BAYLOR: Conjoined nickels and dimes
New Albany’s roadways have gnarly crevasses the size of Texas, reverse Matterhorns pointing toward the balmy bowels of the earth, double-wide fissures for concealing stray mobile homes, and damp, darkened craters suitable for use as ready-made impound lots, since those automobiles eventually hitting bottom are too far out of cell-phone range to be rescued.
Thursday, April 09, 2009
Have any of you noticed the streets need paving?
Funny, I didn't hear any of the council persons suggest that we take EDIT money out of groundless sewer subsidies and put it into something vaguelt resembling economic development like paving and repairing despoiled streets -- something about not being able to walk, chew gum and practice ward-heeling, all at the same time?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I want to be clear on this. You support a $10 million bond to the pave the streets? Not the use of EDIT and already existing TIF moneys?
No other ideas? Just one or the other?
A combination of ideas would be fine by me, but I've heard neither "side" suggest this, to date.
I view it as an excellent opportunity to explicate council hypocrisy, and in the absence of coherence from that sainted quarter, the mayor's proporal has the virtue of being something that will actually hapen in our lifetimes.
Sorry for the spelling ... running out the door.
A bond could use TIF and EDIT funds, with the Scribner Place bond being a prime example. I'm not sure where the either/or idea is coming from.
A bond would be a sensible way to leverage EDIT and TIF funds, allowing us to accomplish much more while leaving significant post-payment EDIT/TIF funds for other projects. Owing to economies of scale, I bet we'd get a better per mile rate on paving, too.
In general, I support a more aggressive plan over a decades-long, piecemeal approach. It's too late for that.
A more comprehensive plan now will get us to a place where we can implement a staggered maintenance plan in future.
Just a nugget, $2 million of that bond would be used to convert Spring Street back to two-way. From what I understand, the council members opposed to the bond believe the Spring Street part should stand on its own merit instead of being added to a resurfacing project.
In general, I support a more aggressive plan over a decades-long, piecemeal approach. It's too late for that.
A more comprehensive plan now will get us to a place where we can implement a staggered maintenance plan in future.
Co-Signed
I'm just trying to add what I consider to be a little balance to this situation.
The executive branch wanted a $10 million bond on the agenda, ostensibly for paving, but had no details or plans to give the Council at the time. The Council did not put it on the agenda. Under those terms, I don't have a problem with not putting on it on the agenda.
I agree with the hypocrisy of certain members of the Council. However, I've seen enough "shuffling" of funds from the executive branch, many times with little logic to back it up, to be wary of a bond with no details.
Without details for the $10 million, it's hard to come with how much of a EDIT and TIFF amount to be leveraged.
Do we have to choose between paving streets, or picking up the garbage around and on the streets?
Do we have to choose between paving streets, or picking up the garbage around and on the streets?
Maybe if they redo the streets they would have to pick up all the junk that has accumulated and even mow the streets first.
Just for perspective, the roads here are better than most others I've used, up north the snow and ice destroy roads constantly. I think it's funny people complain about paving here when abused children are lying around everywhere, city government is a joke, and everyone is either drunk or in church. But hey, the asphalt mafia and their bank are thrilled, and who luv's ya Mayor England?
It's the broken window theory, G, to which I think you normally subscribe.
I fail to see how aggressively addressing the city's neglected, preexisting infrastructure is a joke.
Cities should pave their streets. Duh.
We're talking about a basic city service here - and one that should be funded as a normal, ongoing expense.
It'd be nice to get some thoroughfare and sidewalk improvements too. It's easier for N. Korea to put a man on the moon than to get a sidewalk installed around here.
Paving streets is a zero-sum game. What is spent on pavement is not available for other uses.
That is not to say the streets shouldn't be paved. There are, in fact, good reasons to pave streets, such as the image of the city and how that affects the economic and civic climate. There are also some streets that clearly needed the work done quite some time ago.
The objection the Council has expressed is the element of a blank check which is part of the current talking stage. Some have wondered if the paving is a bailout for the asphalt companies. I don't have any strong objection to the plan nor do I have any strong desire to pave willy-nilly.
People like smooth roads. People driving on smooth roads don't gripe about the condition of roads and are, therefore, less likely to punish the politicians who deliver smooth roads.
It would be nice if we had the luxury of debating alternative uses of a big chunk of dough, rather than simply reacting to the rattling of our spines and the spilling of our coffee as we drive on bumpy streets. I recognize we don't have much time to look for other ways out of the mess. It is truly time to act.
I'll repeat a story I told at the last Council meeting (the regularly scheduled one). I heard from some pretty reliable people, (I won't say who because I can't recall who first told me and who simply confirmed it), but we have a mini-mill machine under City ownership. This machine mills asphalt in small swaths so problem areas can be properly patched, rather than simply having blacktop piled on top of a crack or a pothole. It is not used because, as I've been told, "we don't know how to use it, and, or, we need an additional piece of equipment to make it work." The City has made investments in its streets which could have prevented the current sorry state.
Should we pave major stretches, while incrementally and methodically working out some of the streets that are still mainly acceptable? Or, should we bite the bullet and say we're going to do it right for once and then keep the streets maintained?
At the very least we should utilize the equipment we have and hire the people we need to keep the roads in good repair so, however many years down the road, others aren't having the same discussion.
Finally, I agree that bond financing is an under utilized arrow in our quiver.
Way back a million years ago when I posted about said subject on the TrogBlog after the sewer contractor trashed the streets, everyone thought I was a loose cannon, well I told you so.
Fix it or you will start getting many repair bills from citizens spending dollars for frontend alignments for their vehicles - upper city management and family members included.
Come on Doug, get with it!
I think I may have read mention that the streets may need paving...
On the upside, the cratered streets vast holding pools offer protection from the city flooding due to heavy spring rains.
On a side note, I picked up a box of baseball sized chunks of pavement from my side yard that has been dislodged from our perpetual axel breaker here on silver street, could we recycle it?
I'd rather support a big-fat-bond (BFB)issue for replanting our hardwood canopy that the city has systematically destroyed. Think of the savings in storm-water costs, think of the reduction in CO2, think of the air-conditioning we'd save...
Believe me, I'd love to see proper curbs et al on the dangerous corner of 7th and E Main. But I'd prefer to see a sensible master traffic plan created first. Roads are a black asphalt hole.
Conventional wisdom holds that deteriorating streets add $800 in additional costs to each driver in the city. A completely wrecked city like Detroit, or a struggling city like Cleveland, impose even more dramatic annual costs to drivers.
Assuming that we don't suddenly convert to a walking/public transport city, we're simply privatizing the costs (imposing $800 a year to each vehicle through reduced mileage, actual maintenance, and decreased resale value) in a situation where communal spending could ameliorate it.
There's simply no need to talk about goo-goo things like image and contentment when the $ figure is so explicit.
A $10 million general obligation bond puts the costs on those who benefit most from the improvements, broadly spreading the costs over the appropriate taxpaying group and over the appropriate period of time.
Now, given the past history in New Albany, I have no problem with the legislative body asking for details, per IAH; but the paving plan already exists, with priorities and schedules. Is $10 million too much? I don't know how that number compares to the plan, and I'm suspicious of "padding" (read corruption), but I think many people made their voting decision by factoring in the sleaze factor and determined they would rather enrich a few at taxpayer expense than to watch while nothing gets done.
Those seem to be the only choices - financial corruption with progress, or the dissolution of government services altogether while we dump our EDIT revenues into the sewers under a flawed belief that that's a saintly act.
Raise the sewer rates to make the utility self-supporting. Lower the minimum charge so that low-flow users don't see a rate increase.
I'll back down on that when non-taxpayers start paying their income taxes to the city.
If there's any confusion, Mr. Price (D-3) is the most vocal council member against a rate increase, but all of them who put EDIT money into the sewers are complicit.
Nicely put all4word. I greatly suspect that all of us who seemed to disagree, would agree with your comments.
Mark
"Those seem to be the only choices - financial corruption with progress, or the dissolution of government services altogether.." Books
I can't follow the logic here. One idea is without smooth roads, economic development declines. Not true, 'cept maybe for real third world countries. Someone else suggests we will pay $800 extra for maintenance if we don’t pave, which if it were true, would probably more directly assess a road tax on those using the roads. Broken Windows theory? I think that was actually about broken windows, not roads.
Not to appear as the “Big Bad No Monster” that gives Lawguy nightmares, I think infrastructure "improvements" are great. But what is this $10M for exactly? Improvements? Repairs? Corruption?
Can we spend the $10M wisely is my question, not are paved roads good? Will we buy the best materials and apply them in a long-term cost effective manner? Do we use oil-based surfaces when concrete would last longer? Why? Can we bid out the work in small blocks so we have competitive bidding, not just enriching the same handful of already rich men? Can we return to cobblestone side streets where people can learn first-hand why they shouldn't complain about "poor" paved roads?
Since the complete lack of a track-record in maintaining or god-forbid, improving the city is the governmental norm here, then does anyone wonder what the comparable expenditures are in similar cities, I've seen some figures suggesting we should allocate up to 50% of essential service revenue to roads, bridges, et al. Doesn't NA spend most of it's money on police and fire? Why? Could shifting some excise, sales and/or fuel Tax revenue to a road-maintenance fund create a better long-term solution to our endless miles of asphalt?
Post a Comment