You really have no conception of what Mr. D’Errico was driving at, do you?

His primary concern, a park fountain unfairly taken over for private nuptials, merely is a microcosmic slice of a much greater, macrocosmic problem of administrative ineptitude and indifference on the part of the Boise city government.

His secondary concern, the fatuous and supercilious response by Ms. Duncan, only serves to underscore, yet again, the aforementioned indifference by bureaucratic ciphers who only wish to preserve their miniature fiefdoms, while giving the illusion of due diligence concerning the very issues which afford them, quite frankly, unearned livelihoods. Condescension perceived is condescension achieved, Ms. Duncan.

And ultimately, Mr. D’Errico’s tertiary concern is more global in perspective. I am necessarily inferring, from his own written statements, that he is highly concerned about what amounts to a fascistic usage policy of public recreational space. Though a wedding is a good thing, it should never come at the expense of the many so that a few may be served, especially on a hot summer day, when a fountain’s cooling water stands between a man and a bout of heatstroke.

For shame, Boise public serpents…er…servants.

As for your suggestion at the docks, I’m not familiar with the area you are talking about therefore I didn’t comment as I don’t think I have enough knowledge of the area in question to comment. Could be that others feel the same way?

Have you presented your suggestion to anyone? Have they rejected it? If they did, did they give you a reason?

Also, Have you done your civic duty and reported the vandalism to anyone?

I think the commotion about widening Ustick was trivial, others don’t.

I think the monopolization of the docks at Quinn’s pond is NOT trivial and is on topic for this thread yet nobody made a comment, not even Mr D, who I supported 100%.

What’s really not trivial though, is November’s election. Remember all that you read here and elsewhere and then vote for whom you think will handle the city’s affairs, YOUR way.

In fact, I can understand a city employee’s dilemma here…the citizens don’t want them to waste money…but some feel free to send them on wild goose chases for trivial matters…and this is a very trivial matter!

I don’t usually comment on this site…I usually just like to read the articles and nod in agreement…but the last couple of articles really made me scratch my head and in my opinion are way off of what you usually accomplish on this site.

I’m just asking us to do the same thing we would ask of the city leaders and employees…be careful what we are spending our tax dollars on.

Now your latest story on the police cars running while the officer is on break has the potential to save money for all of us. I will just read and nod on that one.

As a taxpayer, there are more important issues I would like Ms Duncan (and the other city employees who are probably trying to answer this) to work on than something as trivial as this! I’d ask how much it cost to run this down…but I would consider that trivial as well and wouldn’t want to waste the time of another city employee or any of my tax dollars on it.

Sometimes, I think this site and the people on it are right on track with the issues facing this city…and other times, not so much. Anyone want to venture a guess where this one falls for me?

By the way, I don’t consider myself a fan of “team Dave” as they are refered to here…but, come on folks, we could be a bit more “helpful” here by not wasting taxpayer dollars on trivial pursuit…don’t ya think?

EDITOR NOTE–
Deadmeat, the issue was settled and Joe got his answer from the GUARDIAN right up front–he was right, the wedding folks were wrong.

No “tax dollars” are being expended by those who trash or defend Team Dave–that is just sport at this point. Those people probably won’t get married at the fountain again, so game over.

The point of the exercise is that Joe felt his only relief was at the GUARDIAN. In light of the privatization of The Depot, Joe didn’t want the practice to spread (he told me this privately). He was truly pure of heart and looking out for ALL citizens at the outset.

For staffers to determine a citizen’s concerns to be trivial treads on thin ice.

City Spokesmouth: Sir, I am sorry that you have a problem with innocent young children who are simply trying to get an education. I am sure these poor children have no idea that they make you react this way. I will check into that for you.

Ms. Duncan needs to enroll in an “Ego Management Class”

Joe has the high ground here. Whether you meant to be condescending and arrogant, or not, you came off, and continue to come off, that way.

Why not apologize? My guess is that this whole event would blow over if you said something along the lines of, “Joe, I am sorry you and others were inconvenienced and sorry if I seemed rude. Let me check into the situation and make sure that if anything was done improperly, it won’t happen again.”

Humility is pretty rare, and for that reason valued all the more.

Spokesperson’s need to bend over backward to accommodate concerned callers and if a policy isn’t known, that spokesperson should check on it and return a call immediately.

Other than the Depot which appears to be a very special case requiring very special rules; City Parks are open UNLESS a designated area is reserved ahead of time. The designated areas are those such as the shelters and areas around the fireplaces; and those are open on a first come, first served basis if no reservation has been made. I learned this back in the 1970’s with a single telephone call to the City Parks Department where the caller very politely explained the rules and alerted me as a new-comer to the City, that another park existed with the required facilities for the date and time I needed a reservation.

But, that was way back during Mayor Eardley’s term when “nothing was happening in Boise” so we were being told.

So, I have to say, no points ’cause there was no contest, just a City employee forgetting who her/his bosses really are – us.

Gosh, I would have to say that your expectations are unrealistic with this administration.

As for Mr. D’s reply, it was a gross over-reaction to a fairly benign and harmless response by ECD.