Darco, do you envision a world in which no "individuals at high levels"
can ever "let their preferences be known in private conversations"?
Powerful people talk to other powerful people all the time, in every
society humanity has devised. It is not presumptively evil or unfair for
them to do so; even if it were, it is as impossible to remove this
element from society as it is to remove oxygen from the atmosphere.
Picture yourself in the role of a City agency. Do you have a mission to
listen to input from the various communities you serve, about their
specific needs? Would you look like a jackass if you didn't? Would the
same purists who hammer you for listening to a reputable agency from a
particular community, NOT hammer you just as hard for refusing to
listen, if it came to you with a concern? You're damned if you do,
damned if you don't.
"Equal enforcement" sounds fine in theory. But every public agency also
tries to fine-tune its responses with selective-enforcement strategies,
when it identifies hot spots or unique local issues. "Take a number and
wait" is a good model for delivery of many public services, but it
cannot be the sole rule.
Statistical evidence (cf. that 4/28 Daily News article) is that all
sorts of tickets are being handed out in all sorts of neighborhoods at
an accelerated rate. There may be neighborhood biases in such a surge
(+40,000 citywide). But no one has produced any evidence of this. And it
is mathematically impossible for University City to account for it all
-- much less UCD.
I don't believe UCD never called L&I about anything. The question at
hand is whether the City came up with its own strategy for restaurant
code enforcement with or without any input or contact from local people
or groups; more importantly, it is whether the policy that results is
good. Andy's explanation of this policy sounds good to me. Does it sound
bad to anybody else? If so, what's wrong with it?
Bear in mind that code enforcers of all sorts are often mandated to
respond to anonymous over-the-transom complaints. People who work in the
restaurant and tavern trade have long assumed that if L&I or the State
Police come down on them, they were dimed on by a competitor. In the
long run, this paranoid explanation is more persuasive than the paranoid
explanation that these agencies act on behalf of "local power brokers
... more often than not." I can always be persuaded that either
explanation was right in any given case; but I always need evidence.
Unsubstantiated blood-pumping rhetoric about powerful conspiracies
doesn't do it for me.
-- Tony West
On 5/18/2010 5:23 PM, Lalevic, Darco wrote:
Unfortunately Tony, whether true or not, most people assume that
people and organizations which wield political power (Penn, UCD, local
politicians, etc) are regularly influencing these organizations. And,
of course there won't be any evidence, nor is Andy necessarily lying
(I would assume he is not). It would be doubtful that UCD, Penn, or
any organization would openly pressure, but rather individuals at high
levels would let their preferences be known in private conversations.
Can Andy absolutely state that no member of the UCD board ever
influenced L&I, in any way? I know for a fact that is not true as I've
heard that directly from a board member.
Is it coincidence that any number of actions by L&I, the PPD, Streets
Dept or any other entity focuses efforts at a particular time and
place? Maybe, but there have been plenty of incidents in the past to
assume otherwise (for example the Streets departments redesign of the
38^th /Baltimore/University Avenue intersection was at the time
promoted by the City as an effort to improve traffic. It shortly
became clear that it was in fact to build the new Vet building). There
is plenty of anecdotal evidence and hearsay to assume that any L&I
efforts are being influenced by local power brokers -- and therefore
we can assume that it is the case as it is more likely than not. And
that's not even with factual evidence such as Glenn points out with
the Business Journal article or the use of UCD workers for political
causes.
Of course, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Certainly L&I has
plenty of positives, as does the UCD. And I would argue that more
often than not, the overall effect is positive. However, how many
other neighborhoods in the city get tickets for high grass, trash
outside when it isn't supposed to be, etc? It is illegal to
selectively apply enforcement. And in this neighborhood it is clearly
being done.
Darco
