This web
page is
http://www.obri.net/2nd/dickinson.html
My communication with
First District County Supervisor Roger Dickinson
relative to the Second Street speed control stop signs
Please use the "back"
button on your browser to return to the last page viewed
Index of
this web page:
Correspondence with Supervisor Roger Dickinson's Chief
of Staff Cortez Quinn, 11/18/05 - 12/18/05
12/22/04 Response from Supervisor Roger
Dickinson to my 12/18 email to Chief of Staff Cortez Quinn
1/3/05 email letter to Dickinson, responding to his
message and summarizing the open issues
Followup to Dickinson 2/13/05 as he has not responded
Another followup 3/12/05 to Dickinson - still no response
This correspondence was included in the email I
received from Supervisor Dickinson on December 22, 2004. It is the
correspondence thread to which Dickinson replied, and leads into his
December 22 email to me. This correspondence has been placed in
date order here for ease of review.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 11:16:18 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Cortez Quinn <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
Cortez,
Would you please let me know the limits of the questionnaire survey
area for the speed control stop signs on Second Street at Shady Woods
Way? This would have been coordinated at some time prior to
August 30, 2004.
If correspondence or emails are available supporting your office's
coordination of this issue, I would appreciate copies.
Thank you,
Jay O'Brien
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 13:52:13 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Cortez Quinn <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
Cortez,
Did you receive the message below I sent to you last week?
I'm interested in this as many residents that are close to and impacted
by the stop signs were not included by DOT in the DOT "survey" that
collected the votes that were used by DOT to authorize and justify the
installation of the stop signs.
I'm sure that if your office was involved that you would have
considered those residents, but there could well be some mitigating
circumstances; I would like to know what input Supervisor Dickinson's
office had to the creation of the "survey area" used by DOT. Your
correspondence files should reveal your communication with DOT on this
subject.
Jay O'Brien
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2004 15:06:47 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Cortez Quinn <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
Cortez,
This is my third request to you for information on the "survey area"
DOT coordinated with Supervisor Dickinson that was used to collect
votes that resulted in the installation of speed control stop signs on
Second Street at Shady Woods Way.
The new speed control stop signs are only 880 feet from the
pre-existing stop signs on Second Street at M Street. The new stop
signs potentially effect 52 residents, all within 880 feet of the new
stop signs, that may traverse Second Street on the way to their
properties on Shady Woods Way, Shady Willow Court, Berry Oak Court and
Shady Valley Court. These 52 residents were not designated to vote on
this issue, and I want to know what prompted the decision to not allow
them to vote, while requesting votes from only 34 other properties. A
third of the 34 properties who were designated to vote are farther from
the new speed control stop signs than the 52 who were not given the
opportunity to vote.
I would appreciate a prompt reply.
Jay O'Brien
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:26:37 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Cortez Quinn <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
CC: Don Flesch <rlnews@aol.com>
Cortez,
Will I hear from you soon on this issue? This is my fourth request to
you. I would prefer to have a response from Supervisor Dickinson's
office before I write an article for The NEWS on this subject.
Jay O'Brien
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 16:32:41 -0800
From: Quinn. Cortez <xxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
CC: Dickinson. Roger <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
Jay:
Happy Holidays!!
I have received your messages, and I apologize for the delay in
responding to you. The survey area was 2nd Street from M to Q
Streets. Additionally, 80% of those who participated in the survey were
in favor of the stop sign installation. I believe that Supervisor
Dickinson will not support the removal of the stop signs on 2nd Street
at this time. However, we will be happy to revisit this situation when
the new Neighborhood Traffic Management Program is adopted by the Board.
Please let me know whether or not this response answers your question.
Sincerely,
Cortez L. Quinn
Chief of Staff to
Supervisor Roger Dickinson
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:36:48 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Cortez Quinn <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
CC: Roger Dickinson <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
Cortez,
Please confirm that the 52 residents of Shady Woods Way, Shady Willow
Court, Berry Oak Court and Shady Valley Court who may access their
properties via the stretch of Second Street between M and Q Streets
were not included by Supervisor Dickinson in the list of those whom he
agreed could be authorized to vote to have
the speed control stop signs installed or not installed.
Thank you,
Jay
-----Original Message-----
From: Jay O'Brien [mailto:jayobrien@att.net]
Sent: Saturday, December 18, 2004 6:48 PM
To: Quinn. Cortez
Cc: Dickinson. Roger; Manoff. Mark; Don Flesch
Subject: RE: Second Street speed control stop signs
Cortez,
Thanks for discussing the speed control stop sign issue with me at the
CPAC meeting Tuesday night.
You said that you would respond accordingly if you can get more
information from the Department of Transportation.
Cortez, I'm asking for confirmation from your office that the list of
people anointed to vote for or against the stop signs was actually
coordinated with your office and that your office agreed that
the residents on Shady Woods Way, Shady Willow Court, Berry Oak Court
and Shady Valley Court who may access their properties via the affected
stretch of Second Street between M and Q Streets should not have been
provided the opportunity to vote for or against the speed control stop
signs that have been installed on Second Street at Shady Woods Way.
What I am asking for is a response from your office, not from the
Department of Transportation. Their responsibility was to contact your
office, per the Residential Speed Control Process adopted by the Board
of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, item 38. Your office, as the
representative of the people affected by the stop signs that
Transportation was proposing was to be contacted to coordinate the
"limits of the questionnaire survey area." I seek the details of
this coordination.
It is your communication with the Department of Transportation,
expressing your coordination, that I seek; not something that you would
now obtain from the Department of Transportation.
As I said at the CPAC meeting, and you responded that you hear me, the
issue is the process, not the stop signs. I have had many bad
experiences with the arbitrary and capricious Department of
Transportation. What is unfortunate, in my opinion, is that they don't
know (or care) that they work for me. I don't work for them.
The Department of Transportation is a shining example of why Citrus
Heights, Elk Grove and Rancho Cordova exist, and a shining example of
what the Community Service Centers and Community Councils must overcome
to be successful. My hat is off to Mark Manoff for even trying to pull
this together.
Jay
Click here for other correspondence with
Chief of Staff Cortez Quinn
Scroll up to read the emails from
Cortez Quinn that were included with this email from Supervisor
Dickinson.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Second Street speed control stop signs
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2004 14:23:03 -0800
From: Dickinson. Roger <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
To: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
Quinn. Cortez
<xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
CC: Manoff. Mark <xxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
Don Flesch <rlnews@aol.com>
Foust. Randy (MSA)
<xxxxxx@SacCounty.NET>
Jay:
Insofar as I am aware, the survey area used by the Department of
Transportation was designated consistent with the practice that had
evolved over time and based upon numerous hearings before the Board of
Supervisors on other neighborhood stop sign and speed bump proposals.
That practice included surveying those on the street on which the stop
sign would be placed and those on the corners of the intersection where
the stop sign would be placed. The intersection was also posted
so that anyone using the intersection could contact the Department to
obtain more information or to state any concerns. I am satisfied
that the Department acted in conformity with the general practice and
procedure which the Board had sanctioned in past cases.
Department staff has acknowledged that the stop signs were installed by
mistake prior to an intended neighborhood meeting which Mark Manoff had
agreed to conduct. Notwithstanding that mistake, the survey
results overwhelmingly favored the stop sign, the posting at the
intersection elicited no inquiries or objections, and, to my knowledge,
there have been no reported complaints or concerns other than yours
since the stop signs went in.
The practice and procedure that was used in this and other cases in
recent years will be subject to discussion when the Board takes up the
proposed Neighborhood Traffic Management Program in early 2005.
If you have comments or concerns, you may wish to raise them as that
time.
ROGER DICKINSON
Supervisor, District One
Sacramento County
Scroll up to read the email from
Supervisor Dickinson to which this email responds.
Click here to scroll directly
to the 10 questions and requests contained in this email
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Second Street speed control stop signs - credibility
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 15:59:28 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Roger Dickinson <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
CC: Cortez Quinn <xxxxxx@saccounty.net>
Don Flesch
<xxxxxx@aol.com>
Robert Ryan
<xxxxx@saccounty.net>
Tom Zlotkowski
<xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
Hal Morris
<xxxxxxxx@comcast.net>
Tom Philp
<xxxxx@sacbee.com>
Roger,
This letter is not about stop signs. This is about the credibility of
the County of Sacramento. The stop sign issue is merely an indicator of
the problem with those County staff members who interpret the rules and
policies as it pleases them, and their imposition of the rules, as they
interpret them, on the public.
Thank you your December 22, 2004 response to my November 18 request for
documentation supporting the coordination of the Second Street speed
control stop signs as required by The Residential Speed Control Program
Petition Process. The process was adopted by the Board of Supervisors
on March 29, 1994 [1]. Under speed control
stop signs, it says, "The Board member will be contacted to coordinate
limits of questionnaire survey area." Your response did not offer
specific details on this coordination, only your conclusion that you
are "satisfied that the Department acted in conformity with the general
practice and procedure which the Board had sanctioned in past cases."
It is unfortunate that you apparently did not have the opportunity to
review the specifics of the proposed installation before the vote was
taken, and even more unfortunate that the stop signs were installed in
advance of the public meeting promised by Service Area Manager Mark
Manoff. If you would have been given the complete details of how the
action taken differs with the actual enacted Board policies, perhaps
you may have asserted some control over staff.
Your letter states "there have been no reported complaints or concerns
other than yours since the stop signs went in." I hope this isn't
indicative of the "stick it in the ground and see who complains"
procedure recently used with a no-left-turn sign on Watt Avenue at
Wilhaggin Drive. The Bee's editorial
[2] quoted the County's Lupe Rodriguez, "Now we'll have to sit
back and come up with a solution that probably works for everyone".
Good idea. I would like to see that philosophy used here.
I asked for a copy of the petition that was submitted and for a list of
those given the power to vote to install the stop signs [3]. All I was able to obtain was the name
of the person who submitted the petition; I talked to him on the phone
and he agreed with me, that the location of the proposed stop sign was
too far from the speed problem area. Apparently what the petitioners
really wanted were speed bumps; it is my understanding that the speed
control stop signs were offered by Transportation instead of speed
bumps.
Based on Manoff's assurance that the signs would not be installed
before a public meeting was held, I dropped my intention to contact you
or to address your Board, even though I was convinced at the time that
the actions of the County were inappropriate. I had ample time to
communicate with you and the Board, but even given my past bad
experiences with the Department of Transportation, I accepted Mark's
honest assurance that he would hold a meeting before signs were
installed. As you know, Transportation's commitment to Manoff, Manoff's
commitment to me, and my commitment to my neighbors were broken by
Transportation. Unfortunately, it is this kind of undermining that will
make Mark Manoff's job more difficult. In retrospect, I should have
known that the commitment made to Manoff by Transportation was false,
and I should have addressed your Board. That was my mistake; I believed
the County.
Transportation explained to me that all they do is enforce Board policy
that you establish. They were adamant in this, as if they have nothing
to do with formulating your policy. I asked them to provide that
policy, and they did provide part of your Policy before the CPAC
meeting that reviewed the stop sign issue after they were installed [4]. I was obliged to ask again to
obtain the rest of your policy, which was finally sent to me in November [1]. What is hard to believe is that the
person who seemed to have so much trouble in locating that policy to
send to me was the author of the policy I received. Now that I have
finally received both parts of the policy and a copy of the traffic
survey and count[5], I will raise the issues
with you that I was not offered the opportunity to raise in the public
meeting that was promised.
At the public meeting on this issue held as part of the CPAC meeting of
October 12, 2004 in Rio Linda, Mr. Rodriguez said "At this time the
stop sign has gone in per the Board approved program." Further,
your email letter to me said you are "satisfied that the Department
acted in conformity with the general practice and procedure which the
Board had sanctioned in past cases."
I disagree. In my opinion the installation of the stop signs did not
follow the Board approved program, regardless of what you were told
that caused your satisfaction with the Department's action. The survey
was flawed. The voting was flawed. The traffic count was flawed. The
location was flawed. The notification was flawed.
Had the public meeting been held prior to the installation of the stop
signs as promised, and had we been provided the actual Board policy
statements for review before that meeting along with the study data
that was claimed to justify the signs, I would have expected that
answers to the following questions, related to the "Board approved
program" cited by Transportation, would have been provided. My
questions are still valid and are still unanswered.
To repeat my opening statement, this is about the credibility of the
County of Sacramento, not just about stop signs. The stop signs are a
symptom, and should not be trivialized. My experiences over the years
with Transportation [11] are just one person's
example of what the County must overcome to gain credibility. Hopefully
the new Community Service Teams will be able to help, but to be
successful, they will need solid support from the Board of Supervisors.
Service Area Managers cannot be successful if undermined by County
staff.
Please respond to my questions and my requests stated below.
Thank you,
Jay O'Brien
References:
-----------
[1] Board of Supervisors speed control petition policy revision
3/29/94: http://www.obri.net/2nd/940329.html
[2] Sacramento Bee Editorial: Now, lefts are legal http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/editorials/story/11633042p-12522451c.html
[3] Documentary: http://www.obri.net/2nd/home.html#doc
[4] Board of Supervisors speed control policy 11/25/86: http://www.obri.net/2nd/861125.html
[5] Traffic Count 8/19/04 and Speed survey 8/24/04 http://www.obri.net/2nd/survey.html
[6] County Counsel Correspondence http://www.obri.net/2nd/counsel.html
[7] O'Brien statement, 10/12/04 public meeting: http://www.obri.net/2nd/Oct12.html
[8] Speed Limits - Sacramento County Department of Transportation http://www.sacdot.com/services/Speed_Limits.asp
[9] Ballot received by first class mail, not certified, dated 8/30/04:http://www.obri.net/2nd/ref1.html
[10] Letter from R.W. Foust 11/15/04: http://www.obri.net/2nd/041115.html
[11] Map of the area, Federal, State, County regulations, pictures,
Sacramento Bee and Rio Linda News articles, past experiences: http://www.obri.net/2nd/ref.html
Questions, requests, review and
conclusions:
1. Criteria warranting speed controls
The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the
Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, bullet 2, states "Public Works
Agency evaluates subject street for compliance with Board approved
speed control warrants and guidelines"[1].
The Board policy adopted November 25, 1986, provides those warrants and
guidelines. On page 4 of that policy, relating to semi-rural streets,
item 7, it states, "minimum traffic volume of 500 vehicles per day."
The traffic volume measured by DOT on Second Street on August 19, 2004,
was 842 vehicles, seemingly meeting that criteria [4].
However, the traffic count was taken on Second Street just north of M
Street; thus the traffic to and from Shady Valley Court, Shady Woods
Way, Shady Willow Court and Second Street between M Street and Shady
Woods Way was included in this count. There are 36 properties on these
streets potentially reached via the section of M Street where the count
was taken, compared to a total of only 19 Second Street properties in
what I understand to be the identified speeding problem area between
Shady Woods Way and Q Street.
Many of the 842 vehicles counted were destined for or came from these
36 properties not in the speeding problem area. How can the 842
vehicles measured be applied to the 500 volume criteria for the problem
section of Second Street, without knowing the volume from and to the 36
properties that are not in the problem area?
And, why was the traffic count taken just north of M Street rather than
in the identified problem area between Shady Woods Way and Q St.?
2. Minimum spacing policy
The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the
Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, bullet 2, states "Public Works
Agency evaluates subject street for compliance with Board approved
speed control warrants and guidelines [1].
The Board policy adopted November 25, 1986, provides the warrants and
guidelines. On page 4 of that policy, in the fourth paragraph and in
item 2, it states that the policy for the spacing of stop signs on
semi-rural streets is 1320 feet or more [4].
The distance on Second Street between the stop signs at M Street and
Shady Woods Way is 880 feet. With a Board approved minimum spacing
policy of 1320 feet, how does the 880 foot spacing between stop signs
comply with the "Board approved speed control warrants and guidelines"?
3. Notification method
The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the
Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, STOP SIGNS, bullet 4, states
"If speed controls are warranted, all residents are sent certified
letters with a questionnaire requesting concurrence or opposition to
the proposed stop signs..." [1].
The two letters I received with voting cards enclosed were sent to me
via first class mail; they were not certified letters as required.[9]
I am aware of one other resident that also received two letters and,
like me, could have returned two vote cards but only voted once.
With a Board approved policy delineating the use of certified mail, how
does the mailing via first class mail comply with this policy? And why
were some property owners empowered with more than one vote?
By the way, I have two valid mail addresses for one property, but it is
only one parcel on the assessors records, and only one residence. As
the vote card did not require a parcel number, how would duplications
such as mine be identified? On the other hand, I have 660 feet of
street frontage, or ten times as much as some parcels across the
street. So, if I was authorized two votes, why not ten?
4. Questionnaire survey area
The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the
Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, STOP SIGNS, bullet 4, states
"... The Board member will be contacted to coordinate limits of
questionnaire survey area." [1].
I asked the following question of Mr. Quinn, your Chief of Staff:
"The new speed control stop signs are only 880 feet from
the pre-existing stop signs on Second Street at M Street. The new stop
signs potentially effect 52 residents, all within 880 feet of the new
stop signs, that may traverse Second Street on the way to their
properties on Shady Woods Way, Shady Willow Court, Berry Oak Court and
Shady Valley Court. These 52 residents were not designated to vote on
this issue, and I want to know what prompted the decision to not allow
them to vote, while requesting votes from only 34 other voters. A
third of the 34 properties who were designated to vote are farther from
the new speed control stop signs than the 52 who were not given the
opportunity to vote."
Your response did not identify any specific coordination, as required
by the policy [1]. Was this specific
proposal actually identified and coordinated with you before the vote
cards were mailed?
5. Consensus
The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the
Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, STOP SIGNS, bullet 5, states
"If a consensus (2/3's or more) of the questionnaire respondents concur
with the proposed stop signs..." [1].
DOT representative Steve Stosich told me on the telephone that only a
majority vote was required to authorize the installation of stop signs.
He said he was following Board policy. He made no mention of a 2/3 vote
requirement.
I realize this is a moot point, but I decided to not attempt to contact
the voters as I felt the way the ballot was phrased it would gain the
votes of a majority of those provided the opportunity to vote. However,
had I correctly been told by Stosich that a 2/3 vote was required, I
certainly would have made the effort to contact everyone on Second
Street between M and Q Streets to express my opinion before they cast
their votes.
Is the vote requirement 2/3 as stated in the Board policy I was sent,
or has it been changed to be only a majority as stated by Stosich?
6. Notices
The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the
Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, STOP SIGNS, bullet 5, states
"...residents of adjacent and side streets will be notified of the
proposed stop sign installation by ... notices (mailed or hand
delivered) to other immediate affected residences. A minimum of two
weeks advance notification is required before installation" [1].
There were no mailed or hand delivered notices sent or delivered to any
residences providing notification of the proposed stop sign
installation.
With a Board approved policy to mail or hand deliver notices, and no
such notices mailed or delivered, how does this comply with the policy?
7. Notification by prominent sign
The Residential Speed Control Program Petition Process adopted by the
Board of Supervisors on March 29, 1994, STOP SIGNS, bullet 5, states
"...residents of adjacent and side streets will be notified of the
proposed stop sign installation by posting of a prominent sign at the
proposed intersections ... A minimum of two weeks advance notification
is required before installation" [1].
The "Speed control stop sign proposed" signs were installed on Monday,
September 20, after the vote deadline of Friday, September 17. The
County then installed the stop signs on September 27, only 9 days after
the vote deadline.
With a Board policy requiring a minimum of two weeks advance
notification, how does the installation of the notification signs for
only seven days comply with the Board mandated two week notification
policy?
8. Voting
County Counsel, in correspondence sent to DOT personnel on November 1,
2004, stated "County staff do not authorize citizens to 'vote' for stop
signs."[6] Mr. Steve Stosich, however,
told me on the telephone that the "votes" would be counted and if a
majority was in favor, the stop signs would be installed. Mr. Randy
Foust, on September 29 in a public meeting, said "70 percent of the
people on your street voted for that stop sign". Both Foust and Stosich
used the word "VOTE" to describe the process.
As Counsel has stated that County staff do not authorize citizens to
vote for stop signs, how do the County staff explanations of the
process, clearly using the word "vote", follow Counsel's finding?
9. Request for speed survey
In addition to my request to receive answers to the questions detailed
above, I am repeating here my request for a follow-up speed survey and
traffic count, as articulated at the CPAC meeting October 12th; it was
also requested by others at that meeting [7].
The signs have been in place for over three months; it is time to
determine their effect by repeating the study at the same locations and
times as it was done in August. I request that you have Mark Manoff
designate an observer to monitor the traffic count to assure its
accuracy; I would be pleased to perform that function if schedules can
be coordinated should Mr. Manoff choose to appoint me to observe. Based
on my prior experiences with Transportation, I cannot accept a survey
and count they perform without an observer not part of that Department.
I suggest the traffic count be taken at the same, albeit inappropriate,
location, so that valid comparisons may be made.
10. Request for Speed limit signs
In my opinion the stretch of Second Street between Shady Woods Way and
Q Street is not adequately posted with the 30 MPH speed limit. This
issue was brought up during the CPAC discussion; other residents
agreed. I believe a case can be made that the speed limit northbound
from Shady Woods Way is 55 MPH. A motorist on Shady Woods Way, an urban
street with sidewalks and gutters, is in a 25 MPH zone. Turning north
onto rural Second Street, there is no speed limit sign informing the
motorist that this is not just another Sacramento County rural road
with an "unposted maximum speed limit of 55 mph.[8]" Had
the meeting we were promised been held before the stop signs were
installed, we would have at least had the opportunity to see if proper
speed limit signage would correct the problem.
Please see to the installation of a speed limit sign to inform
motorists entering Second Street north bound from Shady Woods Way of
the 30 MPH speed limit. And when the sign is placed, if not placed on
the existing barrier, please coordinate the installation with the
property owner. I do not wish the County to tell my neighbor that "that
new sign is stuck in the ground in the middle of your property at the
request of your neighbor, Mr. O'Brien."
Review and Conclusion
Had I not accepted the County's promise to hold a public meeting to
discuss the stop signs before they were installed, I would have
addressed you or the Board. I was wrong. I resolve to not blindly
accept the word of the County in the future.
Had I been correctly informed by Mr. Stosich that a 2/3 vote was
required, I would have personally visited each residence on Second
Street between M and Q Streets, asking them to vote no and come to the
meeting where many potential actions could be discussed, including
enforcement, adequate posting of speed limit signs, the speed bumps
they envisioned and other measures. However, as I was incorrectly
advised that only a majority vote was required to cause the signs to be
installed, I took no action. I felt that as the ballot statement was
written in a manner that encouraged the voters to vote yes, that a 50%
vote was assured. As I was unable to obtain the Board's written policy
until after the stop signs were actually installed [10], I did not recognize that I was given
incorrect information by Stosich about the vote count.
As the voters were incorrectly advised that their votes were only a
questionnaire or a survey, and were not advised that they were casting
binding votes that would cause the installation of the stop signs, I
felt they would vote in favor. I felt a 50% vote was assured, based on
the phrasing of the ballot cards. Given the assurance I received from
Mark Manoff that a public meeting would be held prior to the
installation of the stop signs, and as I was not given the opportunity
to write an opposing ballot statement to be read by those casting votes
to impose the stop signs, I decided to take no action. In retrospect, I
was wrong.
It was incorrect to withhold the petition process policy from the
voters; the policy should have accompanied the ballot cards so that the
voters would fully understand the consequence of casting their votes.
DOT advised the public meeting October 12th that 34 cards were sent
out, 14 responses were received, and only three opposed the stop signs.
With a 2/3 vote requirement, only three additional "NO" votes would
have caused the ballot measure to fail. It would have been trivial to
assure those three no votes were cast; some votes were not cast at all,
as the voters were awaiting the promised public meeting I told them
would be held prior to the installation of the stop signs. These votes
could well have been cast had the voters known that the County would
renege on the promise to hold a public meeting before the installation
of the speed control stop signs.
Unfortunately, the County commitment to hold the meeting was false, and
the stop signs were installed regardless of the commitment made to me
by Mark Manoff. The public meeting was held AFTER the stop signs were
installed, not before.
I hope my documentation on this issue is adequate; please ask if there
are other references or details I may be able to provide. I have
provided links for you to the policies, letters and documents
involved.
I look forward to your response to my questions and requests; I hope
that you will be able to arrange for a prompt, accurate, and credible
post-installation traffic count and study.
Questions, requests, review and conclusions presented by Jay O'Brien.
Followup message sent to supervisor Dickinson:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Second Street speed control stop signs - credibility
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:11:39 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Roger Dickinson <xxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
Roger,
Did you receive my message sent January 3, 2005? I am including a copy.
Jay O'Brien
Another followup message sent to supervisor
Dickinson:
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Second Street speed control stop signs - credibility
Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2005 19:05:46 -0800
From: Jay O'Brien <jayobrien@att.net>
To: Roger Dickinson <xxxxxxxxxxx@saccounty.net>
Roger,
You have not responded to my message sent to you on January 3, 2005,
and resent to you on February 13, 2005. Copies are included herewith.
Will I be receiving a response from you soon?
Jay O'Brien
Please use the "back"
button on your browser to return to the last page viewed