic [or actually just a teetotaler] gives one rights that others do not have.

So it seems like under present rules and regulations that if I were a landowner that I could rent a large house to any number of unrelated adults at monthly rates of a few hundred dollars each. If the renters are willing, it may be free market capitalism, but exactly how free the market is is debatable, since many recovering people have seriously compromised financial situations as a result of their problem[s]. If I can get five or six people to pay $400 each it might beat having a group pay $1200-$1500. And if it turned out that one or more of the folks got tipsy and disruptive, it could be passed off as some poor soul who misstepped. I am not a treatment provider so it would not be my direct worry.

The proposed ordinance is pretty mild. It only affects larger houses and imposes minimal spacing and distancing requirements. The distance is 330 feet. For reference note that the spacing requirement for Community Residential facilities is 1320 feet [one-quarter of a mile] and the average city block is 330 feet by 660 feet [street rights-of-way included.] It also allows for some fire and safety codes and inspection thereof for the larger houses.

It is interesting that as I watched the replay of Wednesday’s City Council public hearing that I did not detect any testimony from doctors or treatment professionals saying that their clients needed this kind of housing. Testimony seemed to be primarily from landlords and people representing them.

I understand that the city is limited in what it can do and do suggest the Council pass what they have in front of them if they are afraid to be more aggressive in protecting both recovering clients and their neighbors, but seriously wonder why they cannot move the spacing requirements up and the minimum number of residents defined as a sober house down.

You may send your comments telling me how much of a bigot I am.

Earlier postSober Houses, Neighborhoods, and Planning [2/24/08]