Tip of the Week 34

I never cease to be amazed by the news of the day -- even after a career of 40 years as a journalist.

And several events that transpired this past week were so notable that I couldn't bring myself to choose which one I would write about, so I decided to write a little bit about each one.

1. Sue the Bastards!

Case in point: Mr. Frederick V. Nielsen of Tampa, Florida.

According to an article in Tuesday's edition of the St. Petersburg (Florida) Times, it seems that Mr. Neilsen has a developed a very novel approach to being turned down for a job.

He sues!

But even in our hyper-litigious society, Mr. Neilsen's latest suit has broken new ground.

After six such suits against potential employers since 1987, this time the target of Frederick's age and gender discrimination complaint is none other than the Pinellas County (Florida) Office of Human Rights and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in Atlanta, two groups whose sole purpose is to prevent such discrimination.

I, for one am in Neilsen's corner cheering him on.

Why?

Because age and gender discrimination are alive and well these days in these United States. I know that because I've experienced this type of discrimination first-hand and, in my opinion, age and gender discrimination are becoming even more pervasive as we boomers swell our ranks in retirement.

As for Mr. Neilsen, it seems that he speaks from authority.

In his latest complaint, Nielsen, now 72, claims he was discriminated against when he was not hired in late 2006 as an equal opportunity coordinator with the Pinellas agency. He says the EEOC then failed to properly investigate his allegations.

A 34-year-old female whom the office director said was "far better suited" than Nielsen ultimately filled the position.

But Nielsen, who has a degree in labor studies, says his education and lengthy work experience as a certified labor arbitrator made him much better qualified for the slot. The woman hired for the job has a degree in communications and previously worked in the office as a clerk.

"As a labor specialist, I understand the process in hiring,' said Nielsen, who moved to Tampa from New York City in 2003. "It is a bit unusual to sue unless you have some kind of information that leads you to believe that your rejection is not based upon your qualifications."

The Pinellas Office of Human Rights and the EEOC declined to comment on Nielsen's allegations.

(Yea, I bet they did!)

Nielsen, whose resume says he has arbitrated more than 400 employment disputes, is seeking $45,000 in "back pay" from when he believes he should have been hired, plus interest.

(I suggest you take the funds from the paychecks of all those hypocritical - incompetent bureaucrats at the EEOC and pay the man!)

2. "We really don't like to do that!"

(While we're still on the subject of bureaucratic incompetence, here's a recent event taken from the perspective of first-hand experience.)

First, allow me to set the scenario:

I live in a quiet neighborhood, in Pinellas, County Florida for the past 28 years. My home is located near the center of the county. It's close to everything, yet somewhat off the beaten path.

And over those years since I first moved in, I've witnessed countless changes to my neighborhood.

For instance, after more than two decades of battling with the county, in 2007 the shell roads in our neighborhood were finally paved. (Along with the installation of an elaborate drainage system) Actually over that period of time, the surface of our neighborhood roads changed from shell to lime rock to chipped asphalt before my county finally (and begrudgingly) relented to our neighborhood's pressure and paved our roads.

However, that's far from the only thing about my neighborhood that has changed.

When I think back over the years, I can still remember a time when there weren't any children in my neighborhood -- just old people.

Now there are plenty of kids to go around in my neighborhood and I'm now the one that's old!

There used to be 5 vacant lots -- now we are down to one.

And as you'd expect, most of my neighbors have changed along the way too!

Now, some of the residents of my neighborhood are renters. Unfortunately, few renters understand or exhibit the level of respect for property that only manifests itself through pride of ownership.

And it's this lack of respect for the neighborhood that has had the biggest impact on the quality of life where I live.

· No longer do the neighbors know each other's name.

· No longer does my neighborhood get together for a block party.

· Seldom do I recognize the parade of strange cars that constantly past my house.

What's more, most transient renters exhibit many of the common antisocial behaviors that one would expect. Behaviors like:

· Wild parties at all hours of the day and night

· Domestic problems - frequently spilling into public view

· Lack of respect for the rights and property of the neighbors

· An increase in criminal behavior

Laws, codes and regulations:

While I would be the first to admit that similar behaviors are universal to any urban environment with a population equal to the Tampa Bay Area of Florida, I would also like to point out that as a society, we have developed specific laws, codes and regulations which define acceptable behavior and maintain order.

And that brings me to recent events back in my hood

My neighborhood is at the end of a dead end street. Consisting of about 30-single family homes along the shores of Tampa Bay, we're surrounded by condominiums on the remaining sides.

While parking was not a problem in the past, it has become one lately. A combination of changing demographics and condominium regulations has caused the perfect parking storm.

Renters in the neighborhood now park their ladder trucks beside their home and the owners and renters of our two neighboring condominiums have claimed squatter's rights for parking their commercial vehicles in the right-of-way at one end of our street.

Condominium regulations prohibit overnight parking of residents' commercial vehicles on condominium grounds -- so now it seems that their parking problems have become ours.

And I find those condominium residents' solution incredibly rude.

A request to the county to erect no-parking signs in our residential neighborhood was met with a less than sympathetic response by county employees. Even after we pointed out that there had been "No Parking" signs at that very location in years past, our request for the signs was denied.

Sec. 122-37. Storage, parking, maintenance of prohibited vehicles and equipment in residential zoning districts. -

(a) Intent. It is the intent of this section to prohibit the storage, parking or maintenance of prohibited vehicles in residential zoning districts in order to prevent traffic and safety problems endangering the lives and property of citizens of the county, to prevent unsightly appearances in residential areas, and to prevent diminution of property values.

Chronological list of reasons for Pinellas County's denial of parking signs:

· First the county said they could find no record of ever installing "No Parking" signs at the end of our street.

· Upon appeal, residents of my neighborhood took photos of the commercial vehicles and emailed them to the County. An inspector was sent out to survey our complaint -- he found no traffic or safety problems -- request denied once again.

· Next, I went to the county and made a personal appeal for the re-installation of "No Parking" signs at the end of our residential street. -- This is a direct quote by a county supervisor in response to my request - "We really don't like to do that! (install No Parking signs in residential neighborhoods) Besides, our inspector was just out there and he found no traffic or safety issues."

County employees did suggest that they would revisit our No Parking sign request if we were able to mount a successful petition drive among our neighbors.

And that's where this issue would have been left had it not been for the tenacity and research of a concerned neighbor. The applicable municipal code was located, and much to my shock, when I read the code, I discovered that County employees had chosen to play us all as fools.

The County has taken the position that parking construction vehicles in the right of way at the end of our residential street is not normally dangerous nor does the practice regularly impede the flow of traffic, (and I agree.) But, as I just discovered, it's what was left out that concerns me.

The last part of the codes intent (above) reads -(to prevent unsightly appearances in residential areas, and to prevent diminution of property values.) Those words directly addresses the foundation of our neighborhood's complaint and most certainly validates our request for "No Parking" signs.

I have no explanation for County employee's behavior nor can I understand why there has been such resistance to a simple request to post some regulatory signs, (I'll leave all that to your imagination) but I do have strong personal feelings about the way I was treated.

It's not my responsibility, as a private citizen, to be familiar with all the municipal codes -- that's what our taxes are for -- hiring capable and professional public employees to provide and administer public services.

So, fast-forward to current events. The County has asked for a week to try to resolve the situation???

Today is Wednesday and I'll be on the phone, once again, early next week if there are still commercial vehicles parked and/or stored at the end of our street.

Public employees work for us. Sometimes they forget. And when they do, it's up to each and every one of we taxpayers to remind them of that fact.

So, this week's tip goes something like this:

Speak up and demand the municipal services you're taxes are already funding.

Till next week!