Is the City Manager Managing?

There has been a great deal of public debate lately regarding whether or not Dick Wollangk should keep his job as the City Manager. Now there is another news story hitting the papers regarding the "personal guarantee" given by Ganther and the 100 block investors. Turns out now that the "guarantee" isn't worth the paper it is written on (someone else's words, not mine). This "oops" is going to cost the city Millions. Millions that we cannot afford. No wonder nobody was taking care of that building. It has been falling apart for more than 2 years but nothing was done about it. Now that is in foreclosure, there isn't a thing the city can do about it.

Now, understand that although the City Manager may sign a document like this, he does not write it. An argument can be made that he has nothing to do with it. I beg to differ with that though. I think that he is ultimately responsible for the actions of his subordinates. If they do something that reflects poorly on the city, then he should take action on it. If he doesn't or fails to do it properly, then he is not effective as a manager and should be relieved of his position.

This isn't the first time that Mr Kinney or Mr Kraft have been in the paper because of actions that are less than healthy for our city. As a matter of fact, they are in the paper for more negative items than positive items. Mr Kinney has the Five Rivers mess that has cost the city a small fortune... Mr Kraft has the PMI contract mistakes, a forced apology to a council member for false information, and now a document for the 100 block that "isn't worth the paper it is written on".

Well Mr Wollangk, it is time to step up to the plate and show the city that you have the stones to do the job. Failure to do so may result in your dismissal by the council. As they say, the fat lady hasn't begun to sing. But you can bet she is warming up...

Open Mouth... Insert Foot

Well, I know that this is no longer news and I am not one bit surprised that I am the first one writting about it. It is all about Brian Bain stepping on his tongue and getting himself removed from the City Manager discussions and not about Paul Esslinger doing something wrong.

Funny, there are a couple of people out there that are all over Paul whenever he does something that they don't like but when their favorite screws up (BIG) they don't say a peep.

I do like Dick Wollangk. He has been open and helpful in both of my bids for office. His door was always open for me to pop in and ask a question. I don't know if he deserves to be fired for what is happening or whether he should be given the chance to get his department heads under control. Either way, the city will benefit from the effort. Mr. Bain has jeopordized this action. He has weakened the council by using his blog and/or the newspaper to voice an opinion of a matter that should be taking place behind closed doors. He has shown extreme bias in regards to the city manager. By doing so, he tainted the discussion to the point that prevents him from doing his duty as our representative. Without his vote, our council could remain deadlocked on any decision that could be reached. Without his vote, he isn't much of a representative is he?

But of course, it isn't Esslinger, McHugh, Palmeri or Monte so who cares right?

Update to Jackson and Murdock Intersection

As I said in my previous post, more to follow... Here is the follow up.

Everyone is up in arms saying that putting a roundabout at the intersection of Jackson and Murdock is a matter of public safety. I have numbers that disprove that theory, at least takes the priority off of THAT intersection.

Would it surprise you to know that Jackson and Murdock is not even in the top 10 of the "dangerous" intersections in Oshkosh? Actually, it isn't even ranked in the top 20! It is ranked 21st and it's neighbor, Wisconsin and Murdock is ranked 17th!

There were only 6 accidents that occurred at this intersection in all of 2006 while the traffic numbers over 29,000 vehicles PER DAY that travel through it. Given that ratio, perhaps it is not such a high priority to do this one first.

The highest accident intersection is 9th and Knapp Streets. It had 16 accidents in 2006 followed by High Avenue and Wisconsin with 14. Then Washburn/Witzel-13, Bowen/Murdock-10 and Koeller/9th-10 round out the top 5. Koeller/9th has posted double digit accidents in ALL of the last 3 years. Wait... low and behold there are 3 within a mile of each other in the top 5. Seems to me, that our focus is a little off with safety of intersections.

This is NOT the first intersection that has been proposed to get a roundabout. The DOT would like to put the same type of intersection at 41/Witzel (one on each side of the highway for each frontage road). My opinion is that to build a roundabout at an expense of more than $600,000 to the city is ludicrous if they do not do anything to address the neighboring intersection of Wisconsin/Murdock that has posted more accidents in each of the last 2 years. This would NOT be productive and MAY actually cause more problems than they set out to fix.

If I understand the new design correctly, KFC would be purchased and the intersection widened to allow for additional turn lanes regardless of whether the roundabout is built or not. I am not sure about that aspect but either way, improvements can be made WITHOUT building an intersection at a significantly higher expense to the city with no real proof that it will improve anything. Accidents will happen at ANY intersection regardless of design. Will the 6 improve enough to justify the expense?

Guess we will find out if the council approves this design tonight...

Jackson and Murdock- A matter of safety?

After reading the article on Cheryl Hentz's site, I had to do some digging for myself and actually taking the time to put together some numbers to support my thoughts.

Cheryl states that Esslinger is "silly and hypocritical", but has nothing to support her statement. Of course, Paul is one with a bulls eye painted on his back because I noted that she didn't mention any other opposition to the intersection. There were others that do NOT support this expense as it was proposed. More information was needed and I have some of it.

I posted earlier about information that I found on google about roundabouts and what the safety is. It also proved that my theory about negotiating an intersection was not a problem. But what MAY be a problem is the significant difference in the cost. Instead of costing the city $152k, it will cost $718k for the roundabout.

I found out tonight that the accidents were in the single digits while traffic numbers were one of the highest in the city. Is it really worth the added expense just to have an intersection that few cities have? Is it REALLY a safety concern? OR is Cheryl trying to be opportunistic? I think it is personal and she is digging for yet another reason to drag Paul through the MUD!

Go figure, if you can't support your theories... Just make it up.

More to follow...