Artical from September Chain Mail

It is no secret that John Moffitt, Prescott's current city attorney, is bad for cyclist in Prescott and in the state of Arizona. This is common knowledge among prominent AZ bicycle advocates.   I learned about Mr. Moffitt and his anti-bicycle efforts well over a year ago.  The funny thing is that I did not learn about him from the local advocates who were active at that time.  I learned about him while on various road training rides in the valley.  When people found out that I was from Prescott they immediately started telling me all of the problems Mr. Moffitt caused them and their city over the past decade.  They were extremely baffled when they found out that I was unaware of his unfriendly bicycle stance .  I even missed the pack split to hear all of their stories. Most people in Prescott are unaware of the AZ state legislation and other attitudes concerning bicycles that Mr. Moffitt has tried to push and has inflicted on Prescott.  A few years ago Mr. Moffitt even helped develop the current bike plan   (that the PBAC is currently updating) and his name is proudly listed as a PBAC member and friend .   What is wrong with this picture? Over a year ago, I can even  remember hearing at a local meeting, what a friend Mr. Moffitt is to the cycling community in this area. How naive.   Someone was either a smooth talker or someone was a bad listener.  With the recent developments in the news I feel it is time to let Prescott in on the truth.  John  Moffitt is bad for cycling. In a recent Prescott Courier article about the possibility of Mr. Moffitt going to Tucson, Prescott's mayor Sam Steiger made comments to the effect of, Mr. Moffitt has made several enemies on city council and his looking for another job was not such a bad idea.    Once your boss says something like this it is time to start packing.  I think that if you read closely between the lines of the Courier article you can almost see "do not let the door hit you on the way out"  As much as I want Mr. Moffitt to leave Prescott I do not wish him on a bike loving town like Tucson.  His attitude towards bikes are more suited for a large city in a developing nation like Mexico City or San Salvador.  These places are about as bike unfriendly as you can get which seems to suit Mr. Moffitt style much better.  I would realistically be happy to see him leave Arizona.  Prescott has a very long way to catch up with Tucson but the PBAC is working very hard on improving our conditions.  The absents of Mr. Moffitt would greatly improve things for cyclists in our wonderful city.  I do not know the exact process for getting him out but it seems clear to me that whatever it takes it is a worth while endeavor and that the timing could not get any better than now. Tim Travis  

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dear City Staff and Arizona cyclists: After an overwhelming response, mostly in support but some negative, I feel that I need to follow up and clarify things on the matter of Prescott City Attorney John Moffitt.

Most of the negative feedback that I received was a result of a few people confusing the many hats I wear in the Prescott bicycle community. When I write things in the Chain Mail I am speaking as a private citizen and not on behalf of the PBAC. Please remember that Tim Travis is not the PBAC and the PBAC is not Tim Travis. My opinion is entirely as a private citizen.

I do not know Mr. Moffitt personally and therefore would never comment on him in this manner. My comments were purely concerning Mt Moffitt’s political actions in his capacity as city attorney.

I apologize for wording my opinion so strongly. I am a person who openly speaks his mind and as a private citizen I have this right but I now think I could have worded things differently and still expressed my beliefs.

Some responses, positive and negative, were under the misconception that I personally caused Mr. Moffitt to not get the job in Tucson. I can neither take credit for this or be blamed for this. I am sure that I had very little to do with it. I have since heard that the Tucson decision was made before I sent out the latest Chain Mail.

Mr. Moffitt contacted me yesterday, and made his past actions and future direction clear. I thank him for taking the time for this clarification. Now that everyone has clearly and publicly stated their positions we can move forward to create a community that is truly bike and pedestrian friendly, a community in which motorists and all other road users can safely travel our public byways. This will be in the best interests of all of Prescott residents. I am done commenting on the past. We need now to focus on the present. What we do today absolutely affects our future. We currently have greater participation in the process among resident cyclists, City leaders and staff than ever before, and we all need to continue working together.

There is some very good news that has come from all this. John Moffitt and I have opened a healthy dialog and earned each other’s mutual respect. I would like to invite Mr. Moffitt to attend and speak at The Summit this weekend. I see a future of us working together and a presentation by him would help encourage this. I realize that this is extremely short notice so I would understand if he could not make it. In Mr. Moffitt’s reply he has invited me to have a meeting with him. I would like to except this invitation and will contact him (sometime after this very busy weekend for me) and set this up. I expect it to be friendly and productive.

Below is the exchange of email between Mr. Moffitt and myself.

Tim Travis

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Tim - I have been provided with a copy of your E-Mail regarding my allegedly "anti-bicycle" stance. I am not responding to the letters sent by residents outside of the Prescott area, and am aware of opinions regarding me in the Tucson bicycling community. However, I do not want there to be any misconceptions in the Prescott area about what I have done and why I have done it and what my current stance is.

I am the designated public lobbyist for the City of Prescott. In that position, I lobby in support of legislation (or against legislation), depending upon the position of the Mayor and Council. A few years ago, as a result of the "Feldkamp lawsuit" {of which I am sure you are aware}, the City Council supported proposed legislation which would have set a standard of care for maintenance of city streets, and would have provided certain limited immunities to cities. Admittedly, this would not have been in the best interests of bicyclists; however, the concern of the City was potential future liability to the City. Parenthetically, this legislation could also have not been in the best interests of motorcyclists, since we (motorcyclists) have many of the same concerns as bicyclists. Since I spend most of my free time on a motorcycle, I don't think anyone would consider me "anti-motorcycle". However, in my position as the City Attorney and lobbyist for the City, I have to support legislation which is for the good of the City and which expresses the consensus of the Council.

The first year that the legislation was introduced, it was defeated in Committee. The second year, there was strong opposition from organized bicycle groups. I agreed to have it withdrawn, with the understanding that I would not ask for it to be resubmitted unless I could reach an agreement with bicycle advocates on compromise language. No such agreement was reached and we did not resubmit the legislation.

The legislation was not only supported by the City Council when it was first introduced about 2-3 years ago, but also was supported by the Arizona League of Cities and Towns, and was in fact one of their annual resolutions seeking legislation.

Among other things, I had also lobbied in favor of limited immunity for use of City parks and recreational areas. Again, this was supported by the City Council at the time, and also by the Arizona League of Cities and Towns. My family and I use City parks and other recreational facilities; I am certainly not opposed to recreational activities.

About 8 years ago, I had issued a legal opinion that in the event that we formally designated striped bike lanes, that the City would incur additional maintenance responsibility for those bike lanes, and that therefore there may be more potential liability to the City in the event of an accident. I did not say that we should not have bike lanes - I did, however, render an opinion that we should not stripe bike lanes unless we were committed to expend the additional resources for additional maintenance for those bike lanes. {And that was about 8 years ago}

About 6 weeks ago {before the bicycle issue again became a controversy}, I issued a revised legal opinion at the request of the Community Development Department. As a result of recent court cases over the past couple of years, we revised our opinion to now state that in our opinion there is NO additional liability if we were to stripe bike lanes, and that a Court would probably hold that our responsibility to maintain a roadway in a reasonably safe condition is not dependent upon whether or not a lane is striped for bicycles, but rather whether or not bicycles commonly use a particular roadway.

If you would like to meet and discuss these or other issues, I would be happy to meet with you.

John R Moffitt

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

John:

Thank you for responding so thoroughly. I have received several responses to my article, both in support of you and me, and I find it necessary to post a message to clarify things. This clarification message will not present you in a negative light. After reading your response I believe that I understand your position better and I think that we can find common ground to work together to provide bike facilities that satisfy both of our needs. In my clarification statement I will attempt to ease our relationship so we may work productively together in the future.

I would also like to point out that my article was never meant to discuss you on a personal level. We have never met but I have heard positive things about you as a person. I only meant to speak about your capacity as Prescott City Attorney.

In my clarification statement I would like your permission to include your recent replies to me. (Included below) Please let me know.

Tim Travis

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

(Tim) Thanks for your response. I have no problem you publishing my E-Mail to you. I would hope that it would clarify matters among those who are forming opinions based upon "what they heard".

You might also want to point out that Prescott is not really bicycle unfriendly - in fact, the Council recently approved striping bicycle lanes on the new connector road we are building.

I would like to meet with you when we both have time; I see no reason why Prescott can't accommodate cars, motorcycles, bicycles, horses, pedestrians - all of its citizens' needs. I would like to think that we do so now, and will continue to do so in the future.

John

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Tim - one further thing I'd like to call to your attention. As a city attorney (whether it be me or anyone else), a city attorney (or any attorney, for that matter) does not pursue his or her personal agenda. Rather, an attorney is an advocate for their client; a city attorney is an advocate for the position of the city council. Over the years, I have been pro-growth; I have been anti-growth; I have been anti-employee; I have been pro-employee. Of course, everything that "I" have been has been the result of advocating the position of my city council at the time - which changes over the years. Actually, very few people know "my" personal views on anything, because, in the final analysis, they are irrelevant.

I'm glad we have started to open a line of communication.

John