I think my last post failed to convey the drama and danger inherent in a Segway ride through Forest Park. That clip made the Segway riders look happy, innocent — like ordinary people just having fun in the park, who didn’t deserve to be heavily taxed. But with appropriate background music and cinematography, the true nature of Segways in Forest Park is revealed:
Make Way for Segways
Look at these people wreaking havoc in Forest Park with their Segways:
The aldermen would probably be concerned, but I think the Segway riders are just having a good time. You can see that the pedestrian is unharmed.
And over at Urban Review St. Louis, there’s a discussion of the proposed license. In the comments people link to statistics about Segways’ impact on the environment. It turns out they’re much more fuel-efficient than lots of other vehicles people drive around.
Coors-Miller HQ: Kansas City?
Maybe I’m a little late in getting this out, but last week the Miller-Coors merger talks focused on a neutral headquarters for the new conglomerate as the company hopes to take on St. Louis-based Anheuser-Busch, which controls just under half of the domestic beer market.
Perhaps Blog KC says it best when they comment that “such a move would give Missouri a monopoly on sh[!#$@] yellow beer.”
Not to mention one more thing to fight about.
A Tale of Two Subways
Sunday’s Post-Dispatch featured an article reporting that Metro, with the aid of its newly contracted security firm The Wackenhut Corp., will be increasing security on St. Louis’ MetroLink light-rail system. The expanded security force will not just be manpower-based, though, because Wackenhut plans to arm 80 percent of its security personnel in order to better protect the recent influx of riders the Highway 40 shutdown has brought to the 37-station system.
Although MetroLink has had a better security record than other similar transit systems around the country, trains do pass through areas where crime has been a problem, and a number of incidents have been reported since the line expanded in 2006. Metro’s response to the security concerns of citizens could be seen as a reaction to the crime concerns that were first mentioned by Randal O’Toole (and then were later grossly overexamined by members of the news media).
Without a doubt, a larger and better-armed security force will make riders feel safer, but will this feeling of security be worth $13.1 million in taxpayer money?
On a lighter note, the New York Times has a fun piece up on the unexpectedly correct use of the semicolon in recent subway advertisements. The grammarian in me couldn’t help but share and silently wish that I had a mastery of that most elusive part of punctuation.
Is 800 Years Old Enough?
Class Notes links to a post by Kevin Horner about the math wars in Columbia Public Schools. He includes a YouTube video that criticizes Everyday Math for, among other things, teaching the lattice multiplication method. Horner writes:
The methodologies of traditional mathematics remain the most efficient algorithms for solving mathematical problems. Advanced math and science are based on these very methods.
This is a great example of why we shouldn’t just say "No new math." Horner is assuming that the way he learned to multiply is the "traditional" and "most efficient" way. But as you can learn from a little research on Wikipedia, lattice multiplication has been around since 1202. It’s hard to be more traditional than that. Furthermore, lattice multiplication is algorithmically equivalent to long multiplication. That’s a mathy way of saying that you’re doing exactly the same thing and you’ll get exactly the same answer. Lattice multiplication is not a less efficient algorithm than long multiplication; it’s the same algorithm, written out in a way that looks different. (And in a way that might be easier to understand for some students.)
So if a method that was invented around the year 1200 is too new, how are kids supposed to learn math? With only the most ancient Chinese abacuses?
Parents should be able to choose new math — even if just for the simple reason that we can’t agree on which kinds of math are really "new."
Should St. Charles Councilmembers Get a Pay Raise?
The Saint Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the Saint Charles County Council is considering giving itself a pay raise. Now, those of you expecting or hoping for some populist diatribe against those damn politicians will be sorely disappointed, but I doubt many people fitting that description read this blog. (Point in fact: Nobody reads this blog.) For the sake of comparison, here is the chart copied from the article:
Proposed new pay for St. Charles County Council — $14,375
CURRENT AREA SALARIES:
St. Louis County Council $20,000 or $12,500*
St. Peters aldermen $14,525
St. Charles County Council $12,500
St. Charles City Council $10,200
O’Fallon City Council $7,600
Wentzville aldermen $5,500
Lake Saint Louis aldermen $5,500 or $2,400*
* Amount depends on when term began.
Two additions: St. Louis city aldermen, of which there are a lot (28), make a little more than $30,000 a year. Jackson County (aka, Kansas City area) councilmembers have a neat little trick, in that they earn 24 percent of whatever circuit judges earn, so in order to find out their salary you have to look up what judges make — which I don’t feel like doing. Circuit judges probably make right around $100,000, so for the sake of argument Jackson County councilmembers probably make around $24,000. Please remember that these are all part-time positions.
For the positions above that have two salaries listed, it is because pay raises can’t go into effect during one’s current term. So, for example, on the St. Louis County Council, which raised its own salary in 2005, you have people who joined the council in 2007 (Colleen Wasinger and Barbara Fraser) making a higher salary than people who have been on the council since 2001 (John Campisi and Michael O’Mara). That’s not a criticism of the law. I’m just pointing out how it works.
I don’t think any of the county council salaries discussed here are too high, nor is the proposed St. Charles raise inappropriate. I do think Saint Louis city pays too much, on the whole, for its Board of Aldermen salaries, but I would recommend lowering the number of aldermen rather than cutting their salaries. If salaries are too low, you limit the number of people who can consider serving — even among the already limited number of people interested in public service. Those who can serve for little or no money are limited to the retired, the independently wealthy, those whose spouses are the main breadwinners (no jokes, please), and those whose jobs work seamlessly into the position (such as a union business agent). You have to pay enough that it is worth the time for the majority of people to be able to do the job if they so choose — or, more exactly, if the voters so choose.
You also have to be careful not to pay too much. This is taxpayer money, after all, and these jobs are defined as part-time. With too high of a salary, you also get people interested in the position whose main goal — how do I put this nicely? — may not be public service. I will refrain from listing any examples of this for fear of a lawsuit … which assumes that someone is still reading this post. Over and out.
Slow Down There, Turbo
In one of the more bizarre (and ridiculous) examples of local government unnecessarily exerting its will over citizens, a St. Louis alderman has introduced a proposal requiring riders of Segways, accurately described by a Post-Dispatch article as "slow-moving electric chariots," to purchase a $300 permit in order to ride the scooters throughout Forest Park. The utter lunacy of this idea is described in the following quote (emphasis added):
"Segways are something new in city parks," parks director Gary Bess says. "We want to go slow."
Actually, it’s more like they want you to go slow, as the fears of Alderman Lyda Krewson (who introduced the bill) so accurately describe:
"I happen to think they are really cool devices," said Krewson, whose
ward includes the park. "But if you were running along on the path, you
don’t want a bunch of them coming up behind you."
As someone training to run a very long way in April for no real reason, I think I can safely attest that the biggest danger on the paths of Forest Park isn’t a scooter that tops out at a whopping 12 mph. More importantly, why is the city trying to regulate the Pokey Little Scooter for safety concerns when I get buzzed at 25 mph by a guy on a Specialized every time I run past the Grand Basin?
The use of parks, sidewalks and roadways in the city of St. Louis should be encouraged as much as possible, if not for the sake of fitness, than at least for the overall boost that outdoor activity brings to societal welfare. Requiring a permit to ride a Segway in the park is the same as requiring a permit to ride a bicycle, roller blade, or jog: it’s an unnecessary step that will reduce usage and prevent citizens (particularly those with disabilities) from fully enjoying one of our state’s greatest treasures.
It’s ironic that a city with such a tradition of offering a park space "free and open to all" is trying to restrict who can do what on its paths.
The Final Countdown
St. Louis is considering legislation requiring a $300 permit to operate a Segway on sidewalks in Forest Park.
… So, essentially we’re charging people $300 for the benefit of looking like idiots?
Thank You for Smoking
A Minneapolis condominium community has voted to self-impose a smoking ban throughout its building.
I’m fine with businesses and residences self-imposing smoking bans, but some might argue that this type of decision is still too restrictive: Shouldn’t a smoker be able to smoke in his own condo? Yes, and current smokers are grandfathered in. But new tenants will have to choose whether a smoking ban is appropriate for their living needs. This is exactly the kind of decision that bars should be allowed to make, as well.
The government doesn’t need to impose legislation outlawing smoking in private businesses. As the above article suggests, private businesses are perfectly capable of self-regulation to satisfy customer needs.
