Editorial - Local bidders

As published in the Record Journal Monday January 28, 2013

If worded carefully, an ordinance allowing for local bidder preference in awarding municipal contracts would have benefited Wallingford. Town councilors rejected this concept on Jan. 22, after discussing it in previous meetings. The proposed guideline would grant local companies an advantage in seeking contracts put out to bid by Wallingford. If a business based in the municipality did not offer the lowest price, but came within a certain percentage of this bottom figure, the business could match the low bid and win the contract.

There are downsides. Aware of a local-preference clause, out-of-town companies might not make bids. This could mean fewer businesses competing for a contract and, thus, potentially higher costs paid by Wallingford for work.

Another problem, alertly brought up by Mayor William Dickinson, would be how to conclude which companies are and are not locally based. But, as wisely suggested by Councilman Jason Zandri, checking business filings with the state could definitively determine where a company is technically located.

Moreover, it’s unclear whether bids would actually dwindle after establishment of a local-preference ordinance. In Connecticut, 29 percent of municipalities have enacted a similar law, including Meriden and North Haven. And, as argued by Councilman Craig Fishbein, because of these existing ordinances, Wallingford companies could be losing out on contracts in nearby towns and cities, and, therefore, could use additional help in their own zip code.

As presented in our news account of Dec. 22, local preference protocols in Meriden and North Haven are reasonably worded. In Meriden, to enact the program, a city-based company’s bid cannot be more than 10 percent higher than the bottom bid. In North Haven, a local business’ bid has to be within 10 percent of the lowest on items under $1 million, 5 percent of purchases between $1 million and $5 million, and 3 percent on anything more than $5 million.

Which is to say that this can be done, if implemented correctly. Based on Meriden and North Haven laws, the key is to retain a fair, fighting chance for bidders from outside municipal borders. Those two civic governments give local businesses only a marginal advantage, as not to foster favoritism or impinge greatly upon free market economics. Should Wallingford leaders seek a boost for in-town companies — and why wouldn’t they? — they could do so with similarly worded regulations.

This is a concept councilors should reconsider. By granting local businesses a second chance to match low bids under still competitive circumstances, councilors could direct taxpayer money toward town based companies, allowing Wallingford to support better its own economy.

Lemonade? Don’t try it!

This op-ed piece was written by Rich Lowry who is the editor of The National Review. It was published in the Record Journal on Sunday August 7, 2011

There’s no more poignant symbol of American childhood than the lemonade stand, evocative of long, lazy summer days and pie-in-the-sky entrepreneurial dreams.

It inevitably was a subject for a Norman Rockwell print, with a brassy kid confidently hawking cups for 5 cents each. If Rockwell were to update the image today, he might have to include an officer of the law nosing around the stand to ensure its compliance with all relevant ordinances.

In various localities around the country this summer, cops have raided and shut down lemonade stands. The incidents get — and deserve — national attention as telling collisions between classic Americana and the senseless pettifogging that is increasingly the American Way.

There should be an easy rule of thumb for when enforcement of a regulation has gone too far: When it makes kids cry.

Setting up a lemonade stand has always been the occasion for early lessons about the importance of hustle and perseverance, and some business basics — like location, location, location. It shouldn’t be the occasion for dealing with the unreasoning dictates of The Man.

Police in Coralville, Iowa, a few weeks ago conducted a sweep and shut down three lemonade stands, some within minutes of their opening. The offenders had started their renegade operations the weekend of an annual bike ride across the state. The town requires vendors to have a permit during the days of the event. None of the perps did, including one 4-year-old girl who shamelessly made $4 before police intervened.

One mother said she could only laugh when the police told her the cost of a permit was $400. Uncomprehending, her kids cried. They figured only the inadequacy of their handmade signs could have made the city’s law enforcement want to put them out of business.

A Coralville civic eminence subsequently explained that the ordinance was in place to protect the health of the bike riders, who are apparently robust enough to bike 472 miles but might be felled by 6 ounces of lemonade.

In McAllen, Texas, two kids were shut down and their grandmother threatened with a fine on similar grounds. Audaciously, the youngsters started selling lemonade for 50 cents a cup in a park without a health permit or licensed food handlers to prepare or serve their lemony libation. Hoping only to fund the upkeep of their two hermit crabs, these two children had stumbled into a murky world way over their heads.

In Midway, Ga., three girls were told they needed a business license, peddler’s permit and food permit to set up a lemonade stand on their front lawn. It might have taken all summer just to navigate the bureaucracy necessary to begin selling the lemonade. The chief of police explained why she had to act to protect the public from the unauthorized sale of the unknown substance purporting to be “lemonade”: “We were not aware of how the lemonade was made, who made the lemonade, of what the lemonade was made with.”

Chances are that it was made of the usual dangerous cocktail of lemon juice, sugar and water. If children — or their parents — aren’t to be trusted to prepare lemonade, presumably people lured by the prospect of a cool drink on a hot day can calculate the risks on their own and take their pocket change elsewhere if they feel safe only with professional-quality product. Invariably, the parents of illicit lemonade stand vendors protest to the authorities, “but they’re just kids.” That should be a clinching, self-evident argument. But not when an unbending legalism is ascendant, and there’s a law for everything. It’s in this spirit that we pat down children in the security lines of airports.

People in authority are afraid ever to be caught rendering common-sense judgments.

For now, the lemonade-stand crackdowns are a bridge too far. They usually bring cries of public outrage and embarrassed backpedaling from officials. So belly up to the lemonade stand — while you still can.

FROM WALLINGFORD - Ordinances and outrage

As published online at MyRecordJournal.com for print publication in the Record Journal on Sunday December 6, 2009

The Wallingford Ordinance Committee is tasked at their meetings to review the ordinances in place and to discuss new ones. The next meeting is Tuesday, December 8, 6:30 PM at Town Hall, Room 315.

I understand the need for local ordinances - not everyone will govern themselves near what most would consider baseline behavior of a citizen on their own; you need to have rules that set and explain what those baseline expectations are.

Some people will not break rules while others do whatever they please because they assume they won't get caught (or they simply do not care).

The recent parking enforcement issue at the Carini Bowl is one example. I'm not happy people got ticketed that day, but I am gratified that the rules are getting enforced as it vindicates those of us that follow them when the rule-breakers get pinched.

Many people that got ticketed, even after being told to move, said, "Well, I saw the sign - was told to move, but I just didn't think I'd get a ticket."

And that is actually the crux of the issue; generally the ordinances are not enforced. When we start everyone is up in arms because they are caught off guard that we're "suddenly" doing something we should be enforcing unilaterally and consistently.

Take the sidewalk obstruction ordinance that requires residents to clear sidewalks around their homes or businesses within 18 hours after a snowstorm . . . I see many sidewalks that NEVER get cleared by anyone - so all this talk about how the ordinance works is interesting, but do we use it in practice? I am not asking: have we ever used it? I am asking: do we enforce it regularly as the infractions are reported? When was the last $25 ticket issued for not clearing the sidewalk? When was the last time a resident had their walked cleared by Public Works and then billed for it?

So what's the answer to all this? That is a tough question.

The ordinance committee will tell you they create and review the ordinances but they are not in charge of enforcement. Those that are responsible for enforcement (often different groups; it is not always the police department) will often tell you why they are not successful - no real enforcement power (no ability to fine or take action), not enough manpower, etc.

My thoughts are we should put all the ordinances up on the town website.

If someone breaks a specific ordinance in a 12-month rolling period from the time of the infraction, they should get a written warning, a printed copy of the specific ordinance and it should be cataloged. If the infraction occurs a second time, they should be fined.

Fines should be dramatically increased - a huge deterrent. If I park illegally 50 times and pay just $15 once, I can justify the cost. Not that I want to throw away $15, but it can cost more to park in a New Haven garage. Fines have to grow to the cost of the times, and then some - they need to be a burdensome expense to stop causal infraction of the law by people who don't care in the first place.

If responsible enforcement divisions are understaffed, then contract out the position to enforce the ordinances; with heavier fines, we can justify the cost against that revenue. If there isn't enough work, then allow the departments to take the work back on and end the contract position.

We should be enforcing ordinances unilaterally and consistently. If the argument is that we do not need to have that kind of iron fist mentality, then I suggest that ordinance doesn't need to exist and we should take it off the books.

Technorati Tags: FROM WALLINGFORD,Opinion,Wallingford,Ordinance

Ordinance Committee Special Meeting

Tuesday, December 8 @ 6:30 PM

---

Town Hall, Room 315
45 South Main Street 
Wallingford, CT 06492

Wallingford Town Council SPECIAL MEETING Ordinance Committee December 8, 2009 at 6:30 P.M. Room #315 -- Town Hall 45 South Main Street, Wallingford, CT 06492

AGENDA

1. Brief review of issues regarding the "dog ordinance" and report from the Law Department on construction of pertinent statutes.

2. Continued discussions of an ordinance that would give the Planning & Zoning Commission/Zoning Enforcement Officer the power to levy fines for certain violations of the Zoning Regulations under certain conditions, including a report from the Law Department regarding as to when an appeal might be taken, and to what authority, under various concepts under discussion.

_______________________ Mike Brodinsky, Chairman

Technorati Tags: Wallingford,Ordinance,Committee,Meeting

Hearings tonight on liberalizing signage regulations

There is a special Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting tonight, Monday, November 30, 2009 starting at 7:00 p.m. in the Robert Earley Auditorium / Town Hall – 45 South Main Street (the agenda can be found here).

There will be a public hearing at 7PM regarding two proposed amendments:

1) Zoning Amendment/PZC/Temporary Signs #909-09
2) Zoning Amendment/PZC/Downtown Signs #912-09

There is some summary information regarding the topics in a Record Journal article in this morning’s paper (Monday November 30th) – I have cross posted it at http://bit.ly/4OE3FN

I am going to try to get to the meeting tonight to hear all of the details but it sounds promising mainly because it sounds like the PZC is willing to listen to the concerns of the businesses and come to a consensus about how to both provide a means for allowing additional signage that will hopefully be tactful for a given business and at the same time more clearly define what is not permissible.

I don’t know if they are going to address giving any type of bite to the ordinance enforcement side (and let’s be frank – without teeth there are very few that will comply) but we’ll have to see how it all unfolds.

So bloggers – what are your thoughts ahead of the meeting?

Is this a positive step in the right direction? I think so but I am sure there are others out there with deferring opinions.

Let’s hear them.

Technorati Tags: ordinance,Planning and Zoning Commission,public hearing,regulation,signs