New Haven Independent

Posted by: Gary Holder-Winfield | February 5, 2008 9:57 AM

Ok, I know that we should give people a chance but where has the emphasis been on re-entry all this time? Now we are going to focus on this -now?!? After the little kids have been shot - now?!? Did they not see the Building Bridges report from a few years back? Have they not walked around this city? Now we are going to focus on this...great. Jodi Rell is already there and she is by far not the most progressive politician. Isn't that a problem? Isn't it a problem when one of the lead voices on this issue is a legislator from this city and still we are just coming to it. Every citizen should be a lobbyist? What about the mayor and his administration? Talk to the delegation - work with them. everything is not okay because you say it is. It is more than rhetoric and lives are at stake.

Posted by: charlie | February 5, 2008 10:46 AM

Allan's quote is right out of loonie-land. Yale and other major institutions in the city need to rapidly expand their presence here in New Haven, provide jobs, and serve as "model" developers (as they have) if our city is going to compete in the 21st century.

As far as "people who work here can live here," doesn't Allan realize that our city already has way more than its fair share of subsidized housing? New Haven should ban the construction of any new subsidized units, and create a plan to remove 1/2 the units that are here. The surrounding towns need to share some of the cost of having subsidized housing.

Posted by: darnell | February 5, 2008 10:56 AM

Not one mention of the Board of Education. While scores of youth continue to drop out, and CAPT and CMT scores at the lowest in the state, the Mayor continues to ignore the problems, as if they will go away on their own. These kids that are dropping out will in all likelihood end up in the criminal justice system, and then back on the streets again without jobs or futures. But it is easy for the Mayor to instead attempt to shift the focus to the state or federal government, or some other entity.

If the Mayor wants to provide some relief for taxpayers, homeowners and automobile owners in New Haven, it is within HIS and the Board of Aldermen power to do so. Just reduce spending.

In regards to the "racist" flyer the Mayor referenced, I wanted to know what the fuss was all about, so I went to the web site and looked at it myself (I have a general mistrust of politicians and rarely take them for their word. I need to see evidence). The Mayor and the NHI have been misrepresenting the anti-"ILLEGAL" immigration flyer. I've seen it myself, and so should you. http://www.watchdogproject.us/Images/Flyer4.pdf

Posted by: darnell | February 5, 2008 11:10 AM

I re-read the Mayors state of the city address, because I could not believe that there wasn't ONE mention of education in the city. I scanned for the words "education", "Board of Education", "test scores". There was not any words in the entire document with these words included.

Posted by: on whalley | February 5, 2008 11:22 AM

So how much money does the state give New Haven for it's service as a dumping ground for felons? Are we accepting more and more felons in exchange for more and more money? Rather than the residents of New Haven being upset that the city is cashing a check to pay for it's obscene spending while every week we get another bus load of felons on the street corner we're supposed to be upset at the state for not giving us enough money?

What's wrong with being upset at New Haven for trading the security of its residents, the image of the city and more than a few lives for a taxpayer funded pay out from the state? Let's all help DeStefano get even more of our fellow citizens money to waste? Don't think so.

We shouldn't have to accommodate criminals and felons. Nobody should. Dump them in the sound or ship them off to some desert work facility in New Mexico if they have no immediate family to leech off of. It's not hard to not be a criminal. Generally it involves significantly less effort. I'm pretty familiar with all of the crock disorders in the DSM and still haven't found the involuntary act of "dope slinging" or armed robbery listed among the sea of excuses for bad behavior.

Posted by: WestvilleMom | February 5, 2008 1:54 PM

TWO COMMENTS REGARDING STATE OF THE CITY...
1) This is a quotation from an Oct. article by Reuters on new "middle-class millionaires", i.e. people who work long hours and have managed to have a net worth (on paper) of over $1M, but live a basically middle-class life.... "Nearly eight out of 10 -- or 77 percent -- choose their neighborhood based on the quality of the school system." The New Haven Public Schools need to change ONE THING with regard to how they are run in order to greatly enhance the New Haven tax base....it should be your CHOICE to either go to your neighborhood school OR enter a lottery. NO ONE who is middle-class is going to buy a house in a city where a crap shoot determines where your child is going to school. This is a B-A-S-I-C rule of economics that is being ignored by New Haven, which is a city trying to re-invent the wheel and--sorry to inform you--your wheel is BENT.
2) I just tried to re-finance my heart-of-Westville home to take advantage of lower interest rates and----to my HORROR----have found that the appraisal is TWENTY-PERCENT (yes, 20%)!!! lower than the appraisal of just a couple of years ago.

I EITHER WANT MY TAXES LOWERED or I want to IMPEACH JOHN DESTEFANO !!!!

Posted by: Carole | February 5, 2008 2:14 PM

Dustin Gold and Darnell,

Your immigration flyer does a gross disservice to the words and spirit of Frederick Douglass. Here's more from his speech about Chinese immigration (apparently legal, conducted by treaty):

"I have said that the Chinese will come, and have given some reasons why we may expect them in very large numbers in no very distant future. Do you ask, if I favor such immigration, I answer I would. Would you have them naturalized, and have them invested with all the rights of American citizenship? I would. Would you allow them to vote? I would. Would you allow them to hold office? I would.

"But are there not reasons against all this? Is there not such a law or principle as that of self-preservation? Does not every race owe something to itself? ... Is there not such a thing as being more generous than wise? ... Is it best to take on board more passengers than the ship will carry? ...

"I submit that this question of Chinese immigration should be settled upon higher principles than those of a cold and selfish expediency.

"There are such things in the world as human rights. They rest upon no conventional foundation, but are external, universal, and indestructible. Among these, is the right of locomotion; the right of migration .... It is the right you assert by staying here, and your fathers asserted by coming here. It is this great right that I assert for the Chinese and Japanese, and for all other varieties of men equally with yourselves, now and forever."

You can read the whole speech here: http://www.blackpast.org/?q=1869-frederick-douglass-describes-composite-nation

Posted by: charlie | February 5, 2008 2:25 PM

Dustin Gold's positions are completely untenable and should be rejected out-of-hand.

Cities that attract immigrants have much higher social mobility, lower crime and rising incomes, especially among poor and minority groups. Examples include Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, New Haven, Boston, Stamford, Austin, San Diego, Seattle, Washington DC, etc.

Cities that do not attract immigrants in large proportions -- are literally rotting into the ground and have 5x higher levels of social mayhem and decay. Examples of cities with very low immigrant populations relative to the above cities include Detroit, Cleveland, Memphis, Baltimore, Buffalo, Gary, and New Orleans, all of which have lost significant population over the past 10 years and have sky-high crime rates.

Immigrants are absolutely essential to a working city, and help create jobs, tax revenue and new opportunities. We need to encourage more of them to come to New Haven.

Does Dustin really want New Haven to look like Detroit?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | February 5, 2008 4:27 PM

charlie
Well Put! Look at Danbury...they have scared off the immigrant people and the businesses are feeling it with a 60% loss in businesses.

Posted by: Ned | February 5, 2008 4:51 PM

I wouldn't mind property taxes so much, if there was better or more consistent delivery of municipal services, for example, sometimes the dispatchers / police respond right away, are courteous and efficient and other times not. LCI - where are you? DPW, again hit or miss. ZBA - ditto, Parks - there's a lot of trash floating around out there. Tax assessor - do a search on "god", in the Vision Appraisal database (yes I wanted to see what god owns in New Haven) - god owns "farmland" on Grand Ave., a stone's throw from downtown - and he/she/it? has a really low assessment - hmm, must be divine intervention...

Posted by: Outta-order | February 5, 2008 8:09 PM

I just don't get this new undercurrent of anti-immigration sentiment in the black community. This is a cop-out on our part. If we ever get the sense that "legal" hispanic folks start doing better than us or uncle sam is more attentive to them (whatever that means), will we start attacking them as well.

Tearing down any other disenfranchised group to build up your lot in life is counterproductive. Do you think that if uncle sam were to ship all of the "illegals" back to wherever, that you would be doing any better? Get real and refocus your direction on the real cause of socio-economic problems in the african american community. It ain't the illegals in New Haven.

Posted by: darnell | February 5, 2008 8:37 PM

Carole, it is not my flyer. Thanks for the additional info.

Posted by: robn | February 5, 2008 9:05 PM

Other than the Chinese Exclusion act of 1882 there were no quotas on immigration until 1924. By that time, the Germans, Poles, Scots, Irish, Chinese and millions of Italians came here, worked hard, and built modern America. So to racists like Dustin Gold who would selfishly close the door on the American dream...we don't agree with that in New Haven. Go peddle your linens elsewhere.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | February 6, 2008 3:19 PM

The headline on this story is all wrong. It should have read "Pinocchio Chronicles." That's because Mayor John DeStefano, Jr. told fables about everybody being a lobbyist and laid mythical blame for the city's woes on everybody but himself, despite the fact he's been the chief executive for more than 14 years, strong arming, demeaning and running roughshod over everybody private and public who got in his way. The city today with all its lipstick and warts, is his creation and reflects his direct leadership.

Generally speaking, his speech was as hodge-podge of half baked policies noteworthy for their lack of detail, several of which require state and federal legislative action. There have been no public endorsements of this agenda by our legislative team anywhere. It did receive a warm welcome though from many of the beneficiaries of his annual largess, which should give normal people angina.

With that resounding review - please read below and decide just how long Pinocchio, I mean DeStefano's nose should grow with each less than truthful statement.

• The mayor says that what "we say here...do here..matters." If he really believed that, he would conduct himself in a manner that didn't alienate everybody from Easthaven to Hartford.
• Plenty of people come to hearings and meetings in City Hall - what they say doesn't seem to matter one wit, mostly because it doesn't comport with what City Hall wants. Public hearings don't mean much when the fix is in.
• Senior Tax Freeze, according to the mayor helped 549 people "stay in their homes" by passing a portion of their taxes to working, younger families with childcare expenses, two car payments, three property tax payments and at least two jobs. I don't believe for a second 549 seniors were getting the boot from their homes over property taxes.
• In a positively Bushesque moment, DeStefano claims supporting massive, uncontrolled spending in the police and fire departments amounted to "supporting our troops." Get your yardstick - this was a biggie and of course, completely false. Using technology (like email in the patrol cars) and real community policing, you can have safety that's affordable and productive. Something is out of whack when a cop can earn $175,000 with overtime. There is something fundamentally wrong with staffing ratios when that much overtime is available. But, Shut up and support our troops.
• The mayor accuses the "state" of "prisoner dumping" saying they don't have a pre-release plan. The real fact is prisoners are brought here by request - because they say they're from New Haven or have family here. Nobody's dumping anybody.
• The mayor implied that the released felons were responsible for 70% of the shootings in New Haven. Fact is, many of the shootings, or "markings" as the mayor described last year, go unsolved. In the cases where the shooting suspect is apprehended, is it a surprise they're a felon? No. But it's a heroic leap missing facts to say, these same felons were "dumped" in New Haven.
• Cynically using the tragedy of the Petit family, DeStefano claimed those two felons were "dumping" cases too. The only part that's true is that they were paroled felons.
• What happened to the mayor's idea of being a sanctuary city for felons - a place where we wouldn't ask if they're a felon on city employment application? That wasn't mentioned.
• "We are the foundation upon which the economy of the region and the state will rise and fall." While New Haven is an important part of Connecticut - it hardly controls it by any stretch of the imagination.
• "We are not anybody's dependent," says the mayor. That would be wrong. The state supplies more than 50% of our operating revenues, including a boost of $14 million new dollars in 2007-08. We are the definition of "dependent."
• "Economic base in New Haven is strong." It's strong because YNHH and Yale are the main anchors, backstopped by banking, entrepreneurs and small to medium sized businesses. It has virtually lost all of its large manufacturing base.
• Tax Collection is 98.6%. That leaves out the $480,000 from the mayoral connected Anastasios I'm sure. The percentage is that high because DeStefano employs foreclosures, liens and the towing of cars, the mayor did not say.
• Grand list will grow by a "healthy 1.7%" before the 20% revaluation kicks in. He did not point out that our property taxes will substantially rise too even as our homes are worth 20% less and will still be worth less, when the next round of 20% revals hit our tax bills.
• The mayor wants the state to impose a property tax hike on just about any dual income family in the form of a 6% "circuit breaker" cap on how much of our income could be tapped for his property taxes. Talk about passing the buck, shifting the blame and with no idea of how it would work or how much it would cost. He's peddling this as property tax relief when it really is a property tax hike. While DeStefano re-defines the truth and shaves the truth on a whole host of things, this is so blatant, it's just lying. It's the single, largest intentional misstating of facts and outcomes of anything I've heard him propose and it has very large consequences for working families. One wonders how much Sambuca he consumed and with whom when he came up with this ill advised idea. Psss, Mayor: Property Taxes are a direct function of spending and borrowing.
• The mayor wants the state's sales tax receipts. Fat chance.
• City's "combined" credit rating is the best it has been in a long time. This is interesting because less than two years ago, our credit rating had dropped because our debt was too high among other things. This raised our borrowing costs quite a bit. In a Clintonian exercise, perhaps we should see what the definition of "combined" is.
• Pilot Payments are too small, the mayor says out of one side of his mouth while encouraging, advocating and forcing more non-profit construction at the premier gateway to the city. Pilot payments must not be that bad.
• Downtown Crossing is a nice vision - the mayor will be six feet under by the time any of that comes even close to a reality. It will involve the feds, the state and yes, local taxpayers. Perhaps he could focus on some near term issues.
• He mentions the Economic Development Corporation but still didn't explain how it's going to "look like New Haven."
• The challenges the city faces did get one short paragraph - out of more than 100 spread across 8 pages - violence, growing an economic base, creating relationships in Hartford, and providing relief for hard working families. It's the Christmas Box approach where a whole lot of things are thrown into one big box - looks impressive on the outside until Christmas morning.
• The word, education, never passed his lips even though it consumes the vast majority of our budget, is responsible for most of our debt and is in charge of educating more than 20,000 kids. It could use some attention.
• Mayor DeStefano of course, reserved some paragraphs (more than the ones dedicated to our challenges) to demonize those who are fighting his city ID card calling their efforts "garbage." Of course, he fails to mention that new applicants are barely trickling in, and that the total number of card holders, including city employees and those who philosophically agree with it, total less than 4% of the city's population or that the claims used to justify the card in the first place, were for the most part straw men and patently false.
• In a trademark move, DeStefano cleaned up the prostitution of Scripture he employed in his last major speech grossly taking Christ's teachings to his disciples out of context for political spin and win. He did so again, awkwardly but at least it was less offensive.

Honesty, candor and integrity are in short supply in politics today. All too often, those in power feel the need to misrepresent the facts, at times just plain lying about the problem and the solution in order to curry favor with the public or their peers or to insure passage of the legislation. It's one of the many reasons Obama has caught the imagination of so many first time voters, and many of us old jaded ones too. With such a fine example in the headlines on a daily basis, it is too bad we settle for so much less here in New Haven even as these same leaders grab on to his coattails and pay absolutely no attention to his example.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | February 6, 2008 5:02 PM

I'd be remiss if I allowed Moti Sandman and Sergio Rodriguez to get away with their comments in this story:

"There's a vicious budget coming our way," Sandman warned, "and the only way we'll be able to help the tax burden of homeowners is to get the state involved."

Westville Alderman Sergio Rodriguez had already acted on the mayor's charge to work in concert and in more effective manner with the state. He said he had contacted the boards of aldermen or their equivalents in Hartford, Meriden, Waterbury, Bridgeport, New London and New Britain. "We're all afflicted by the current tax situation, so we're going to come together to the state."

That's a crock, gentlemen, as you both know. Unless and until you curb spending, new programs, new cars, union contracts you can't pay for, $16,000 raises, dozens more cops and allowing city employees to double dip on pensions to name but a few, you will not be able to control taxes. That's because you spend first and figure out how to pay for it second, effectively backing into a property tax bill that closes the gap between our annual dependency payment from the state, and working families paying taxes.

That's not the state, gentlemen, that's you.

Posted by: Dustin W. Gold | February 6, 2008 5:43 PM

I fully support "IMMIGRATION" - I do not support "ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION". Please not the difference, stop trying to lump immigrants and illegals into one class. They are not the same.

Illegals are being used as modern day slaves. They are allowing themselves to be exploited at the expense of American citizens. I will stand for exploitation of the illegals and will not allow my fellow Americans' wages to be decreased because the illegals are willing to prostitute themselves.

Posted by: WestvilleMom | February 6, 2008 5:54 PM

GARY: Your extensive knowledge of city politics (which dwarfs my own) and your apparent ability to see through all the "bull" out there seem incongruous with respect to your views on Obama.
For a more realistic perspective, "google" Obama and Alice Palmer, the esteemed Chicago politician he hard-knuckled out of office so that he could take her seat in the IL State Senate...(you mean you don't know about this?)
Read on ... "Obama, 46, has rarely suffered from a lack of confidence -- whether on the court or in the pursuit of public office. In 1996, he sought the Illinois state Senate seat of Alice Palmer, who was running for Congress and who endorsed him. But when her congressional bid sagged, she decided she wanted to keep her seat and asked Obama to move aside. Not only did he decline, but he challenged the legality of her nominating petitions and those of other candidates, ultimately knocking them all off the Democratic primary ballot.
For much more information on this old-style political maneuver, go to this link:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-070403obama-ballot,1,57567.story
from the Chicago Tribune of April 3, 2007.
When coupled with his "Wendell Harp"-ian real estate dealings, his actual history casts considerable doubt on his supposed characteristics of "honesty, candor and integrity", as described by you.
A wolf in sheep's clothing? We will most likely have the opportunity to find out, I would bet.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | February 6, 2008 10:53 PM

Westville Mom...I know the story of Alice Palmer. I looked into it. While I sympathize with her sagging congressional bid, it sagged not because of anything Obama did, but rather because of her own candidacy. Because her campaign didn't turn out so well is a poor excuse for asking Obama to step aside just so she can stay employed in politics. To be honest, I would have turned her down too. I'm not sure I'd have taken it to the level he did, but Chicago politics is rough. I was troubled by his real estate deal with Reznik. It wasn't illegal but it smelled bad and he should have known better than to hang out with and take political contributions from such a character. However, I found those to be his only two major transgressions. To the extent that any of these politicians can lift us to a higher plane, he's the best we have at the moment. That doesn't mean he's perfect, but then again, we all have flaws. I can live with his and hope he won't repeat them.

Posted by: WestvilleMom | February 7, 2008 10:20 AM

GARY: Glad to hear that you have done your homework, but still puzzled about how you are reconciling your rather moderately conservative fiscal views with endorsing the guy with the most liberal voting record in the Senate. What I'm left with is a sort of "least of many evils" attitude toward Obama based on a vague sense of trust in one who has a rather short track record. Out of idle curiosity, would not turning down the N. Vietnamese offer of freedom in favor of showing loyalty to one's fellow POWs and thus bringing unspeakable tortured horror upon oneself in retribution not be considered lifting us to a "higher plane"? Not to imply "perfection" in McCain in any way, but rather to make the point that this singular act of almost super-human bravery and adherence to an ideal is the sort of proof of inner integrity we rarely glimpse in anyone, much less a politician. It's the stuff Greek myths were made of. I truly hope we, as a country, are not falling into the trap of made-for-TV looks, speech, gestures, and promises.

Posted by: Gary Doyens | February 7, 2008 2:32 PM

Westville Mom: I've gone full circuit with John McCain a couple of times and across many years. I first paid attention to him when I was a still a reporter. I could not believe he interceded with regulators on behalf of Charles Keating who ripped off seniors with bogus investments. He donated big money to McCain and four other senators - called them the Keating Five. I wrote him a letter the day Keating went to jail suggesting that he should go with him. (See, I've always been this direct.)

When it was all over though, he admitted an error in judgement. I received a personal letter from John detailing his errors and providing a number of documents. I was surprised and impressed to say the least.

Across many years, I remained a fan, until last year, when he pandered and sucked up to the right wing of the GOP so spectacularly when clearly he was much more moderate. I felt he sold out. We are clearly on different wavelengths on the Iraq War - its justification, its conduct, its conclusion. He has since tried to go back to the "straight talk" that made him famous and me a fan. I'm just not buying.

So, Obama - He loves his wife and kids. He appreciates a smart, vocal woman. He refuses to get in the gutter and he promises a new day in politics. He's fresh and refreshing. He reminds me of what New Haven and other cities with gritty fringes, crime and poverty can be if leaders aspired to a higher plain, a robust embrace of public discussion of public policy, taxes and direction vs. what we approve of by default, control and lack of interest.

Does Obama worry me? Yes. He thinks rich people make $100,000 because only 10% of the U.S. population makes that much money or more. Because of that viewpoint, he wants to increase taxes on families who make it. In Connecticut, $100,000 doesn't go far - and if he was more in touch, he'd know it doesn't go far in Chicago either. I'm troubled by his ideas for some social programs and how all that is going to be paid for and how he is going to exit us from Iraq without causing more problems and without those we fight able to claim they beat the great U.S.

I guess I'm willing to go on faith with Obama - he's smart, makes sense most of the time and he loves his wife and kids more than he loves an ideology. I don't think he will jeopardize his family or mine. When he comes to a crossroads where he may be tugged a different way, I think Michelle will keep him grounded. At least I hope so.

Besides, if he gets crazy on taxes - I can advocate from afar - You'd be surprised how you can make an impact on public policy by calling Washington, D.C.

Posted by: WestvilleMom | February 8, 2008 12:26 PM

GARY: You've given me some interesting points to ponder, although I disagree with your rendition of the Keating 5. McCain & Glenn are two guys who set extremely (and maybe impossibly) high standards for themselves and occasionally fall short, as we all do. I read Glenn's autobiography, along with "The Right Stuff" several years ago (the things you don't do when you have sons!) and have a hard time believing that his and McCain's involvement in the K-5 scandal was anything more than what he and McCain claimed it was (as was the conclusion of the investigators.)
About the war...we will never, ever know what would have happened with the logistics of a war with Afghanistan while leaving Saddam in place with the "no fly" zone, daily pot shots at our planes, "oil for food" money pouring into his coffers for military build-up, and who knows how many terrorists & weapons finding safe-haven there after being driven out of Afghanistan. This will forever remain an unknown, so at this point we will just have to wait a few decades for historians to enlighten our children with their interpretations.
As for the family concerns, McCain's kids (all 7 of them) seem to love him and he them. Honestly, McCain was not my first choice, or even my second ....although if the family track record were to be the deciding factor, Giuliani would have had to be eliminated, I suppose.
Your concerns are more similar to mine, overall, than different, but I am trying very hard not to let impressions about the wife (or husband, as the case may be) intrude on my decision.
In short, your candidate still seems much too naive and left-wing for my taste and my candidate leaves me less than content.
But getting back to the original focus of this forum, I think (?) we agree on "regime change" for New Haven and I hope this portends a sort of restiveness in the community that will culminate in a course correction in the next mayoral election.
I look forward to reading more of your opinions on THAT when the time comes.

Posted by: WEBblog 1 | February 8, 2008 5:17 PM

History:

During the 2006 Gubernatorial election the mayor called for some form of property tax reform, but did not provide the details. That proposal and all others the Mayor put forth went down in a hail of negative votes.
(330,000K).

I 2007 Governor Rell countered with a proposal to cap property taxes at 3%. The Mayor and the democratic controlled legislature rejected then defeated Rell's proposal without debate, and did not offer a compromise proposal.

Real time:

In the mayor's 2008 state of the city address reported above, the Mayor highlight's the central issue which militates against his call for economic development funding for route 34.
His EC-34 proposal calls for an additional one billion in new pilot payments from the state. Concurrently, the mayor points out in his message that pilot payments are falling to as low as 56% for colleges and universities and 37% for state owned properties.

If the mayors projections are correct, it would be economically unfeasible to propose to the state that they fund an additional 1B in new pilot. It is worth mentioning that the city delegation has not been consulted nor have they signed on to this proposal. Indeed, just today Representative Dyson spoke to this fact.

The mayor's address goes on to call for full payment of pilot payments but falls short of a threat to file suit to back up his demand. He is also demanding a cap and reimbursement to the city on property taxes that are more than 6% of income. Such a vague proposal lacks specificity and insures the stamp of DOA, DEAD ON ARRIVAL.
The mean test here is determine how to accurately assess 6% of who's income, New Haven is 70% rental, will it be 6% of renters income or 6% of owners income, or 6% of both? He must Recognize that owners are only 30% of the equation.

Quoting the Mayor:
"But, But the fact is that the grand list and property taxes, only account for 42% of general fund revenue". That obviously means that 58% has to be derived from state sources.

For me then, this state of the city address is vague, tends to mislead, lacks specificity and is in need of clarity.

Until that happens I believe the state of the city is without a well defined purpose, and lacks a reasonable conclusion.