"Cowardice asks the question...is it safe? Expediency asks the question...is it politic? Vanity asks the question...is it popular? But conscience asks the question...is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but one must take it because it is right." ~Dr. Martin Luther King

Monday 22 November 2010

About Snow And Ice And Safe Roads

A while ago, a recommendation from the Environmental Advisory Committee was made to Council to try to use less salt on town roads.

A specific suggestion was to initially reduce salt on select streets as a pilot project.

Salt of course is environmentally undesirable.Too bad we need to use it for Canada to be habitable in winter.

Council accepted the advice of Advisory Committee. All except me. Another situation where I was the lone hold-out; the black-hearted villain who does not appreciate the work of volunteers.

I thought the idea was nuts.

Decades ago the Ministry of Transportation decided the minimal amount of salt needed to be used on roads in sub-zero temperatures. It gets into water courses. It causes damage to cars. It eats away at concrete and bricks and dissolves cut stone walls. It kills grass on boulevards. It splashes on pedestrians and children in strollers, Even winter boots are a mess because of salt. It splashes a mucky mess on windows and doors of stores on the main street and can't be washed off in the freezing temperatures.

Small creatures paws become hurt and bleeding.

Obviously salt must be kept to a minimum. The conclusion was drawn long since. As a consequence, the mix of salt and sand needed to keep roads clear of ice and do the least amount of damage to the environment has already been calculated more than forty years ago.

The worst aspect of the committee's recommendation was that short streets because of fewer residents could be used for a pilot study.

How exactly can a town withhold safety and amenity on particular streets because they are short and therefore have fewer residents ?

My objections were dismissed,disregarded, received no credence or credibility from any party,including staff.

Well, guess what; without much ado or fanfare, a staff report was later quietly slipped under the radar. The pilot project would not be forthcoming.

For reasons of liability.

This story has a point. The town collects millions of dollars in taxes,
To the great hardship of many home and business property owners.

The money pays for high price experts on the payroll. Their job is to advise on best practice for least cost.

Staff resources are provided to advisory committees. Space in the town hall. Minutes are kept. Reports are dictated, written, copied collated, stapled and thirty-six copies are distributed. Council discusses. Staff are directed. Will o'the wisp ideas are followed up and the whole process is repeated once more.

Needless effort is duplicated many times over.

In the end my friend, frequently, nothing comes of it. Nada, nil, zilch and zero is the end result.

Except for the expense. It takes taxpayers' money. Lots of it. From people who have lost jobs and businesses struggling to survive.

On advice from people who were not elected. Don't have to account for money collected or spent. Don't have to take phone calls from people who can't get out of their driveway to get to work to earn a living to pay the taxes.

Remember, the year before, the debacle about plowing out driveways. Hours of talk. Wasted dollars. Remember who recommended that?

It's no way to run a railroad.

It makes me, otherwise agreeable, downright disagreeable.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Great post Evelyn. People should read and re-read this post every time you are accused of being disagreeable for it's own sake. The wisdom of your years was lost on this past council. Let's hope for different this go 'round.

Robert the Bruce said...

Speaking of Railroads.... What is the current situation of the train whistle issue in this Town?

As a person who grew up in a railroad city, I understand the noise that they make. I also understand the reason they make them. I have, from the beginning, been against the no-whistle direction MorMac has been going. I still hear the GO train blow at 6:30 as I let the dog out - I guess nothing has happened yet.

Fuimus

One who Knows said...

"My objections were dismissed,disregarded, received no credence or credibility from any party,including staff".

There’s no substitute for experience ,wisdom and above all Common Sense. You continued to exude these attributes and yet you were publicly flogged at every opportunity, Let's hope the new Council can take a page from your book and its most telling of chapters, Promise nothing but fairness and equality, Do your home work, The truth might hurt some times and Live within your means. Too bad the losers didn’t read their copy.
But then again they are losers at heart aren’t they

Mr. Spock said...

Oh, my goodness!!
Do I find my self in agreement with the Buckster!!??

Almost.

But not quite.

There was a mistake made by council. And that was to act on a recommendation of an advisory committee before staff input.

Adcoms are exactly that. Advisory.

They have no more function or power than individual citizens who make comments and/or suggestions to individual council members or the whole.
Council should not and cannot make policy/decisions before having staff input regarding things like costing, legality, practicality, and yes, liability.

So yes, you were correct in opposing their advice.
But for the wrong reasons, apparently.

And do not expect much support in regards to your ill-advised crusade to do away with the Adcoms altogether.
That should never happen. They provide a valuable function in giving citizen input. And rightly so.
After all, that's how government is supposed to work, isn't it? Government and governing based on the will of the people?

So yes, Adcoms are here to stay. I just hope Mr. Dawe makes them a little more effective and successful in their mandate/functioning than Morris did.

Phew, that was close.
I need to go lie down now...

Anonymous said...

Hey, all the posts on this thread are making this blog resemble the AC. Cool!

I am not sure that EB has ever actually advocated the abolition of advisory committees. I think she has only ever objected to those advisory committees that were populated by cronies and sycophants, and which exercised inordinate and unchecked authority when it came to spending money in pursuit of poorly articulated and/or nebulous objectives. Arboretum group and all that. I am not sure though. Also, council should never abdicate its responsibility to understand and direct issues in favour of an unelected body. Advise, yes. Act, no.

Mr. Spock said...

Hey what's-yer-name!

You need to understand that the "cronies and sycophants" are appointed by council so they alone are responsible for the make up of the Adcoms.
All spending (budgets) of the Adcoms are pre-approved by council and are therefore not "unchecked".
If the objectives and reponsibilities of said Adcoms are indeed "poorly articulated and/or nebulous", that is the fault of council, and needs their attention.

But fear not, the Adcoms do not act (on their own) but certainly do advise.

So if there is blame to be laid, let us lay it where it is due. At the feet of council.

And yes, also at Eveleyn's substantial feet.