Editor Timothy Rath email@example.com
8:09 pm on Tuesday, October 30, 2012
This has really become a Berkley tradition. The city really screwed this up. If the traffic was really the issue, they could easily just put "No Through Traffic" signs up on each corner coming up to the house. It's not like there isn't a million ways around it. As far as the kid "getting lost in the crowd", that can happen when you take your children anywhere there will be a crowd. It's up to parents to watch there kids. If someone lost their child for a few minutes at the Dream Cruise would we just shut that down?
I wouldn't want the owner to feel like he had to put this show on every year, but if he wants to, the city / police should absolutely not ask him to shut it down. Instead they should embrace it as an Event / Attraction in Berkley.
5:22 pm on Friday, September 28, 2012
I really hope he reads the article and comments on what exactly "Junk Sex" is. That ought to be good for a few laughs.
9:58 am on Friday, September 14, 2012
Reducing the number of lanes could very well hurt businesses instead of help. A lot of people (including myself) just wouldn't use Coolidge as much, because the traffic would be significantly worse than alternate routes. I think that's a terrible idea.
On the other hand, Patrick Calhoun you have a great idea with the parallel parking along Coolidge, at some spots people have to drive inches from the parked cars just to stay in their lane. That would be a great change.
1:18 pm on Tuesday, August 21, 2012
I'm a little surprised 64% said "No" in the poll. It's only federal holidays or the day right before and after. Personally, I'm generally against cities being allowed to take a State law and change it to be more restrictive in their area only.
1:08 pm on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
GpGr67 - "Anti-thinking"? Nice. Anyway, it wouldn't matter if is was $1, that's not the point at all. Just because attendance and donations are down, this millage literally forces 3 large counties to buy an annual membership to the DIA through their property taxes.
I have no problem with property taxes, but this is not what they are for. Adding to them to keep a business open because they can't fund-raise sufficiently and lost their government funding? This is great for those that love the DIA, but those that don't want to donate or attend, shouldn't have to. They should be able to put their money wherever they want - Starbucks included.
11:25 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
This works out good for me, it's actually cheaper to go to the DIA than some were paying before.
But, that doesn't make it right to increase every single property tax (which shouldn't be funding this in the first place) to pay for it. The only people who vote are those who feel REALLY strongly about an issue, so of course there will be more supporters, when it's not big enough of a deal to the people who oppose it ($20 / year or so).
If every single person were forced to vote, I don't think it would've passed (not even that close actually), and that's sad. However, you can't force people to vote, so it's really the fault of the people as a whole.
11:14 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Leslie - Again, not a good comparison. Did anyone ask you to raise your property taxes when ANY of the stadiums were built? No. Some of the money used to build them did come from tax funded accounts, but taxes that were already in place (like sales taxes for example - Not an increase to our property taxes). The City / State can choose to use our tax money on these stadiums, because they in turn produce more tax income.
The City / State have chosen to cut the funding to the DIA lately, instead of using the tax money they already have, for whatever reason (probably because it doesn't produce enough return tax income, and becomes just an expense that doesn't rank as high as other items needing the funding). Therefore, a NEW tax added to our property taxes is the solution? That would NEVER fly for a new sports stadium.
9:46 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
I think the DIA is absolutely great, and I hope it never goes away.
However, there is absolutely no justification to increase and use people's property taxes to pay for it. This is just not what taxes are for. They're for community necessities that everyone needs to use (schools, roads, police, fire, etc).
To force people to fund a museum with their property taxes is unconstitutional. They basically forced every member of the community to buy a pass to the museum (even those that wouldn't want one).
Times are tough for the museum I'm sure, and it would be very sad if it ever closed, but they need to get their own funding from those that CHOOSE to fund it.
9:31 am on Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Because their (sports stars & musicians) jobs produce their own income. Don't get me wrong, they make a shocking amount for what they do, but enough people pay to watch / listen to them for them to make that much.
It's not as if anyone's asking to increase my property taxes to help pay Matthew Stafford's salary.
9:31 am on Friday, May 25, 2012
Sez - I wanted to reply to your comment with reasoning and common sense, but your "arrested for buying a soda" reference was so ridiculous and off the point that I couldn't get myself to bother.
Advertise on Patch and reach potential customers in your backyard and beyond. Click here for more information.
Learn more »
If you want to help local causes, or your cause needs local help, your next click should be right here.
Learn more »
Troy news, events, and deals sent to you daily and breaking news as it happens.
See more options
You’re now signed up!
Enter your tip here and it will be sent straight to
Troy Patch's (incredibly grateful)