Winter Walking and Cycling

[ijmorlan]

And for the billionth time, it doesn’t matter what it costs as long as the per-property expense is less than hiring a service to clean sidewalks in front of one property. Why is this so hard to understand?

If somebody can’t afford the increment to pay for City clearing, they can’t afford to hire someone themselves just to clear their own walk. Now you might say they will clear it themselves or get a friend, neighbour, family or charity to do it; but if society can’t afford to clear the sidewalks efficiently, then it can’t (collectively) afford the greater amount of resources required to clear the sidewalks inefficiently.

If you really want to save money on snow clearing, get rid of the spurious lanes on so many city streets.

[robdrimmie]

1.  Spending every disposable cent for the foreseeable future on snow clearing knowing full well it means we won't be able to fund ambitious affordable housing plans and reducing homelessness.  (i.e. people that don't even have a home to be trapped in.)

Surfacing this option is a strange distraction device. The context of the debate for the public, in the news media etc [1], has always been in terms of new money. (eg Kitchener residents don’t want to pay for snow shovelling).

Why are the only options for spending city money snow shovelling and homelessness? You're presenting a false dichotomy using two social safety systems in a year where one of the loudest protests is for defunding police specifically to go towards helping all kinds of people before the police are required, including and especially homeless folks. There are more than two dials in any budget.

[danbrotherston]

I agree, and that's another reason city-clearing didn't make sense.  The data showed that even the $10M/yr City clearing option left 6% of sidewalks impassible!  Down from 15% in resident-cleared non-pilot areas.  $10M/yr to reduce the problem areas by 9% is neither effective nor efficient.

Wrong, it’s $whatever to make it so all those people don’t have to clear their sidewalks any more; and additionally actually clear 94% of the sidewalks instead of 85% of the sidewalks.

Except that I have a problem with that 6%. What’s going on there? You’re saying you hired people to clear the sidewalks and they still weren’t passable? Sounds like a management problem to me.

Also I don’t have time to do a proper analysis here, but what does that do to the chance that person has of traversing a particular block? There is a huge difference between 0.85ⁿ and 0.94ⁿ.

I suspect the answer is in the data, that staff did not release, and were unwilling or unable to analyse.

Remember, these inspections are across time as well as geography.

Probably the sidewalks were not uncleared with the same pattern as usual. For example, in the before condition it could be that on 6% of days they went out during or just after a storm and found nearly 100% of sidewalks blocked, and on the remaining days 94% they went out and found 20% of sidewalks uncleared (leading to clear routes 0% of the time, but only ~15% of sidewalks unclear), for the plowed condition they went out and on 94% of days 100% of sidewalks were clear but on 6% of the time again nearly 100% of sidewalks were uncleared.

[danbrotherston]

I very strongly agree that cruelty is unnecessary. You have chosen to keep people trapped in their homes for months at a time. Tell me more about cruelty, please.

Sure... I'll even give you a couple of examples.

1.  Spending every disposable cent for the foreseeable future on snow clearing knowing full well it means we won't be able to fund ambitious affordable housing plans and reducing homelessness.  (i.e. people that don't even have a home to be trapped in.)

2.  Raising taxes to a degree that we will likely force more people into homelessness.  $89 a year (on top of our inflationary increases, plus Regional increases) may not affect you or me much, but it's quite significant to a lot of people.

Here's a source:

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canadian...s-finances

@robdrimmie makes a good point here, you are playing at a false dichotomy...your transportation staff do this as well "you can have either sidewalks or bike lanes, not both"...how about questioning road spend, why are you so willing to spend on roads (I guarantee you we spend more than 10 million plowing roads), but so unwilling to spend on others?

But that's not what I would like you to answer....because I'm over it, I don't care that the sidewalks won't be plowed, I've already accepted that I won't be able to live car free in this city. I have only one question for you right now.

Do you care at all, that I, as a taxpaying resident of the city, object to you wasting my tax dollars on pro-active enforcement.

It did not work, the report said that explicitly. It said very clearly, it did not result in an improvement in the sidewalk. But staff had to make some recomendation. So why are you wasting my money on this bullshit? That is my only question. I would have prefered you and the rest of council do nothing...wasting money pretending benefits nobody and costs us all.

[the_councillor]

1.  Spending every disposable cent for the foreseeable future on snow clearing knowing full well it means we won't be able to fund ambitious affordable housing plans and reducing homelessness.  (i.e. people that don't even have a home to be trapped in.)

Surfacing this option is a strange distraction device. The context of the debate for the public, in the news media etc [1], has always been in terms of new money. (eg Kitchener residents don’t want to pay for snow shovelling).

Why are the only options for spending city money snow shovelling and homelessness? You're presenting a false dichotomy using two social safety systems in a year where one of the loudest protests is for defunding police specifically to go towards helping all kinds of people before the police are required, including and especially homeless folks. There are more than two dials in any budget.

There are 3 dials.

1.  Cut planned spending (Affordable housing, Cycling MP, Planned Rec amenities in the south end etc.)

2.  Cut existing spending (which typically regresses to "cut the things that "I" don't use".)

3.  Raise taxes

To be clear, I would raise taxes on the wealthy, but that is not within municipal power.  We must tax rich and poor alike, considering only their property value.

[danbrotherston]

Surfacing this option is a strange distraction device. The context of the debate for the public, in the news media etc [1], has always been in terms of new money. (eg Kitchener residents don’t want to pay for snow shovelling).

Why are the only options for spending city money snow shovelling and homelessness? You're presenting a false dichotomy using two social safety systems in a year where one of the loudest protests is for defunding police specifically to go towards helping all kinds of people before the police are required, including and especially homeless folks. There are more than two dials in any budget.

There are 3 dials.

1.  Cut planned spending (Affordable housing, Cycling MP, Planned Rec amenities in the south end etc.)

2.  Cut existing spending (which typically regresses to "cut the things that "I" don't use".)

3.  Raise taxes

To be clear, I would raise taxes on the wealthy, but that is not within municipal power.  We must tax rich and poor alike, considering only their property value.

Actually property taxes are explicitly wealth tax...by raising property tax, you explicitly tax the wealth people have. Now I'm sure you are speaking colloquially, plenty of people who live paycheque to paycheque have a high net worth because they bought a home (and vehicles) beyond their means.

I assume you meant to make this distinction?

1. New spending, i.e., the money we will waste on pro-active bylaw enforcement, that is not currently in the budget and

2. Planned spending, things we have already figured out how to pay for in previous years.

I would very much like to see 2 evaluated. We are doing things like widening roads and spending on police (regional I realize) that are a very poor use of money, but are never questioned...

I would love to hear my question answered though, why are we introducing new spending which all evidence we have says it doesn't acheive anything of value.

[jamincan]

How much more money will the City of Kitchener being paying for this additional proactive enforcement?

[the_councillor]

There are 3 dials.

1.  Cut planned spending (Affordable housing, Cycling MP, Planned Rec amenities in the south end etc.)

2.  Cut existing spending (which typically regresses to "cut the things that "I" don't use".)

3.  Raise taxes

To be clear, I would raise taxes on the wealthy, but that is not within municipal power.  We must tax rich and poor alike, considering only their property value.

Actually property taxes are explicitly wealth tax...by raising property tax, you explicitly tax the wealth people have. Now I'm sure you are speaking colloquially, plenty of people who live paycheque to paycheque have a high net worth because they bought a home (and vehicles) beyond their means.

I assume you meant to make this distinction?

1. New spending, i.e., the money we will waste on pro-active bylaw enforcement, that is not currently in the budget and

2. Planned spending, things we have already figured out how to pay for in previous years.

I would very much like to see 2 evaluated. We are doing things like widening roads and spending on police (regional I realize) that are a very poor use of money, but are never questioned...

I would love to hear my question answered though, why are we introducing new spending which all evidence we have says it doesn't acheive anything of value.

1. The money spent on proactive snow-clearing is inconsequential compared to full clearing.  i.e less than $1 per avg household annually.

2. This is a popular sentiment among the anti-car folks, but to my knowledge, we have only *reduced* the number of car-lanes since my election in 2010.  Certainly true in my ward... where there have been zero additional car-lanes added in my 10 years, and a reduction at least on Lorraine Ave from 4 to 2 to accommodate cycling infrastructure.

*Police services are beyond my jurisdiction as a lower-tier councillor.

[the_councillor]

How much more money will the City of Kitchener being paying for this additional proactive enforcement?

$1 annually per average home.

[danbrotherston]

Actually property taxes are explicitly wealth tax...by raising property tax, you explicitly tax the wealth people have. Now I'm sure you are speaking colloquially, plenty of people who live paycheque to paycheque have a high net worth because they bought a home (and vehicles) beyond their means.

I assume you meant to make this distinction?

1. New spending, i.e., the money we will waste on pro-active bylaw enforcement, that is not currently in the budget and

2. Planned spending, things we have already figured out how to pay for in previous years.

I would very much like to see 2 evaluated. We are doing things like widening roads and spending on police (regional I realize) that are a very poor use of money, but are never questioned...

I would love to hear my question answered though, why are we introducing new spending which all evidence we have says it doesn't acheive anything of value.

1. The money spent on proactive snow-clearing is inconsequential compared to full clearing.  i.e less than $1 per avg household annually.

2. This is a popular sentiment among the anti-car folks, but to my knowledge, we have only *reduced* the number of car-lanes since my election in 2010.  Certainly true in my ward... where there have been zero additional car-lanes added in my 10 years, and a reduction at least on Lorraine Ave from 4 to 2 to accommodate cycling infrastructure.

*Police services are beyond my jurisdiction as a lower-tier councillor.

I give the city credit where credit is due. The city has been far more progressive on transportation than the region (which you absolutely do have sway over, city councillors sit on project committees, and your voice carries weight...or more than mine at least).

But there are still major projects planned, you only need to take a look at the city's transportation master plan to see a list of planned and completed projects: https://www.kitchener.ca/en/resourcesGen...n_2013.pdf

And while the city is progressive compared with the region, the plan is awfully dated sounding (time to update it?), because it still has VMT growth and road expansion as a foregone conclusion.

The most frustrating to me is Belmont Rd. it was completely reconstructed with four lanes, despite the four lane configuration being an artifact from a cancelled 1960s plan to connect to Homer-Watson. You voted for that sir. Did you question why we needed a four lane road there? That cost millions of dollars to reconstruct. What a waste.

For point 1...don't give me that baloney...you strongly objected to the sidewalk clearing pilot which cost a similar amount of money, so don't tell me it doesn't matter now...throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars is bad policy.

[plam]

I suspect the answer is in the data, that staff did not release, and were unwilling or unable to analyse.

I would recommend making a Freedom of Information request:

https://www.ontario.ca/page/how-make-fre...on-request

I'm kind of lacking free time to do it but I have seen it work with other orgs.

Would it help? Maybe not. But it would allow people to make better arguments. I think that counts for something.

[danbrotherston]

I suspect the answer is in the data, that staff did not release, and were unwilling or unable to analyse.

I would recommend making a Freedom of Information request:

https://www.ontario.ca/page/how-make-fre...on-request

I'm kind of lacking free time to do it but I have seen it work with other orgs.

Would it help? Maybe not. But it would allow people to make better arguments. I think that counts for something.

It may very well have worked, but I think it is too late now. Council has made their decision, there are no follow up steps, there are no pending council reports. It was clear from the beginning that staff were motivated to kill the idea and position the results to support that goal. I don't think it matters how good the service was, that it was as good as it was was merely an obstacle to be overcome. Not all on council may agree, but enough do.

This is my opinion on the COVID excuse as well, merely a convenient excuse, not an actual problem....like I said in my delegation, the budgetary demands on this year were, as our esteemed Councillor might put it, inconsequential. All of the funding required came in following years. And besides, there's no rule that says council cannot delay or defer things either.  COVID is not forever.

At the end of the day, if someone is interested to see the data and try to know more objectively, they're welcome too, but given the on the ground experience by myself and the residents of the neighbourhood, and so many other passionate people...all of whom were ignored...is enough data for me to feel comfortable in knowing that clearing is the right choice and the 6% must be explained mostly by timing.

[plam]

While we're at it, I'll also point out that the temporary COVID bike lanes cost the same as "proactive enforcement".

But yes, it looks like this Council is not going to take any further steps, which is disappointing.

[dtkmelissa]

How exactly does the proactive enforcement work? Are these 4 officers specific to sidewalk clearing or are they regular bylaw officers who now have the authority to proactively enforce snow clearing requirements, as opposed to reacting to resident complaints? How much of their workday involves being out patrolling for unclear sidewalks?

[Coke6pk]

How exactly does the proactive enforcement work? Are these 4 officers specific to sidewalk clearing or are they regular bylaw officers who now have the authority to proactively enforce snow clearing requirements, as opposed to reacting to resident complaints? How much of their workday involves being out patrolling for unclear sidewalks?

I no longer work for by-law, so I don't know this to be fact, but this is my guess:

In the spring/summer/fall months we have trail bike units that patrol the parks and do parking by-law on their travels.  In the winter/spring/fall time, they are responsible for school zone enforcement, and misc parking by-law enforcement outside of school hours. 

I would assume these officers will be doing the proactive enforcement as they traverse the city going from school to school.

Coke