Dumpster distress update

I brought my Dumpster fight to the City Council this week. I was darn nervous, being used to the other side of the microphone (listening, not speaking.)

Sigh. Council members seemed receptive, but when someone makes an emotional plea to them -- they always look receptive. I know them too well, having reported on the city beat for four years. Getting ordinances through moves at a snail's pace. I think eventually something will get done, but it won't be during our near triple-digit heat that ratchets up the whole smelly problem.

I think it went OK. I received some assurances that the council is working on my problem of having a Dumpster located 7 1/2 feet from my kitchen window adjacent to the too tall 30-unit, three-story Campus Station apartments. Vanguard manages the property for the Vern Hagen Revocable Living Trust, which reportedly is out of Colorado.

Earlier Tuesday, sanitation director Scottie Williams called and asked if I might be interested in mediation between me and the apartment complex management that insists their Dumpster be placed under my kitchen window. I told him I'd be happy to sit down and talk. It's my understanding that mediation is supposed to work both sides into a compromise. What can I even compromise on? The Dumpster needs to be moved to a less impactful portion of their rather large, overly paved lot. Period. There are plenty of options. They just need to choose one. Away from me.

The interesting thing is that to locate the Dumpster by my kitchen window, it's so far away from the apartments that according to city sanitation personnel, its residents are more likely to dump their trash in the Keys Apartment Dumpster, which is next door and closer. I guess I should be happy about that.

Norman's Council Oversight Committee is considering an ordinance with my proposals for setbacks for Dumpsters from residential neighbors. Also, they're considering changing the fence ordinances to help protect said residential neighbors.

But because this apartment complex has been around for awhile (1990 or so), it's quite possible it would be grandfathered, which leaves me in the same stinky place I was in before.

I feel like the apartment management has been trying mightily to force me out of my family's cute little house that's in such a lovely place close to Campus Corner. I'm trying to decide if I have the emotional energy to fight them and wait them out. I'm wondering if I'm always going to have problems with those apartments.

What they probably don't realize is that even if I move out, they don't get rid of me. Because I'm my mother's power-of-attorney, it's my responsibility to take care of the Park Drive property for the family, and it's value and quality of life. They have pissed off the wrong person, because I am not going anywhere when it comes to digging in and fighting them. I hope they're reading this.

Their irrational desire for retribution I think is rooted in my complaint about their falling-down fence (see picture at the right) when I first moved in -- doesn't make any sense. That fence had slats out, panels down and was a general menace to their residents and their neighbors.

In my opinion, they are the ones who have encroached on our property, with their oversized three-story apartment complex looking down into our backyard and completely obliterating any privacy we might have here.

To sum it up, Campus Station apartments have caused us no end of grief.
That includes:
• Sanitation issues and smell from their Dumpster
• Security issues from Dumpster divers
• Quality of life issues
• Noise issues - Dumpster is emptied between 6:45 and 7 a.m. Tuesdays and Thursdays and it vibrates my whole house
• Property values -- who wants to buy a house with a Dumpster 7 1/2 feet from the kitchen window. If we were to rent it, I'm not sure I would want a high-tolerance renter who would be OK with the noise, the smell and the view.
• Drainage issues

Fortunately, some of my friends have other ideas that might be effective and I'll be exploring those. I'll keep those close to the vest until I know if they'll work.

If you've gotten this far on the post, I appreciate it and hope I can count on your support.

Don't give me your tired, your poor ....

... your really awful, tired clichés about women competing against each other.

Many of my female friends quietly or not so quietly celebrated U.S. Rep Mary Fallin and Lt. Gov. Jari Askins winning their respective Republican and Democratic primaries Tuesday.

After Oklahoma AG Drew Edmondson conceded the gubernatorial primary win to Askins, I posted a quick note on Facebook:

"Wow ... two female candidates for governor. CAN'T WAIT for the debates!!!! Gosh, I'm getting a little teary-eyed."

And almost immediately, one of my long-time male friends posted (from a newspaper where I used to work.)

"Gubernatorial cat fight... LOL."

And I took offense. I know my friend meant to be funny and know he really isn't a misogynist. But I'm afraid it foretells what's to come.

I want my journalist colleagues to reach beyond all those tired, old clichés to cover this historic race between two women. I don't want to hear the words cat fight, girls night out, cougar, meow or any of the other "clever" phrases referring to women.

In fact, I'd just as soon not have to hear that they're women every time Mary and Jari are reported on during this campaign. They're simply candidates for governor and the fact that they're female is nice, but it's not a reason to vote for either one. The reason to vote is because these two were the most qualified from their respective major parties to become our next governor.

And I don't want to hear about what they're wearing, please. Who the heck cares, unless they appear in a burlap sack or a $3,000 pantsuit? That isn't going to happen with these two.

Cover Jari or Mary on where they stand on the issues that are important to Oklahomans, a list that's could keep you going for awhile.

See you on the campaign trail.

Suggest you read the excellent comment by Dr. Joey Senat on the previous post

Dr. Senat slices and dices Coburn's letter in my previous post. It's definitely worth reading.

Coburn finally gets back to me on the Shield Law

July 22, 2010

Ms. Carol Cole-Frowe

PO BOX 720102

Norman, Oklahoma 73070

Dear Ms. Cole-Frowe,

Thank you for writing to express your concerns regarding an amendment to the Free Flow of Information Act of 2009 (S448), offered by Senator Feinstein, that would have limited the definition of "covered persons" under the bill. I am glad to have your perspective, and I offer my sincere apology for the delay in my response.

I agree that protecting the anonymity of news sources is potentially of great value to our First Amendment freedoms, but I am concerned that the current breadth of "covered" individuals as described in S. 448 is too broad and could include bloggers and other non-media sources that do not merit the same protections as journalists.

A broad media shield law brings tremendous national security risks by potentially undermining our ability to protect intelligence methods and national security investigations. If the definition of "covered person" is applied too broadly, any individual could leak national security secrets or classified information and subsequently hide behind "journalist" protections. On the other hand, as you note in your letter, applying the term too narrowly could result in mainstream media sources being covered, while some legitimate bloggers, student journalists, or web-based journalists are not.

In order to balance these concerns, the amendment Senator Feinstein offered would have included in the definition of "covered person" any person who had worked as a journalist for at least six months during the previous two years, as well as students who work for journalistic publications at a college or university. For these reasons, I voted for the amendment. However, as you likely know, the amendment failed by a vote of 8-11 and is not included in the legislation that is pending on the Senate floor.

Crafting the definition of a covered person has proven to be one of the most challenging aspects of developing a federal media shield law, but it must be resolved before the bill proceeds to a final vote. I will certainly keep your insights in mind, when the Senate considers the definition of covered persons in the future.

Thank you again for your letter, for your service to your profession in the Society for Professional Journalists, and for your service to the public as a journalist. I welcome any additional thoughts you may have, and I look forward to hearing from you in the future.

Sincerely,

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

United States Senator

TC: jdw