If the Eye In The Sky cameras are as effective as claimed, then I suggest members of council stop having police escort them to their vehicles after council meetings and use the Eye in The Sky camera system they expect the rest of us to reply upon for protection.
If not then I would suggest they FINALLY ADMIT that the system is a useless feel-good placebo and get rid of this waste of tax dollars. They can’t have it both ways.
If the system was as effective as they claim, they should not need escorts to their vehicles.
It is sheer hypocricy on their part that so many of our tax dollars are wasted on this camera system and yet they feel it is not good enough to protect THEM – yet it is sufficient to protect the rest of US.
Even the new chief of police, who welcomes any tool to help out his men – questions the effectiveness of this system as a detterent. And I think we have seen a fair bit of evidence to show that it is nothing of the sort.
Obviously council feels the same way as the new chief, or else they would trust the cameras rather then demand police escorts to their vehicles after council meetings.
Get rid of the cameras and spend more money on police officers on our streets.
As for the 65 foot high spike claimed as a work of art. As P.T. Barnum once said… “There’s a sucker born every moment!”
It seems that some on council would rather waste our tax dollars by the millions rather then admit they don’t know art from junk or that just because someone CALLS some eyesore or monstrosity a work of art (good money in doing so) does not make it so.
Not that something might not be a genuine work of art, but in many cases absolute junk is passed off as being some type of abstract statement. There is good money to be scammed in doing so. I would like to think that our council should have sense enough to judge between a Picasso and a genuine piece of abstract artwork and an amateur effort at making money off of a junk pile or monstrosity however.
As Freud might say… Sometimes a big pile of junk is just a big pile of junk. Calling it art does not make it art.
City leaders entrusted with the public purse strings and spending of our tax dollars however should always seriously assess the merits of any work of art if spending tax dollars on it.
It’s not a matter of will every person enjoy or like it or not. It’s a matter of will most people get it and see it as art, or will most of the people footing the bill for it and looking at it see it as an eyesore or a monstrosity on the skyline.
There is also the issue of the height. 65 feet is nearly as high up onto our Lake Superior skyline as those 7 and 8 story motels and condos being put in there. This structure – be it seen as art or be it seen as junk – will tower quite high into the skyline, so I think it’s important that council give some thought to if it’s the right thing for the waterfront and if it’s money well spent.
The other day I was going to Wal-Mart with a friend. Her 3 year old son in the back of the van in his car seat commented that the road we were driving on really needed to be fixed. (too bumpy)
I find it ironic that things like this do not escape the notice of even a 3 year old child, yet our city council would blow a million dollars on a controversial piece of “art” that may not have even been a part of the waterfront plans, while so many of our roads are in such horrible condition and in need of repair.
If a 3 year old can get his priorities right… what then is the problem with most of our city council I ask???
Take Care & Rock On!