Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2001-05-15 Correspondence Page 1 of 1 Marjan Karr Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 5:31 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: energy efficiency hey, pumpkin, would you consider requiring all city buildings to use energy-efficient light bulbs to reduce energy consumption? it could dramatically cut down on waste. would you consider changing all city street lights to flourescent bulbs? it could save the tax payers thousands of dollars, and help the environment at the same time. think about it. jason schaffer 5/3/0 1 From: Teagle, Holly [holly-teagle@uiowa.edu] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 1:49 PM To: 'council@iowa-city.org' Subject: lexington street Councilors- Just wanted to express my concern about the preliminary decision to gate Lexington Street. Seems like an ill-fated precedent to set as there are lots of busy streets in this town with residents who would like their traffic diverted. We live on Magowan, two streets down and know that will cause increased traffic on our street. With all of the Manville Heights streets frequently used for parking for Hancher and Carver-Hawkeye functions, closing Lexington will likely force more parkers to use adjacent streets. Please re-consider your decision for the good of the entire neighborhood, not just the few that live on Lexington. Thanks Holly Teagle FILED May 2, 2001_ 2001 flAY -3 AN IO: 29 ]ames Petran CITY CLERK 410 Magowan Ave. 10WA CITy 10WA Iowa City, IA 52246 354 2050 Iowa City Coundl 410 E. Washington Street Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mr. Lehman, At the last City Coundl meeting I spoke in opposition to the closing of Lexington Avenue and the manner in which the rest of the neighborhood was left out of the decision making process. Unfortunately, public speaking is not one of my strong points, so when I got home, I began to think of all the things I forgot to say or could have said more eloquently. Since we all seem to agree on the problem of traffic flying down residential streets, the solution that has the least impact on the greatest number of people is the question that needs to be answered. Unfortunately most of us are in the dark as to what options have been considered or what criteria was addressed. Had it not been for my own initiative in keeping in contact with Jeff Davidson and distributing flyers throughout the neighborhood, most of the people of Manville Heights would not have known of your work session vote. Even my own efforts ended up being after the fact when I falsely assumed there would be public discussion of this issue as there has been over other traffic concerns in this town. As it sits right now, the one response I keep hearing again and again is: "That's it?" In the future, one thought might be to post signs on the street informing residents of proposed actions, much as you do when a request is made to fezone land use. This would at least give people an equal chance to address the Council and offer comments and suggestions. I hope that you might reconsider dosing Lexington and address the problem as a whole, not as a single action that solves one problem by creating another. No one should walk away from this with the impression that someone got favorable treatment. Lexington Avenue is a unique situation, but it is also a part of this neighborhood's history and beauty. I want to preserve what most of us feel is the best neighborhood in Iowa City and set an example of how neighbors can work together to find equitable solutions. We need your help. Respectfully Yours, From: Richard Kerber [richard-kerber@uiowa.edu] l Sent: Sunday, May 06. 2001 12:38 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: lexington avenue We want to commend the Council for a thorough and intelligent discussion of the Lexington Ave seasonal closure issue at your work session last week. Your adoption of a trial closure, to be re-evaluated after 1 year, is thoughtful and appropriate. The concerns of some residents on neighboring streets about increased traffic on their street can be objectively addressed by traffic counts before and during the closure; the concern of the Fire dept. about responses to emergencies can be better addressed after a year's experience, and the residents of the street themselves will be able to judge the effect of the closure on their safety. Richard E Kerber,MD Linda K Kerber Richard E. Kerber, MD Associate Director, Cardiology Division University of Iowa Hospital Iowa City, IA 52242 (319) 356-2739 Fax (319) 356-4552 Undeliverable: closing Lexington Subject: Undeliverable: closing Lexington . 3e(5) Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:05:58 -0500 From: "System Administrator" <postmaster@iowa-city.org> To: lnrtsoper~uswest.net Yo message To: www.council@iowa-city.org Subject: losing Lexington Sent: Mo 23 Apr 2001 08:59:53 -0500 did not reach the lowing recipient(s): www.council@iowa-city.org Mon, 23 Apr 2001 09:05:52 -0500 The recipient name is not ognized The MTS-ID of the original ssage is: c=US;a= ;p=IOwaCity;l=BART0104231405JQAN06YT ) Unknown Recipient To: v.-,,.,~.*' ncil@iowa-city.org Subject: clo 'ng Lexington Date: Mon, 23 2001 08:59:53 -0500 X-Mailer: Interne ail Service (5.5.2650.21 ln~ X-MS-Embedded-Report. To the I ' ' : What a masterful idea created in order to avoid having to provide sidewalks for the safety of those who live on Lexington Avenue! Wouldn't we all prefer to have our own private streets, no traffic, no noise! This is sefishness unbelievable. We are still having problems in Manville Heights left over from allowing the University to close Newton Road. It is imperative that the Council consider very carefully the results incurred by closing ANy street in Iowa City. Once again; the closing of Lexington Avenue is not at all in the best interests of anyone else in Iowa City except for those few who live on the Avenue. Sincerely, Dr. & Mrs. Robert. T. Soper ! \ I of I 04/23/2001 5:20 PM To Mayor Lehman and City Council Members, Angry. Shocked. Appalled. Disgusted. These are a few words to describe our feelings when we read about the soon to be installed gate on Lexington Avenue, creating the first publicly funded "gated" community in Iowa City. While there may be some safety issues regarding Lexington Avenue, we feel the process used to make the decision for a gate and the decision itself may be setting a dangerous precedence. In response to a phone call we (Jeff) made, Irvin Pfab left a message at our house stating that he sat on Lexington for several hours observing. May we suggest that Mr. Pfab sit on Ferson Avenue as well, say from 7:30am-8:30am and then again from 4:30pm- 5:30pm. He would probably want to gate that street too, especially if he were doing his observations during soccer season! The redirected traffic will affect Ferson Avenue as well as Magowan Avenue and possibly Lee Street. Connie Champion was quoted as saying she, "voted for the gate because she didn't know what else to do." Is this really how decisions are made? Here's an idea - - how about SiDEWALKS! The Manville Heights neighborhood has a large amount of walkers in all seasons. Some homeowners ostensibly selected this neighborhood so that they could walk to work. Many people use this neighborhood for parking to walk both to work and sporting events. There are also numerous recreational walkers on the weekends and during lunch hours. Yet we cannot think of a single street in the whole neighborhood that has a complete sidewalk on both sides! The new issues created as a result of this decision may be worse than the original problem. How can a handful of people have a public street closed? We compare the "hoopla" surrounding the First Avenue issue vs. the Lexington Avenue issue and we are confused. How does this look? What message is this sending to the people of Iowa City? We are also quite bothered by the fact that this decision was made against the recommendation of our own fire chiefl Again, what message are we trying to get across? We are interested in and looking forward to the City Councils' response to this issue. The bottom line is that 15 homeowners should not be able to close a street. Input from those directly affected by this action must be taken into consideration and it appears that no chance for public discussion was offered. Sincerely, Jeff and Sara Braverman 521 W. Park Road Iowa City, Iowa 52246 Marian Karr E 05-15-01 I' From: nlbalmer [nlbalmer@gateway.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 9:06 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Lexington Ave. I have lived on Lexington for over 30 years. The traffic is not nearly as bad now as when we moved here. I was not allowed to vote on the closing. The City only allowed one vote per household. Wayne used our vote to vote no, as we have this one new neighbor who has been on this crusade ever since he moved in. I think you should really reconsider what you have decided to do, especially since the Fire Chief does not want this. Per the editorial in this morning's Press Citizen, I also feel you are digging a deep hole, as other streets will want to be closed, especially since they have a much higher volume of traffic that we do. Consider the money you are going to spend. How many times are you going to have to replace the gate when people drive into it. Respectfully yours, <<<<<<< ..................................... >>>>>>>> Nora Lee Balmer Marian Karr ~ From: Anne Rizzo [annerizzo@uswest.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 09, 2001 9:07 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Lexington Dear IC Council, I would like to voice my objection to closing off Lexington Ave. I live in this neighborhood on Richards St. You have made a decsion serving a very few people in our community. These people made an ACTIVE CHOICE to live there. If speed had been an issue when they were looking for houses they should have moved elsewhere. In addition I feel that you have set a very bad precedent gating streets. Your decsion has no basis. What stops all other streets (other than fire access) from asking for gates? In addition you are spending money on a VERY small number of people? Can you explain to me what makes this street more dangerous than River Street, Ferson or Rider St. People drive to fast on all these streets? Why not gate these as well? There is a significant problem with access to all our houses during concerts and sporting events and Lexington is one way to bypass the parking issues. Also, when it flooded during 1993 Lexington was another way for people to reach their homes. I am disappointed at your need to satisfy a very few residents and use our city money to serve them. What about the rest of us? Could you please provide your reasoning for approving this? I don't get it. Anne Nusser Rizzo 7 May 2001 652 S. Governor St. Iowa City, Iowa 52245 Mayor Ernest W. Lehman Iowa City City Council 410 E. Washington St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Dear Mayor Lehman: Like many Iowa Citians, I find one of our city's strongest and nicest assets to be the downtown and pedestrian mall areas. However, I'm disturbed at the trend toward more and more bars in the area at the expense of retail businesses. rm not anti-bar -rve been known to stop into one from time to time - but the irabalance in the downtown area is becoming serious. Sadly, thanks to the huge number of bars, the downtown and pedestrian mall areas are becoming distinctly unpleasant places to be on Friday and Saturday nights for people over the age of about 22. Try coming out of Givanni's on any given Friday night at about 11:00. The scene one is presented with is hardly inviting. Furthermore, every time we lose a retail space downtown to a bar, another piece of this still- vibrant area is gone. At the present rate, downtown Iowa City will soon become inconsequential as a retail site. We have a problem. Bars are a big part of it. It's time to put the brakes on the bars and the many problems - economic and behavioral - they bdng to the area. I propose that City Council consider, via ordinance, a ban on new liquor licenses in the downtown area for establishments where the primary business will not be food, capping the issuance of licenses at the present number. Current license holders should be able to maintain and renew their licenses. Should a business fail, that liquor license should be sold at a premium or held, but no new licenses should be issued. Coral Ridge Mall punched our downtown area hard; we need to take steps to continue to keep it viable. Helping keep retail space available for retail is one such step. I look forw d to hearing from you on this subject. M~rirC!r lYi~ Page 1 of 1 Marjan Karr From: Sal and Marcia Leanhart [salmarcia@email.msn.com] 3e(10) Sent: Monday. May 07, 2001 4:49 PM , To: Iowa City Council Subject: Denial of Liquor License for ETC. & Pohl, KUDOS! Dear Iowa City Council Members: THANKYOU! I must applaud your common sense & fair-mindedness in your recent collective decision to deny a liquor license to Mr. Pohl & ETC. I, for one, am tired of hearing about possible measures being blanketed upon ALL business owners with liquor licenses in this great town, when it is dear that the major problems causing complaints are caused by just a few. irresponsible establishments & their owners. I would hate to see responsible tavern & restaurant owners be penalized for the greed & irresponsibility of the few bad eggs. It's hard enough to make an honest living when you play by the rules. When problems and violations continually crop up over and over again in the same locales, these owners should not be rewarded & encouraged to open more bars. KUDOS! I am proud of you for standing up for the community! Mrs. Marcia Leanhart 807 Third Ave. Iowa City, IA 52245 5/7/01 Madan Karr I 0S-15-01 ~ From: City Councn 3e(11 ) Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 1:59 AM To: Madan Karr Subject: FW: The anti-smokers lie about smoking and health From: Carol AS Thompson[SMTP:71334.3541@COMPUSERVE.COM] Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2001 1:57:26 AM To: City Council Members Su~ect: The anti-smokers lie about smoking and health Auto ~rwarded by a Rule The anti-smokers are constantly scheming to persecute smokers. They lie about the health risks to foist their smoking bans and other repressive measures on the public. They purposely use defective studies to falsely blame smoking (and passive smoking) for heart disease and cancer that are really caused by infection. The anti-smoking organizations corrupted the National Institutes of Health way back in the 1940s, and have used it to crank out corrupt science at taxpayer expense ever since. Their media co-conspirators conceal the historical truth and spread their lies to help force their agenda on us. Their lies and suppression of research have caused the deaths of millions of innocent people. See "The History of the Conspiracy Against Tobacco," http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/CarolASThompson/ Marjan Karr ~ 05-1s-01 ~ From: Audrey Silk [nycclash@nycc[ash.com] 3e(12) Sent: Monday. April 30. 2001 12:19 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Opposition of Futher Smoking Bans Dear Council Hembets, I would like to take this opportunity to express my disappointment upon hearing that the city of iowa City, Iowa may be considering doing away with whatever accommodations are currently in place that allow smoking. I may not be a resident but a ban such as the one proposed is enough to make me avoid and never consider being a visitor to your city. Studies regarding secondhand smoke that resulted in any correlation link only showed that harm HAY befall people that have lived with and were constantly around a household smoker for decades. Please do not buy into the propaganda being touted by anti-smoking groups whose main objective is to modify the behavior of smokers by making it harder for them to light up. A couple of hours of diluted cigarette smoke harms no one and easily separating smokers from nonsmokers makes it even less of a problem (for those who are "annoyed" by the smoke). Adults who choose to smoke have already given up most of their freedoms in order to appease a minority of people who claim to be affected by cigarette smoke. As long as the concerned parties are segregated I find it self-righteously intrusive to demand that there be NO smoking area whatsoever. Thank you ~or your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Audrey Silk 2052 Hendrickson Street Brooklyn, New York 11234 Page 1 of 3 Marian Karr I05,15,01 From: Smokers Fighting Discrimination [sfdsmoke@hal-pc.org] 3e(13) Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 6:18 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Proposed Smoking Ban, Submission 1 Smoking Ban Will Send Profits "Up in Smoke" There is no doubt about it. Businesses fear over-regulation. It zaps profits, it puts others who could care less in control of their fate and in some cases makes it almost impossible to succeed with the new set of "rules" given. A 1996 survey by the National Licensed Beverage Association determined that over 50% of bar and restaurant owners fear the outcome of smoking bans that are mandated by government. 91% of the bar owners and 72% of the restaurant owners said they would prefer to make decisions on the smoking issue themselves. [ 1 ] Studies done on smoking bans in restaurants (especially in California) that state that little or no loss of business will occur have had major flaws and have been misrepresented in the media. First of all fast food restaurants and full service restaurants have all been lumped together for analysis. Smoking bans do not effect fast food restaurants near as much as full service restaurants because a high percentage of consumers never even enter because of drive-up windows. Also In many parts of the state restaurants were given a grace period of "years" before enforcement was demanded. Smoking went on as usual because of the resistance to it. Also many cities reported by the authors to be "smoke free" were indeed not.[2] The tale that the California State Board of Equalization (the agency that issues permits for restaurants and bars) tells is quit a striking one. For the years 1994- 1999 fast food permits rose by 12.7%, but permits for full service restaurants and bars fell by 1039. 1039 bars and restaurants closed during a time when the economy was red hot. This is more than triple the rate of failures (293) in the not as good economy from 1989-1993.[3] Some facts about bars in California According to a survey by KPMG Peat Marwick: *60% have lost business, the average being 26.2% *50% report increased fights and customer complaints *Almost 30% had layoffs or cut working hours *59% reported loss of tips *65% reported loss of regular customers. [4] In Canada's British Colombia, Last year (2000) smoking was banned for 80 days virtually everywhere. About the only exemption was private homes and vehicles. The Coalition of Hospitality Organizations there reported 730 jobs lost, 9 business that went bankrupt and $100 million in lost business, in less than three months! [5] Smoking bans in bowling alleys and bingo halls have another story to tell. It was reported in the Dallas Morning News (8-3-95) that due to a smoking ban in Plano, the Super Bowl bowling alley was losing $15,000 a week and had laid off 18 of 63 employees.[6] >From Waterloo, Ontario, Canada and New York state come stories of massive losses for charities due to smoking bans in bingo halls and churches. The Catholic Charities bingo income in Staten Island fell from $7 to 8 thousand a week to about $4400. School tuition will have to be raised. In Oakwood 190 players a week have fallen to 120 and the church is at break even. They may shut down the bingo operation altogether.[7] In Waterloo, Ontario the Cambridge Bingo Centre lost 5/2/01 Page 2 of 3 $100,000 in January 2000 aIone for area charities. Losses were expected to hit $3.6 million by the end of 2000. Close to 90 charities were hit with up to a 30% fall in income due to the smoking ban. [8] Here is the bottom line. All these massive losses are due to a "social movement". This movement has high government connections and a favorable press who, for the most part look the other way when something comes along to discredit it. The "dangers" of passive smoking can be explained away easily. Smoking bans are "zero tolerance" for the trace amounts of carcinogens that tobacco smoke puts into the air. Other carcinogens are in the air we breath from many sources, in the water we drink and in the foods we eat. There are ten of thousands of them and can be found almost everywhere. If all sources of carcinogens were judged in the same manor as passive smoke, modern life as we 'know it would not be possible. The short list of what would have to be banned is coffee, water, wine (or any fruit or vegetable drink) apples, strawberries, cauliflower, cabbage, peaches, celery, lettuce, potatoes, carrots, broccoli and mushrooms. This is only the short food list.[9] Smoking and smokers have been singled out for attack and are judged by different standards than is the scientific norm. The premise that passive smoking can cause anything more than irritation forgets that people have immune systems and that the dose makes the poison. Every study ever done on the risks of passive smoke points to the fact that no harm is a good possibility. Some studies have reported a small risk, but that small of a risk was a concern to no one before science got bastardized into serving the needs of trial lawyers and those who wish to scare us into regulation. It would seem at times that the major media in this nation is but a PR firm for anti smokers. Many significant studies and analysis of the passive smoking issue that destroys the "health risk" aspects of the argument have been ignored by them. For instance The World Health Organization, the very people who are exporting smoking bans and excise tax increases to most of the nations of world have had major studies that state neither the dangers passive smoking or smokings relationship to causing heart disease is as major as claimed.[10] Do you read this in the pages of your newspaper? There are more studies that point to examples of "outright falsification".[11] The science and the motivation that the EPA used to kick start most smoking bans to begin with was VACATED in US District Court in 1998. [ 12] In other words annul, set aside, rescind, render a act or j udgement void. [12] Are we clear? Are there any questions? If anti-smokers, politicans and public health officials want smoke-free restaurants, bowling alleys and bingo halls, it is time for them all to dig deep into there own pockets, put up the money and build it themselves. Find the people who will support such an establishment, and live and breath happily ever after. Dave Pickrell-President and founder Smokers Fighting Discrimination, Inc. A not for profit organization P O Box 5472 Katy, Tx 77491 Phone/Fax 281-347-8780 E-mail: sfdsmokeghal-pc.org Web: www.geocities,com/sfd-usaJmain SFD is 100% Grass-roots funded REFERENCES 5/2/01 Page 3 of 3 1. Smoking ban plan worries many firms, Houston Chronicle, 10-25-96 http://hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusa/etsresS.html 2. National Smokers Alliance Press Release, 4-23-97 At Issue: The Meaning of "Smoke-Free" http://hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusaJetsresl 9.html 3. California State Board of Equalization 4. Guests Choice Network Article 15 http://www.guestchoice.com/artl 5 .html 5. WBC must undertake economic impact study on new smoking regs: Mc Phail, Yahoo Finance, 8-25-00 http://hanuner.prohosting.com/-sfdusa/etsres34 .html 6. Restaurants say smokers, business returning, Dallas Morning News 8-3-95 http://hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusa/etsres9.html 7. Bingo profits fading like smoke, Staten Island Advance 12-30-99 http://hammer,prohosfin2~c. con~/-sfdusa/bingol .html 8. No smoking bylaw costing us thousands, charities say, Kitchener-Waterloo (Ontario, Canada) Record 1-28-00 http://hammer.prohosting.corn/-sfdusa/bingo2.html 9. The Perils of Risk-Free Cancer Policy, Malcolm Ross, EPA Watch, 2-28-95 10a. Study Fails to Link Passive Smoking with Cancer, London Daily Telegraph 10-11-98 httpl//hammer,prohosting.com/-sfdusajetsl6.html I 0b. Study Casts Doubt on Heart "Risk Factors", London Daily Telegraph 8-25-98 http://hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusa/cfndr- 10,htm! 11. Environmental Tobacco Smoke and Coronary Heart Syndromes: Absence of an Association, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 21, 281-295 (1995) 12. & 13. FORCES Evidence - The EPA ETS Fraud http://hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusaJetsl 1 .html 5/2/01 Page 1 of 3 Marjan Karr From: Smokers Fighting Discrimination [sfdsmoke@hal-pc.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 6:23 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Proposed Smoking Ban, Submission 2 Dear Mayor and Council Members; We oppose the proposed smoking ban in restaurants and other public places. The following quote from Sidney Zion, a writer for the New York Daily News sums up this argument better than anything I have heard. It is concerning another proposed total smoking ban in New York City. It appeared in the New York Daily News, 4-11-00: "I make no case that cigarette smoking isn't harmful to health, but every time I write against those who would forbid it, I'm accused of wishing the death of children". "I'm sick of it. And more sick of the refusal of intelligent people and politicians to look at the evidence .......... So the way it works is we stick with fake science and reject the truth?" The whole writing can be found at http://hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusa/etsres20.html My name is Dave Pickrell, President and founder of Smokers Fighting Discrimination, Inc., a not for profit smokers rights group in Katy, Texas (just outside Houston) and I really have better things to do with my life than write the members of the Iowa City Council concerning the proposed smoking ban. But what I have see in the past few years concerning junk science and public policy based on it scares me to death. It must be fought where ever it is found and defeated. A cancer has been growing in this country, a cancer that uses public health for changing social norms of legitimate business. This movement uses junk science, emotional hype and outright fraud to get its point across. Most of the time it is protected by the media. Where is the proof, you ask? Our web page has actual newspaper articles, writings, and critical reviews of actual studies important to this debate. If you had a crystal ball that could tell you the future, you could have a better understanding of how this might effect your city. The next best thing is reading how doing what you are considering doing has effected other cities and communities. Public Health, no doubt can give you lots of information on the harms of passive smoking and how bans do not hurt in other communities. But they will not give you the opportunity to see what SFD can show you, how twisted, false and hollow what they say is. THE QUESTIONS How real are the claims that smoking bans do not hurt restaurants and bar revenues in cities where it has been observed? http://hammer.prohosting~om/-stitusa/etsres 19.html http://hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusa/etsresl 8,html 5/2/01 Page 2 of 3 http://hammer.prohosting.corrd-sfdusajetsres9.html http://hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusadetsresl 5.html http://hammer,prohostin~g.com/-sfdusa/etsres32.html http://hammer.prohosting.corn/-sfdusajetsbarl6.html What about the so called junk science? http://hammer.prohostin_g. corod-sfdusa/etsres2.html http://hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusa/etsres6.html Do smoking bans cost jobs? http://hammer.prohostin~.com/-sfdusaJetsres7.html http://hmnmer.prohosting.com/-sfdusa/etsbar9.htm! How do effected business owners and managers feel? http;//hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusa/etsres8 .html http://hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusa/etsres31 .html http://www.geocities.com/sfd-usaJlibsec7 .html http://www.geocities.com/sfd-usa/libsec6.html One the last 2 links there are dozens of articles about how effected owners, employees and customers feel about their rights and livelihood. Should we be concerned about possible lawsuits? http://hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusaJetsresl 1 .html http;//hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusa/etsres26.html http://hammer.prohosting.com/~sfdusa/etsres29 .html http://hammer,prohosting.com/-sfdusa/etsbarl0,html http://hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusa/etsbarl 3 .html http://hammer.prohosting.com/-sfdusa/etsbarl4.html The Iowa City Council has a major decision on it's hands. The concept of "tobacco control" is just that, control where it is not wanted or needed, based on the "thin ice" of evidence presented. Council would be wise to turn and run from such a control devise. Thank you for your time. 5/2/01 Page 3 of 3 Dave Pickrell-President Smokers Fighting Discrimination, Inc. A not for profit organization P O Box 5472 Katy, TX 77491 Phone: 281-347-8780 E-mail: sfdsmoke@hal-pc.org Web page: www.geocities,com/sfd-usa SFD is 100% grassroots funded 5/2/01 Page 1 of 2 Marian Karr From: Smokers Fighting Discrimination [sfdsmoke@hal-pc.org] Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 6:25 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Proposed Smoking Ban, Submission 3 WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF YOU WERE TREATED LIKE A SMOKER? Smoking bans are everywhere in todays society. The picture of smokers outside in the elements, on days both good and bad are a common sight. The assumption is that this is for the common good, that passive smoke is unsafe to breath at any level. This issue needs to be put in perspective. Smoking bans are "zero tolerance" for the 43 carcinogens found in tobacco smoke. I guess it is not important the 19 carcinogens found in the cup of coffee you just drank. Goodbye coffee, your too dangerous to have in my life. Maybe water. No the standards on water allow an acceptable level of contaminates and carcinogens. Shouldn't it be made perfect and risk flee in order to drink it? Goodbye water. How about fruit and vegetable juices? No, carcinogens there also. Even your veggies should be banned! Do you mind if I breath? Yes as a matter of fact, it allows exposure to outdoor air pollution and naturally occurring carcinogens in the air. Industry pumps pollutants into the air everyday in order for us to have a high standard of living. From gas for our cars to plastic trash can liners to TV sets, it creates pollution. We can't have that. Well what then, do we go back to the horse and buggy days? No! There is that awful stuff that comes out from the back end of a horse and it gets everywhere! I think a point is being made. The dose makes the poison and trace amounts of carcinogens and contaminates are everywhere, tobacco smoke included. Even government regulators nnderstand (and has been public policy since the beginning) that perfection is not needed, the cost is too high. Smokers are now expected to meet these high standards whenjust about everything else gets a pass. Is passive smoking so dangerous that extreme actions are warranted? The science says no. The media, government regulator and political hype says yes. The science says, in plain english that every study ever done on passive smoking would not pass minimum standards of a risk danger if the study was done in 1980 (Back before science was used to serve a social and political agenda). Since then the standards have been changed on "targets of attack" (like passive smoking) to justify regulation. The US District Court has even established legal precedent to this fact. Even small and undeterminable risks are considered "major" when "zero tolerance" is the aim. In schools where "zero tolerance" for weapons are enforced, even tingemail clippers are considered a danger. In both of these examples, common sense is out the window. The war on smoking is a social movement that claims "science" as its justification. That speaks volumes about how little risk assessment has been allowed to be taught to the general public and how people in high places use this ignorance to justify "Thinking and acting for us". The misery index for most smokers now is off the charts. If there was a good reason for smoking bans backed up by something credible, it could be understood by smokers and respected. The point now is that if everything was judged by the same standards as smokers are expected to meet, modern life as we know it could no be allowed. It would be to dangerous. All smokers want is a little fairness, respect and to be judged by the same standards that are good enough for almost everything and everybody else. 5/2/01 Page 2 of 2 Dave Pickrell President and Founder Smokers Fighting Discrimination, Inc. A not for profit organization PO Box 5472 Katy, Tx 77491 Phone/fax: 281-347-8780 E-mail: sfdsmoke@hal-pc.org Web page: www.geocities.com/sfit-usa SFD is 100% grass roots funded. 5/2/01 Marian Karr I os-ts-o~ ~ From: e-line@webtv.net 3e(14) Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 5:07 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: No to smoking ban! The recent Gazette article called this what it is: a "social change." Funny, I wasn't aware the council was elected to be social engineers (or in loco parentis to the adults of this city.) If so it becomes kind of spooky to contemplate where this might end. Will the council next dictate what food can be served in restaurants, weaning us slowly from bad-for-our-health meat, not to mention the hazard to restaurant workers of well-known airborne toxins emitted from the grill? How about regulating the noise levels in restaurants? Too many decibels, we know, are bad for the ears and the wait staff has to listen to the din for a whole shift. A no-talking/no-laughing rule would do wonders for community health and only fools would argue that it might hurt business. Sam Stewart From: Karen Kubby [kkubby@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu] Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 ~:3B PM To: council@iowa-cRy.org Subject: PORB May 8, 2001 Dear City Council, The local newspapers have indicated that a majority of you are interested in continuing the Police Citizens Review Board. If this is true, I am very glad to know this. The paper also indicated that the form the Board would take would change. That the PCRB would no longer have any responsibilities about helping discuss, create or oversee policy making at the Iowa City Police Department. It is this part of your conversation that raises concerns for me. The original intent of the PCRB seemed twofold: 1. To create a vehicle whereby citizens could go to relay concerns about the police department that was not the police themselves. 2. To have a citizen body that would oversee and participate in policy making for and with the police department. It is the combination of these original desires that created the accountability that was intended. If anything, I hope that you will increase the responsibilities of the PCRB. Ideally, our PCRB would have as much power as State law allows such a body to possess. In our democratic society, it is important to have such accountability for a department that holds such special privileges and responsibilities in our society, culture and in Iowa City. They have the power to arrest, the power to use force and the power to use lethal methods. It is because of these powers, that the community deserves to have special oversight and attention paid to our police department. As there continues to be discussion in our community about policing practices and emphasis (the Drug Task Force), it seems that having some form of "independent" accountability for the police department is desired by the citizens of Iowa City. Please consider these thoughts as you deliberate the form the PCRB will take as you remove the sunset clause. In Peace, Karen Kubby Dan Gould FI L. / 100 Quadrangle Building, Room 2128 ~21]OI HAY -7 PH 2: 28 Iowa city, IA 52242 Mayor Ernest W. Lehman WA CITY,, IOWA 410 E. Washington St 5 Iowa City, IA 52240 Dear Mayor Lehman, My name is Dan Gould and I am currently a fleshman at the University of Iowa. I am sure the issue ofpesticide use on the campus has already been brought to your attention, but I am writing to further illustrate the need to change the use of chemicals that can be hazardous to the health of the students and other residents of Iowa City. The use of lawn pesticides and chemicals has been a standard practice for a very long time. However, as other, safer alternatives are being found, it is time for us to make the switch here in Iowa City. The use of chemical lawn treatment is not only bad for the environment, but is creating a health hazard to students on campus as well as polluting the Iowa River. Although the current chemicals being used are a lot more inexpensive, it isn't fair to the 29,000 students on campus. The primary concem here is that students are getting sick from the pesticide use. I personally get headaches and start to sneeze when I pass by areas that have been recently sprayed. Other people too have reported feeling dizzy and nauseous from being outside, and some have appealed to the Health Protection department. "The UI uses numerous and potentially hazardous pesticides and herbicides on campus grounds, including on the Pentattest, where many students lie in the grass to study and enjoy the nice weather," says Nick Klenske in the Daily Iowa. While it might not be deemed cost effective to stop using pesticides because of a reason like this, there are more issues to be considered. If prospective students come to visit the University and they get sick from the chemicals, they are obviously not going to be leaving with a good impression of the school. And the price of loosing students far outweighs the extra few thousand dollars a year to ensure that this won't happen. There is also the potential danger of someone suing the university for infection from these dangerous substances. An organic alternative should definitely be considered to insure that none of these things happen. The leading pesticide used is Trimec, which contains 2, 4-D, an herbicicle suspected of causing cancer, liver damage, anorexia, as well as several other terrible ailments. It is a cousin to Agent Orange, and is constantly being written up as a huge risk to the environment. While most pesticide companies deny how hazardous it really is, they still have labels on their products that exercise use of caution, no use on windy days, etc. While we might not see any huge troubles right now, perhaps 10 or 15 years down the line, people will start coming down with these diseases. We can't afford to continue usage because we don't see any great harm fight now. Another issue to be looked into is the currein State of the Iowa River. Especially this year, with all the flooding that has occurred, water levels have risen drastically. When the water levels rise, they start to wash up on parts of the banks and erode some of the soil. However in some areas the soil it is washing away has been treated with pesticides, and now flows right into the water. This poses many risks, including ground water contamination, damage of the marine ecosystem, as well as clean up of chemical filled water. Not only would these things be hard to fix, but they would end up costing the City an incredible amount of money. Iowa State University has been using organic alternatives for the last few years. While they are paying a lot more for their herbicides, the result is clear. There are no health risks to the students, and virtually no complaints being issued. It would be in oar best interests to follow their example and give in. The use of traditional pesticides is outdated, and if we don't want to be left behind, there is a necessity to switch. We need to assess both short and long term effects, and realize that it is definitely not worth the risk to save the equivalent of a few penrues. According to the Daily Iowa, the university pays $15 per acre to use Trimec around academic buildings; corn gluten costs $350400 per acre, said Nick Christians, an Iowa State University professor of horticulture. In the long rim, compared to the total income of the city, this is really not that much of a burden. The health of the student body is a priority that should be not be held second to the profit of the city. Something needs to be done, because the current situation is not acceptable. Choosing not take action on lawn care because of high prices is one thing, but when we are talking about the health and well being of our peers, we cannot stand idle. The students have the right to a clean envimament just like everyone else does, and it is unfair to potentially harm them, especially while most don't even realize that the brilliant green grass is treated with pesticides. A switch to an organic pesticide needs to be made now, and the thoughts of keeping up the beauty of the campus need to be put aside. I hope this will persuade you to help battle against the use of the harmful chemicals in Iowa City. Thank you very much for you time and efforts you have already done for Iowa City. Sincerely, Dan Gou~ Marian Karr B 05-15-01 ~ From: sater@actorg 3e(17) Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 8:35 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Seeking some information I usually use the sidewalks each day walking and running and often are on Muscatine Ave. For the last 6 weeks around 1514 Muscatine a barrier has been constructed on the public sidewalk with yellow tape. During this same time several other barriers have appears, people have done repair work and they have been removed. The longest any other barrier stayed up was one week. I have looked at the section of sidewalk and on the surface don~t even see any problems but I do realize there could be some type of hole below ground that one can not see. My question: 1. Is this barricade one that Iowa City put in place because there is a dangerous situation at this location? 2. If they did, why is it dangerous enough to keep up the barrier but not dangerous enough to fix as some many other spots on the sidewalk have been fixed at the same time? 3. If this barrier was not put in place by Iowa City but by the property owner, why is this person being allowed to block the use of a public sidewalk for such a long period of time when there is no evidence that any work has been done or plans to be done on the sidewalk? Since sidewalks are public property it does always concern me when they are removed from use and there is no clear reason why this has happened and there is no evidence that any repairs are planned. This situation makes it difficult to use this area since going around make one work past a light pole on one side and up a hill on the other side of the barricade, Tom Saterfiel 49 Samuel Drive Iowa City Marian Karr ~= 0s-Is-01 _ From: Todd McCafferty [mccaff@pianoinav.net] 3e(18) Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 10:56 PM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: Carnegie Library Hay 2, 2001 Dear Council Hemburs: It was recently brought to my attention that plans are underway to demolish the Carnegie Library and construct yet another apartment building for student housing. TO allow this to happen would be a gross injustice to the community of Iowa City. As it is now, the use of the downtown is dominated by college students. Any given night of the week you find loud music blaring from Brothers Bar and Grill, and numerous college students, some drunk, some not, milling around the pedestrian mall. Building another apartment within "stumbling distance" of the numerous downtown bars, further robs the established, tax paying citizens of Iowa City the use of the pedestrian mall and fuels the problem of underaged drinking the city is already dealing with. I have two small children, ages 3 and 6. Hy wife and I no longer take them to the downtown play area in the evenings because we don't want them to witness the irresponsible behavior that the college students display after a few too many drinks at one of 10 to 12 (I've lost count) pedestrian mall bars. No one would disagree that the majority of downtown iowa City businesses are oriented towards the college students. On a recent visit to Boulder and Fort Collins, Colorado, I was amazed to find how family and conmlunity oriented their downtown's were. Fort Collins has art galleries, children's toy and learning stores, as well as Pendelton clothing and other like stores. Boulder was a delight to visit. There are numerous quaint eateries, small specialty shops, cast bronze animals for kids to climb on and several street performers which draw kids and adults alike. This is the type of downtown that Iowa City needs. City council members must do mere to attract these types of businesses. Rather than destroying a beautiful old building and replacing it with another apartment full of drunken college students, every measure imaginable needs to be taken to save and restore the Carnegie Library. Let this be the first step to taking back our downtown and making it into the family friendly place that Iowa City needs. Sincerely, Todd HcCa£ferty 1122 E. College St. iowa City Marian Karr ~ 05-15-01 ~ From: rudolf kuenzli [rudolf-kuenzli@uiowa.edu] 3e('l 9) Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 12:29 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Subject: old library Dear Council Members, We are writing to voice our dismay at the projected demolition of the old library by Mr. Clark. Tomorrow evening the Longfellow Neighborhood Association has a meeting featuring a panel of speakers which will prevent us from attending the public hearing on the library, therefore this email comes to you instead. Does the City really want to see part of its cultural heritage bulldozed to make way for yet another block of wall to wall apartments downtown? Mr. Clark is already the largest private property tax payer in the town. When is enough enough? The old Carnegie library structure symbolizes what it is that has put Iowa City on the national map: an educated, reading citizenry. LIke the Englert theatre, it represents the cultural life in this town. Surely an imaginative architect could come up with an adaptive reuse of the property that would preserve this part of our civic history. Given the number and the density of the high rise apartments which are located just behind the library, it would be a relief to see some green space created between them and the original Carnegie structure. Knock off the flimsy newer addition from the back of the library and provide some green space for the adjacent apt. dwellers and for the office workers who might be located in the renovated Carnegie building, just as City employees enjoy the green space opposite the Civic Center. Sincerely, Cecile and Ruedi Kuenzli 705 South Summit St. Iowa City, Iowa 52240 Marjan Karr 05-~5':~m'ram~ From: Jeremy Faden [jbf@cottagesystems.com] L 3e(20) Sent: Tuesday. May 08, 2001 8:12 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Cc: jbf@cottagesystems.com Subject: Carnegie Library Dear City Council Member, Please consider delaying the demolition of the Old Carnegie Library so there is time to make a sound descision on the future of the building and lot. I understand the need for more housing in Iowa City, and I clearly see the potential for liability. For these reasons, I had no strong feelings about the whole issue other than I was sorry to see that someone would have the gall to tear down a building dear to so many people. Now I realize that the case is not so much about using landmark status to stop the building's destruction, as it is a developer trying to demolish a building before landmark status is awarded. I understand the downtown historic buildings survey is to be presented this month. I'm going to put up a garage this year, and I'll have to spend thousands to pave my driveway, because city ordinance requires me to. We set ordinances to engineer a pleasant community to live in. Ideally, no one should profit from building a lesser building which other people pay for by having to live with. I believe Mr. Clark is trying to work around the intent of our ordinance regarding landmarks by trying to beat the downtown buildings study to the finish line. The city takes on no liability by delaying the process. It seems possible to me that the building does not qualify for landmark status, but I would certainly like to find out. Let's provide the Historic Preservation Commission time to decide. I believe this highly-visible story is critical to the future of historic preservation in Iowa City. To prevent the preservation groups from exploring landmark feasibility would be to give a clear message that preservation has zero importance in our town. Lastly, working with the Englert group, I've met so many people that feel alienated by our downtown. It is essential that we preserve the buildings that so many citizens have grown up with. Let's not be careless in guiding the development of our city. This issue needs careful consideration that requires a delay of the demolition. Thank-you for taking the time to read this. Jeremy Faden Friends of Historic Preservation Boardmember Englert Civic Theatre Boardmember Iowa City Citizen Marian Karr [ 05-15-01 "- From: Mar~ha Gordon [Martha-Gordon@uiowa.edu] 3e(21 ) Sent: Tuesday, May 08.2001 9:25 AM To: council@iowa-city,org Subject: Old Library I noticed a sign on the old library this morning (5-8-01) and am concerned about its future. I would not like to see it demolished. I fear we are losing our downtown to giant apartment/parking structure/commercial buildings that do not reflect the small town essence of Iowa City. I would not like to see our old AC Library razed. I would like to see the front entrance restored. I am a private citizen who owns property about eight blocks from downtown on College Street. As a private, tax-paying citizen, I hope you will consider my wishes. Thank you. Marian Karr 05-15-01 From: Maggie Rochelle [margaret-rochelle@uiowa.edu] L Sent: Tuesday. May 08, 2001 10:16 AM To: council@iowa-city.org Dear City Council Members, I am astonished to learn that there is a proposal under consideration to demolish our Carnegie Library. Surely this very significant, important and beautiful historic landmark of our city's history could not be considered in any way less important than new development! I was shocked to learn, shortly after moving here ten years ago, of the sacrifice of Iowa Cityls original downtown architecture for the now virtually deserted though not-so-01d Capital Mall. And just yesterday a front page rendition of refurbishing plans the The Mall, designed, from the look of it, for resuscitators of this hulking, featureless box to make a shallow, cosmetic stab at homogenized old world charm via "storefronts" and a few baubles. What waste! How can a town so richly intelligent in its population allow such disrespect for history, and incur this permanent and irretrievable harm.? And now, the Carnegie library? PLEASE vote this proposal down! Insist that developers respect our past, our landmarks, and values which see further than the almighty dollar; that they employ creative intelligence. Adaptive re-use, please. And call the "old library" what it is: one of our most significant, and few remaining historic landmarks. Marjan Karr ~ 05-15-01 From: Delbert Disselhorst [delbert-disselhorst@uiowa.edu] 3e(23) Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2001 2:34 PM To: councii@iowa-city.org Subject: Old Library Members of IC City Council - It is very disheartening indeed to know that there is movement afoot to raze the Carnegie Library. There are so few really distinctive buildings of this nature in the downtown area that it surely could be preserved and made usable for other purposes. It should be granted Historical Status by the city. Please consider the seriousness of the plan--once the building is gone, that's it! We need no further apartment buildings or parking ramps downtown and I suspect that space would be a prime location for something unnecessary of that nature. City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM DATE: April 26, 2001 TO: City Clerk FROM: Beth Pfohl, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner RE: Item for May 15, 2001 City Council Meeting: Installation of a NO PARKING HERE TO CORNER sign and a NO PARKING CORNER TO HERE sign at the intersection of Fourth Avenue and A Street As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3A of the City code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action. Action: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(10), signs indicating NO PARKING HERE TO CORNER and NO PARKING CORNER TO HERE will be erected on the northeast corner of the Fourth Avenue-A Street intersection to aid visibility. Comment: This action is being taken due to motorists parking around the corner of the Fourth Avenue and A Street intersection causing restricted visibility for motorists. jw/mem/bp~+th&adoc ' m City of Iowa City M O RAN D U M ' DATE: May 1, 2001 TO: City Clerk FROM: Beth Pfohl, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner RE: Item for May 15, 2001 City Council Meeting: Installation of two NO PARKING COMMERCIAL VEHICLE LOADING ZONE signs on the north side of Harrison Street west of Madison Street As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3A of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action. Action: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(18) of the City Code, two signs indicating NO PARKING 2AM TO 6AM TOW AWAY ZONE on the top half and COMMERCIAL VEHICLE LOADING ZONE 2 HOUR LIMIT ENFORCED 6AM TO 5PM on the lower half, will be installed on the north side of Harrison Street west of Madison Street. Comment: This action is being taken at the request of the University. Commuters are parking vehicles in this area and blocking access to a Hydraulics Lab building for University commercial vehicles. jccogtp/mem/hydlab.doc City of Iowa City M MORANDUM Date: May 7, 2001 To: City Clerk From: Beth Pfohl, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner~'~ Re: Item for May 15, 2001 City Council meeting: Placement of NO PARKING 8 A.M. - 5 P.M. MON-FRI signs on the north side of Gould Street between Holt Avenue and Beldon Avenue As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3A of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action. Action: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(10), signage indicating NO PARKING 8 A.M.- 5 P.M. MON-FRI will be erected on the north side of Gould Street between Holt Avenue and Beldon Avenue. This action is being taken at the request of Gould Street residents based on a neighborhood survey. The signs will be enforced on a complaint basis. City of Iowa City M MORANDUM Date: May 7, 2001 To: City Clerk From: Beth Pfohl, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Planner ~(2 Re: Item for May 15, 2001 City Council meeting: Placement of 2 HR LIMIT PARKING 8 A.M.- 5 P.M. MON-FRI signs on the west side of Beldon Avenue between Oakridge Avenue and Park Road As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3A of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action. Action: Pursuant to Section 9~1-3A(10), signage indicating 2 HR LIMIT PARKING 8 A.M.-5 P.M. MON- FRI will be erected on the west side of Beldon Avenue between Oakridge Avenue and Park Road. Comment: This action is being taken at the request of Beldon Avenue residents based on a neighborhood survey, The signs will be enforced on a complaint basis. Jccogtp\rnemos\beldon.doc City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: May 8, 2001 To: City Clerk From: Beth Pfohl, JCCOG Traffic Engineering Plann~"~ Re: Item for May 15, 2001 City Council meeting: Placement of NO PARKING TUESDAY THURSDAY 8 A.M. - 5 P.M. As directed by Title 9, Chapter 1, Section 3A of the City Code, this is to advise the City Council of the following action. Action: Pursuant to Section 9-1-3A(10), signage indicating NO PARKING TUESDAY THURSDAY 8 A.M - 5 P.M. will be erected on the west side of Johnson Street between Washington Street and Iowa Avenue. Comment: These signs will replace existing signage indicating NO PARKING TUESDAY THURSDAY SATURDAY. This action is being taken at the request of Agudas Achim Synagogue to accommodate their patrons during Saturday events. There is not extensive commuter parking in this area on Saturday. jccogtp\memo\agudas doc PARKING UPDATE Tower Place parking has opened for business! As of June 4th, 2001 parking options for senior Center permit holders will undergo the f~llowing changes: 1. Reserved parking spaces in the Chauncey Swan Parking Ramp will be reduced to 10 spaces. Current Senior Cer~ter parking permit holders will be able to park in these spaces free of charge until July 1, 2001. 2. Shuttle service between the Chauncey Swan Ramp and Senior Center will be discontinued. 3. All current Senior Center parking permits will be honored at Tower Place and Parking until July 1, 2001. 4. To be eligible for up to 6 hours of free parking per visit, current permit holders must bring their "spitter ticket" to the Senic~r Center Receptionist for validation. The driver picks up the "spitter ticket" eac. ffi time he or she enters the ramp. The validation process will be similar to th~ one used in the downtown park and shop program. 5. Tower Place permit holders must present the ramp attendant with an appropriately validated "spitter ticket" whetI exiting the ramp. Without a prepedy validated "spitter ticket" and a cu~ent Senior Center parking permit on display, all parking costs will be the responsibility of the parker. 6. Individuals parking in Tower Place can park in any non-designated available space. The Senior Center does not have ireserved parking in the ramp. 7. Handicap parking in front of the Senior Center on Linn Street will remain designated exclusively for Senior Center parking permit holders until the completion of the skywalk. 8. On July 1, 2001 the parking program approved by the Senior Center Commission and the City Council earlier this year will be implemented. (See attached document for specific details.) Permits for this program will go on sale in mid-June. All permit sales will take place at the Senior Center, 9. Please call Michelle Buhman with any questions at 356-5221. Senior Center Particil ant Parking July 1, 2001 Location 1. The Senior Center offers a discounted panking ~regrem in Tower Place and Panking for registered Senior Center participants. The }regram is in effect between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday threugh Fdday and frem 10:30 a.m. and 1:30 p.m. on Saturday, Panking in the ramp is free on Sunday. Special parking arrangements will be made by ~e Senior Center staff to accommodate panking for Senior Center programming occurring on evenings and weekends. 2. Handicapped Parking There are six handicapped panking spaces in the Tower Place panking remp specifically designated for Senior Center use. These designated spaces are located in the following areas: · 4 on 3'd level adjacent to the skywalk. · 2 on 4th level near the elevator (west ehd). While not designated for exclusive Senior Ce 'ter use, there are 10 additional any of these spaces. 3. General Parking There is open panking available in all non-reserved areas of Tower Place for Senior Center participants who are participating in the Senior Centers panking program. 50 spaces in Tower Place and Parking will be held back from public use until 11 a.m. Monday through Saturday. At 11:00 a.m. thes9 spaces will be made available for public use. 4. Additional Parking There will be ten spaces designated for Senior Center use in the Chauncey Swan Ramp (CSR) from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. Monday through Saturday. After 1 p.m. these Senior Center designated spaces will be open for public use. Cost 1. Parking Option I Registered Senior Center participants may pu~'chase a panking permit for Tower Place at a cost of $50.00 par year. With proper validation, this permit authorizes up to 6 hours of free panking per visit. ~ Annual panking permits will be sold for $50.00 jin June and be effective from July I to June 30 of the following year. 1 Semi-annual (6 month) parking permits will be sold for $25.00 ~'n June and December. Semi-annual permits sold in June will be effective from July 1 to December 31 of lie same year. Semi-annuall permits sold in December will be effective from January 1 through June 30 of tl~ following year. Replacements for either annual or semi-annual lost permits will be sold at a cost of $10.00. 2. Parking Option II Registered Senior Center participants may purchase a permit for lie CSR for $10.00 per year. This permit authorizes lie person to park in any available Senior Center designated space in the CSR. Parkers using liis option must pay $0.20 an hlour for parking. There is no shuttle or transportation service b~tween lie Senior Center and lie CSR. Permits for lie Tower Place parking facility wiil be valid in the CSR, but parking will still cost $0.20 an hour. Replacements for lost CSR permits will be sol :t at a cost of $5.00. 3. On a one-year tdal basis parking permit costs for Tower Place and Parking (Option I) will be subsidized for qualifying low income individuals. The cost of the subsidized permit to lie individual will be $10.00 annually. The remaining permit cost ($40.00) will be funded lirough lie Gift Fund. To qualify for a Subsidized parking permit, one of the following conditions must apply: · Current participant in lie City Utility Discount Program · Redpient of Medicaid benefits · Recipient of Food Stamps · Partialpant in the City of Iowa City Assisted Housing Program with an annual household income at or below 30% of lie median income of Iowa City. · Redpient of Supplemental Secudty Income (SSI) · Participant in the State Eldedy and Disabled Property Tax Credit Claim or Rent Reimbursement Claim Program See lie Senior Center Coordinator for more details about liis program. Validation 1. Each person parking in Tower Place must bring a "spitter ticker in to lie Center for validation. Parking validation for the Senior Center will be similar to lie meliod used in the downtown park and shop program. 2. Tower Place permit holders must present lie ramp attendant will an appropriately validated ticket when exiling lie ramp. Without;a propedy validated "spitter licket", as well as a current parking permit for Tower Place on display, all parking costs will be lie responsibility of lie parker. 3. There is a 6 hour maximum parking allowance Monday lirough Fdday. Anything beyond 6 hours will be chargod to lie parker at lie standard houdy rate. 2 Marjan Karr From: Solow, Catherine [catherine-solow@uiowa.edu] 9 Sent: Monday, May 07, 2001 3:31 PM To: 'council@iowa-city.org' Subject: revised alcohol ordinance Dear Council Members: I am writing to express my appreciation for your support of the revised alcohol ordinance. While we all understand that there are many ways to combat the problem of high risk drinking, this is an important step in holding bar owners and servers accountable. The Iowa City community will benefit from your willingness to support this legislation. Cathy Solow 607 Templin Road Iowa City, IA 52246 4. There is a 2 hour maximum parking allowance on Saturday, Anything beyond 2 hours will be charged to the parker at the stan4dard hourly rate. 5. Twenty additional minutes of free parking will be allowed to provide participants time to walk between the ramp and Center when entering and leaving the ramp. This totals 40 minutes of: pedestrian "travel time" each visit. 6. Senior Center volunteers who have been wor~ing on a Senior Center program in excess of 6 hours should see one of the profe~ssional staff members (Coordinator, Volunteer Specialist or Program Specialist) in iorder to have the maximum number of allowable parking hours extended. This requites the signature of the professional staff member. 7. Individuals who lose their parking ticket while ~t the Senior Center must obtain a replacement ticket from the Senior Center SeCretary. Failure to obtain a properly validated replacement ticket before leaving the Center will result in standard parking fees for a lost parking ticket and will be the responsibility of the individual. Miscellaneous 1. When the skywalk is opened, all handicapped~parking directly in front of the building on Linn Street will be designated for metered, lpublic use. 2. When the skywalk is opened there will be a d~signated pedestrian drop off area in the ramp near the skywalk entrance with seatihg available. 3. The Senior Center will retain the loading zone in front of the Washington Street entrance to the building. 4. All parking arrangements and associated costs for in-house agency volunteers and staff are the responsibility of the agency. 5. All parkers, regardless of the parking option selected, must be a registered Senior Center participant and have a Senior Center parking permit displayed in their vehicle to participate in the Senior Center parking program. 6. Paid employees of the Senior Center or any in-house agency or program that are eligible for Senior Center membership, shall net participate in the Senior Center parking program while working. 7. Holding a parking permit does not guarantee a parking spot. 8. Option I and Option II parking permits may be moved from one carte another within a single family, but a single permit will only provide parking benefits for one vehicle at a time. Two vehicles from the same family can not park in the ramp simultaneously using a single permit. 3