One Step Forward...Two Back

Last night was not great. 
It was  confidence shattering. 
In yet another instance, the Capital Budget cannot be defended.
A pedestrian crossing on Golf Links Drive  is itemised at a  cost of $85,000..
Source of funding...  Development Charges Reserve Fund.
Councillor Humphryes had  apparently made the request. 
In response to questions, the Director said,  it would  require  study.
We are speaking of  a  signalized crossing at a serious bend the road, in the vicinity of the Tim Horton drive- through access and egress, maybe three hundred feet from signals at Yonge Street. 
No amount of study would give a crossing in that location any amount of feasibility.
An on- the- spot glance would suffice.
Why is it in the budget?
Councillor Humphryes explained the resident hoped for a cut in the sidewalk. Not an $85.thousand expenditure.
Oh My Lord, I thought. Is this how a budget is compiled?
At the  table, seven members have been elected for a first time, including the Mayor and Deputy-Mayor. 
How familiar they are with  streets and thoroughfares of the town is not always apparent. 
An independent  senior, living in a condiminium shops at the no-frills plaza. Shortest route exits from the condo driveway across Golf Links Drive to the south side, out to Yonge Street and south to the plaza. 
Coming back, a cut in the curb would make negotiating  a loaded  bundle buggy  easier. 
When I came back to Council in 2003, I received the plea.
I spoke to the Director of Public Works.
I got a flat no.
Because  the bend in the road was the wrong place to cross and should not be encouraged.  
Walking on the north side of Golf Links Drive  to Yonge Street to cross at the intersection isn't safe either. Tim Horton's double driveway and excessive traffic to the drive-through creates a hazard for pedestrians. 
Right  and left turns off Yonge Street onto Golf Links Drive, an arterial collector, makes crossing from north to south at the signals difficult  as well. .
There is a problem.
An $85.thousand pedestrian crossing  is not a  solution. 
Yet there it was.... in  the budget draft. 
A document said to have been been scrutinized at several staff levels before presentation to Council for approval. 
Source of funding for the project is Development Charge reserves. .
Money collected from developers at the time of permit applicaton.  and charged to  new home buyers. 
It is argued  to be  the cost of accommodating  new families  into the town. 
How can one argue an  $85,thousand  pedestrian crossing, on a forty-five year old street, is attributable to  new growth?
How can  budget spending of  millions of dollars be compiled from an office chair looking at a map without being able to read it correctly? 
A recent OMB decision has found the  town's DC levy is  in excess of  stated need to the tune of $700,000.
Settlement requires refund to payees.  
Town staff are currently working to find  new methodology to  justify  maintaining  the charges at the same  level.
While publicly identifying items in a budget to be paid for as new growth which have no connection whatsoever  to  new families  moving  in across town.
It 's not my idea of integrity.
Or competence. 
It was deleted from the budget.