Right of Way Ordinance Progress.

Finance/Personnel Committee Chair Lujene Clark says that new regulations concerning City right of ways will be discussed for the next sixty to ninety days. The regulations could effect all telecommunications companies as well as other utility companies. Clark says that it is a complicated, far reaching document and it deserves to be well researched.

Dean Petersen of SW Missouri Cable agrees. He told the Committee last Tuesday afternoon that the initial draft of the proposed ordinance that he had seen was "totally unworkable."

"I think you’re making a big mistake," said Petersen, "crafting this on the basis of theory. Get some experience and base it on reality rather than perception."

Clark said that she wants the proposal "tightened up" so as to include the City utility CW&EP. At the current time, City Administrator Tom Short feels City owned utilities would be exempt from the regulations.

"We fully expect those areas of the City who use that right of way to dance to the same tune," said Clark.

The proposed right of way ordinance has several purposes. One is to try and capture some type of franchise fee from telephone long distance providers. This is a probably the toughest goal.

Other ramifications of the proposal deal with how the City controls placement of utility poles, construction that disturbs existing streets and sidewalks, and other definable activities.

The initial draft presented to the Finance/Personnel Committee and the Council came from the Missouri Municipal League and is thirty-five pages in length. Most agree that it is a less than perfect document. Some feel it is nothing less than a local attempt to cripple growth of existing and future telecommunication endeavors.

Another focus has been introduced that would bring CW&EP under tighter control of the City. This is prob’ly the most interestin’ portion for us non telecommunication types. It should be local politics at its best.

This is some fact, but mostly, Just Jake Talkin’.

.

by

Metcalf Auto Supply

Click and Clack Talk Cars

Dear Tom and Ray:

I have a ’92 Honda Civic LX sedan, which developed a vibrating, noise a few weeks ago. My mechanic said it was probably a loose heat shield, and I figured he would tighten a clamp or something. So imagine my surprise when I came back later to find he had removed the heat shield entirely. I asked him if it was safe, and he said it’s perfectly safe. I’m not convinced, however. Why would the Honda engineers have put it there if it wasn’t necessary? - Robert

Ray: Well, if you took your car to 1,000 different mechanics, Robert, 999 would probably do exactly what this guy did, and charge you $25.

Tom: And the other guy - the one who’d been sued because a customer’s car caught fire - would have installed a new heat shield and charged you over 100 bucks. And we’d have to endorse that guy’s action, mostly because our lawyers insist upon it.

Ray: Most cars have several heat shields...some more important than others. The one most commonly removed by mechanics fits just below the catalytic converter. It’s designed to keep a hot converter from igniting stuff underneath the car, like dead leaves and tall, dry grass you might park on top of.

Tom: So if you live in a city, and never park in a dry meadow, you can probably get by without that heat shield. But there are situations where something is wrong with the engine and too much fuel pours into the converter, causing it to overheat. And under those circumstances, the converter gets red hot and can ignite something and set the car on fire if no heat shield is present. And that’s really why the engineers put it there.

ARCHIVES Index