In a goofy discussion and vote, city council places contradictory parking restrictions on Cromwell Drive

This blog had been retired for two almost two years, but because of my involvement in the Black Lives Matter movement, I revived it when pressure began mounting in earnest to replace the racist mascot at Hays High School. So I figured, if I was going to do it for that, I might as well take a look at what’s transpiring with our city government since that is what inspired the creation of this journal back in the fall of 2014. As a result, I watched my first city council meeting in more than two years last night and I felt a sense of relief in seeing it’s just as goofy as it was when I stopped paying attention back in 2018.

The real goofiness took place during a discussion about parking on Cromwell Drive by city council members who appear to have never spent any time on Cromwell Drive. Then additional goofiness was added by the city engineer who apparently knew even less about Cromwell than the council members.

So in short, here’s the result of the action the council took last night: On Cromwell, between Sampson and the unfortunate cul-de-sac, parking will only be allowed on the west side of the street. On Cromwell, between Sampson and Dorman, parking will be completely prohibited. On Cromwell, between Dorman and Kohlers Crossing, parking will only be allowed on the east side of the street. That’s three different parking restrictions on a road that’s just one mile in length — a road that will soon be, if it isn’t already, the most densely populated road in the city.

Parking restricted to the west, fire hydant side on the south end of Cromwell

Now it didn’t start out this badly. As mayor pro tem Rick Koch originally proposed the one-side-of-the-street-only parking ordinance, it would have limited the north-end parking to the west side only, just as it is on the south end of the street. But then came a discussion about fire hydrants and what side of the street they were on, which was my first clue that none of the council members — not a single one of them — had any familiarity with Cromwell Drive. For some reason, the council thought, parking should be only be allowed on the side opposite the hydrants. And, in theory, that’s all well and good. But if these people knew anything about Cromwell, they would know that not only is parking restricted to the side of the street containing the hydrants on the south end of the street, but that motorists consistently park their cars on that side of the street closer to the hydrants that is permitted by law, but are never ticketed for it. So why all the sudden concern about hydrants now?

At another point in this goofy discussion, council member Michael Tobias wondered if pedestrian walkways could be inserted to aid pedestrians in getting from the place where they must park their car to the place where they live. Seemed like a reasonable request.

Except.

“I’m not a great fan of mid-block pedestrian crossings,” said City Engineer Leon Barba, “but they exist. I’ve seen them throughout other cities.”

Other cities? OTHER CITIES??? How about seeing them not only right here in Kyle but right there on freaking Cromwell Drive? There are two — count ‘em, two! — mid-block pedestrian crossings on Cromwell between Sampson and Dorman. But no one on the council was informed enough about what they were voting about to contradict Barba. Yes, dear readers, things haven’t changed at all at City Hall.

Of course, these rwo mid-block pedestrian crossings are completely useless. Instead of serving what pedestrian crossings are supposed to accomplish — protecting pedestrians — they actually only paint a large target on pedestrians for the sake of oncoming motorists. But that’s another issue.

One of the two "non-existent" mid-block pedestrian crossings on Cromwell Drive 

Anyway, the ordinance passed unanimously on first reading and it was decided that there would be no need for a second reading so, yes, the city of Kyle now has three separate, distinct and different parking restrictions on one, one-mile-long road. That’s what I love about this body — consistency has never been a concern. I guess I could understand the lack of consistency in regulations around a city of 50,000 persons, but on one, one-mile road? C’mon.

But, like I said earlier, I find this somewhat comforting, It’s good to know that this government body hasn’t changed during my two-year sabbatical. They still adhere to the same premise: “If the choice is between the simple and the complicated/confusing, let’s always go with the latter.”

I, on the other hand, have changed. Two years ago, these types of actions by the city council made me fear for the future of the city I chose to call home for the remainder of my life. I actually lost a lot of sleep worrying about what these people were promulgating. That was damaging my health and that’s the reason I put The Kyle Report in hibernation.

Now, I just sit back and laugh. Because, when you think about, it really is funny.

As a postscript to all of this, I do want to go on record as saying I don’t believe the council deliberately intends to enact confusing, contradictory ordinances. That’s simply the result of something far more troubling. As I mentioned earlier in this article, the real problem is that members of the city council as well as the relevant city staff simply don’t take the time — they don’t make the effort — to study and become as informed as they should be about all the items on the council's agendas. I’m willing to bet not one member of the Kyle City Council took the time — made the effort — to make the short, one-mile drive, along the entire length of Cromwell Drive between the time they first saw this proposed ordinance on the agenda and the time they voted on it. If just one of them — just one of the seven — had mentioned the fact that parking was already restricted to the west, fire-hydrant side of Cromwell on the southern end of the street and then they voted to approve restricting parking on the other side of the street at the northern end, this vote might have still seemed strange and confusing but not completely without thought or reasoning. But not one of them did and the only explanation for that is simply they just weren’t well informed enough about what they were voting on.