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.
Wednesday 5 December 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Yes !!!!
" Why was it included in the budget? " And why was the proposed sidewalk into the park in the budget? And the proposed addition of light trucks? Because they [ staff] want you to feel good about shooting those items down and then let the bigger ones pass. Maybe they think the councillors are stupid?
1:57 PM
Clearly you know how the game is played..... NOT....
Staff do not think council is stupid, council does a good job on their own of showing that.
Staff do what they have done forever. They put as much in as they can or that they feel that they can get away with. Then the dance begins. Take this out, take that out. Sometimes they get lucky, other times - not.
That's that damn ' Team ' stuff again. No one stands to explain why so many peculiar things have gotten into the budget. Or whose job it is to weed the losers out. Obviously Council have have to assume that there is no one in charge. Which is bizarre as staff still get paid as if they were being functional.
Post a Comment