City wants to regulate you some more...

[lurker]

The Council and Mayor form of government with the Mayor being the City Manager, too, has its flaws and advantages. The advantage being the voters can fire the Mayor-City Manager (who usually has his thumb on the Police Chief).

This City-County Commissioner/City-County Manager/Police Chief form of gubbermint removes the voter from the power.... with the noted exception that we still fire our Sheriff every 4 years..... unless we 're-hire' him.

[Mike B.]

Originally Posted by Detector

Thats one of the reasons I hate politics. Priorities are given to those who put them in office.

I've known several good honest people that had plans to turn the city upside down once in office. Once in office they found out they were little more than a puppet for those who put them there. Those who choose to go against the grain pay the price. Mr Lee comes to mind.

Don't blame the people blame the system that put them there.

Seems to me there needs to be a means for the public to veto stupid ideas. If the city tries to pass something that the majority of the public disagrees with there should be a way to force it to a public vote. It would help keep the city in-check knowing they can't just run over the public with no recourse.

If there is such a system in place then its the public fault for not taking action.

Detector,

You've hit the nail squarely on the head. We (voters) have an opportunity every 2 years to voice our likes and dislikes. The problem is that less than 25% of the registered voters in Dodge City turned out to vote at our last city commission election.

People will sit back and complain about what's going on, but then they refuse to vote. I don't blame the system or the way it's ran, but rather the people for not registering to vote and then voting.

Being a city commissioner is an opportunity to listen to the people and then serve them by taking action. To many times we vote in commissioners whos only agenda is to advance a special interest. We need more than that...we need people who will take a stand for what's right and stick to it!!!

Dodge City has alot of those type of people. The problem arises in that they are employeed by someone who may disagree with them or they own a business and are afraid of the repercussions. (What's more important being a commissioner or feeding your family?)

If as you say, "I've known several good honest people that had plans to turn the city upside down once in office. Once in office they found out they were little more than a puppet for those who put them there." you are correct. It takes three like minded individuals to turn this boat around. If you are a person with good intentions and do by chance get elected. What's the pay off if you don't have two others like you? (Ask Terry Lee, he knows) I know of very few people who like to get beat up in front of the entire community.

[Detector]

We (voters) have an opportunity every 2 years to voice our likes and dislikes.

A lot of damage can be done in 2 years. I think people have confidence in the people we vote into office but find it doesn't last, and the thought of waiting 2 years to vote in another could-be-disaster does encourage voters.

We need a way to stop stupidity when it happens.

[Quietly]

I, for one, don't have any problem with the city restricting temporary gravesite decorations. According to Thursday's Globe, the city already has an ordinance preventing temporary decorations from sitting on graves for long periods of time, and another ordinance that bars placing permanent fixtures on gravesites. At least Dodge City has not gone as far as Wichita's Maple Grove Cemetery, which does not allow decorations other than flowers, according to the article.

If the city were proposing an outright ban on temporary decorations, I would agree with the people who feel outraged. But unless I missed something in the Globe article, that does not appear to be the case. I think the city's just trying to make sure everyone plays by the same rules.

[gunnar1073]

Originally Posted by Quietly

I, for one, don't have any problem with the city restricting temporary gravesite decorations. According to Thursday's Globe, the city already has an ordinance preventing temporary decorations from sitting on graves for long periods of time, and another ordinance that bars placing permanent fixtures on gravesites. At least Dodge City has not gone as far as Wichita's Maple Grove Cemetery, which does not allow decorations other than flowers, according to the article.

If the city were proposing an outright ban on temporary decorations, I would agree with the people who feel outraged. But unless I missed something in the Globe article, that does not appear to be the case. I think the city's just trying to make sure everyone plays by the same rules.

No problem with the city restricting how we remember those we have lost?

Well I do.


And can somone tell me why a big stink is being made about what someone puts on a tombstone. But after any sporting event there is mounds of trash to be picked up. But this is an acceptible practice?

[Flying Dutchman]

But emotions aside for a minute and think logically............Should someone be allowed to hang dead pigs above a grave? If they were racist, should they be allowed to put racist messages or insignia on the graves? Are you willing to raise taxes so they can hire more people and buy more equipment to keep the cemetary mowed? If you answer yes to these then you are right in being able to do what you want with a grave.

[Army_of_One]

If the city wants to regulate something they should regulate what color people paint their houses. The purple/pink and lime green/yellow house colors make me want to puke.

[Detector]

That house on 1st & ash is hideous

[Made in the USA]

Kinda like Japan used to be??

[Quietly]

Originally Posted by gunnar1073

No problem with the city restricting how we remember those we have lost?

Well I do.


And can somone tell me why a big stink is being made about what someone puts on a tombstone. But after any sporting event there is mounds of trash to be picked up. But this is an acceptible practice?

I'll admit that I don't have any relatives buried in Dodge City, so I don't have a personal stake in this discussion. Still, I I don't think the city is trying to dictate what kinds of decorations can be used - just when they can be put on gravesites and how long they can remain. If the city truly wanted to restrict how families remember their deceased loved ones, it would ban temporary decorations outright.

I would object if the city banned all temporary decorations or restricted them to flowers. However, I don't see the problem with regulating gravesite decorations to keep the cemetery clean and neat so everyone can benefit from it. Keep in mind, the cemetery is city-owned, so the city is free to impose any reasonable regulations it deems necessary.

I would agree that leaving "mounds of trash to be picked up" after sporting events is not an acceptable practice, but I don't see how that's relevant to a discussion of cemetery decorations. Besides, people who attend those events ought to take some responsibility for picking up and disposing properly of their trash, just like they should take some responsibility for abiding by the city's regulations on gravesite decorations.