Sounds dangerous, no?

While poking around the Roanokegov.com site, you might see a small link to City Clerk Online.. takes you here. Ze deadly LaserFiche!

Allright, it might not seem interesting at first glance, but keep poking around.
This is the actual, scanned minutes from a City Council meeting from December 8th, 1874. Mayor, John Trout. It includes information on the formation of a committe for creating public sidewalks and curbs. Taxes (natch.) are also created during this meeting.

From 1784 straight on through to this past Monday's meetings.. all information is available.

I bet there are few who realize (or remember) that we are now paying LESS in real estate taxes than we were back in the early 80's. The rate then was $1.35 per $100, and thanks to the Mayor at the time - reduced to $1.25 per $100, and now it is down to $1.21 and falling to $1.19.

And the best part, it's all right there in black and white.

Although, in looking over the details of the meetings myself, I do wish for a bit more detail, more accurtate reporting of discussions and conversations held on matters.

And all these closed meetings to discuss appointments to certain vacancies on various boards - well, I'd like to know who is being considered for appointment to what BEFORE they are appointed.

Certain conflicts of interest might not seem important at the time, but upon further digging, could be potentially problematic in the future.

I make no claims of impropriety here, but a certain high-profile architecture firm located downtown is working on a large scale project - and one of the members of this firm recently ran for city council. Again, not that there is anything wrong with that - but it certainly COULD be viewed as improper should any actions come before the council that deal with the site, or even topics similar.

Think of the city market building, and the "no competition" clause they seem to live under. Imagine if that were taken to the City Council.

By the way, is $3000 a month for 450 sq. ft. in the City Market building a bit high? Or is it just me?

There are times the City (and State I might add) hover on the border of certain federal laws regarding business and such things. In a sense, what the ABC is doing with Mango's down at the lake could fall under the RICO act, especially when you read the comments of the "investigator." As such an individual working for a state comission, you are charged with upholding the law, not telling a business that the particular type of band they wish to host is one that attracts those who wish to drink heavily and be obnoxious. Thats not your place, not your role. And that IS legally actionable. It might not be as clear as some might like it - but to exert undue influence upon a (legal)business as to sufficiently reduce it's ability to engage in its business, or to cause a business to suffer due to remarks made by an agent of the government outside it's legal bounds.. well, it's not good.

Not good at all.

But regardless, theres much to be learned about how the City operates, or doesn't - and much that we can discover to set the course for proper representation and accessability for all citizens of the city, create the business climate which is so frequently touted yet rarely seen, and develop the "young adult" lure that is a favorite topic of conversation, and in short - get this City back on track and rolling full steam again..

Did you know.. In 1899, the city was accepting bids for medicine for the Public Doctor, and the contract went to one Chas. D. Fox. There were 3 bids that came in for this contract. One of the other 2 bids was Johnson & Johnson.

Could this be why, all these years later J&J does not have a presence in Roanoke, other than a sign on a building? Perhaps Roanoke is located in the Karma Valley, and what goes around comes around.

I'll be back later - I have to go out and see if Chas. D. Fox makes cotton ear swabs, as obviously the J&J products are not nearly the quality of the Fox stuff.

No comments: