Of the argument against secret selection of professional staff is a recent discussion on a sidewalk link in the re-construction of Nisbet Drive.
The road allowance is completely adequate to provide complete urban standards. Sidewalk should be separated from the travelled portion of the road by a boulevard. Principal concerns are safety and utility . Street scape is also a consideration.
A single resident delegated and demanded no sidewalk abut his property. He would lose parking space in his driveway, he said. A convenience he has enjoyed for almost forty years on property not his own.
A recommendation was already prepared for the sidewalk to swerve out to abut the travelled portion of the road instead. For concrete to be twice as wide to accommodate snow storage and the road to be moved a metre to the west. The expense of re-locating utilities would be saved.
Twice as much concrete costs twice as much.
Utilities are normally located under sidewalks. It makes them easier to find .
In blizzard conditions,pedestrians would have no access to sidewalk because of snow ploughed over from the road. Twice the width of concrete would mean twice the room for snow to store.
Still no room for people.
At a time when we are investing hundred of thousands of dollars, by provincial mandate, to make public facilities accessible to the disabled, the design was not referred to the Disability Access Committee.
Moving the road a metre to the west means new excavation, new gravel base, re-locating underground services either for the complete stretch of Nisbet from Murray Drive to Golf Glen,
or create a crazy jog in the road to match the ludicrous curve in the sidewalk.
No management team input was sought. No financial impact presented.
Only the Chief Administrative Officer, the Director of Infrastructure and Environmental Services and no doubt Her Honour the Mayor were privy to the compromise before presentation to a formal meeting of Council. No time was allowed for second thought.
The Director of Infrastructure and Environmental Services (formerly Public Works) stated the design is an "acceptable compromise".
Who asked him for that?
Speaking for those I represent, professional staff are not paid to offer compromise entirely lacking in logic or substance. That's the political prerogative.
Best professional practice are the expectation from staff . No more and no less.
Unfortunately, I expect to see more not less of the new strategy of staff providing compromise solutions in 2010. It's probably the change referred to in the Mayor's New Year's Message.
My message is not new. From a ring side seat, I will keep you informed.
Friday, 1 January 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
Evelyn,
I watched the council meeting when this matter was debated.
I thought it a non-interest at first, and that the resident that presented his case to be logical and pleasant with his presentation, sometimes even funny.
But then I understood the issue better when more questions were raised.
It sure seemed like this single resident was more concerned about having the sidewalk have to move higher up his property than anything else.
The issue of safety was raised, but then the proposed solution of placing the sidewalk next to the road without a boulevard negates any safety, so this makes any claims of safety moot.
The expectation that doing this accomplishes safety and saves trees is clearly nonsense.
As is the requirement to relocate utilities at town expense.
An "acceptable compromise" this is not.
Thank you for asking the tough questions and keeping us residents informed.
What is made to look like a matter of routine is often not, and sometimes even the most simple of questions can uncover the real intentions, and backroom favoritism at play.
Like you mentioned, this resident doesn't stand to lose any driveway by way of a sidewalk, as it is not his driveway to begin with. If he is worried about a parking bylaw and getting tickets that could be separately addressed with an understanding given by the town regarding this particular stretch of road where tickets would not be given if cars are parked south of the sidewalk.
That would be an acceptable compromise.
Post a Comment