09-15-2020, 02:50 PM
(09-15-2020, 02:43 PM)robdrimmie Wrote:(09-15-2020, 01:12 PM)the_councillor Wrote: 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.
Dan pointed this out, but I need to chime in on this terribly disingenuous presentation of the data. You're either lying or presenting yourself as incompetent when you say that 15% to 6% is reduction "by 9%".
So which is it? Are you lying or are you referencing data (which you don't bother to source, either) that you aren't able to understand?
Not to defend anything, but to clarify, the statement of a "improved by 9%" is from city staff's presentation and report on the matter....if I'm being cynical, they stated it this way explicitly to try and minimize the value of the pilot in order to make their recommendation stronger...if I'm being doubly cynical, they did so at the explicit request of council or implicit understanding of what council wanted.
But regardless, it is clearly missrepresenting the data and has not been challenged by anyone...it's incredibly frustrating...like I said, I now agree with Councillor Davey, the pilot was a waste of money, the decision wasn't made based on any data whatsoever. Bad governance.