09-15-2020, 01:30 AM
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2020, 01:37 AM by the_councillor.)
Nobody is happy that we were unable to come up with a solution... but neither has any other city. The only thing worse than not taking action is taking the wrong action. Peterborough's sidewalk snow clearing standard is two days after a snowfall and (like every other city that does this work) you can bet there will be many times a year it exceeds 2 days. We've had people skating on roads, live on CTV, a week after snowfall (and roads are easier to maintain than sidewalks). I hardly believe that qualifies as 'car-free-living year round' unless your employer permits you to call in sick for 2+ days every time it snows. I didn't support the pilot project in the first place because I knew what the results would be from researching other cities, but it did confirm to all that it wasn't a panacea, and that the cost was actually more than double staff's pre-pilot estimate.
So no, we didn't opt for a $10 Million/yr program that still left 6% of sidewalks impassible (actual data) but I would add:
- there was no mention by any councillor, or staff, to relax standards. In fact, the sentiment was to come down hard on chronic offenders (unless they're unable to do the work, in which case...)
- we increased the sidewalk-clearing program for seniors/people with disabilities from 100 to 175 properties, and to increase that by 75 more properties each year until demand is met. (At a cost of ~$118k now and ~$53k each subsequent year.)
- we changed pro-active bylaw enforcement to focus on priority-walking routes (e.g. school and shopping areas.)
- requested an issue paper in time for budget on how we might increase the number of pro-active inspectors through seasonal methods (e.g. deputize tree/forest maintenance staff for snow events in the winter.)
Like City-clearing, these changes won't solve the problem, but it is an improvement until a solution is found. The difference is this approach leaves a funding-hope for other initiatives. Unless you believe there's no limit to how high we can raise taxes*, approving full-city clearing would have frozen all other progressive actions for the better part of a decade, Covid or not.
(* Remember that we can't tax progressively. Property tax does not distinguish between a single mother in a $450k townhouse vs. a couple of Google engineers in a $450k condo.)
So no, we didn't opt for a $10 Million/yr program that still left 6% of sidewalks impassible (actual data) but I would add:
- there was no mention by any councillor, or staff, to relax standards. In fact, the sentiment was to come down hard on chronic offenders (unless they're unable to do the work, in which case...)
- we increased the sidewalk-clearing program for seniors/people with disabilities from 100 to 175 properties, and to increase that by 75 more properties each year until demand is met. (At a cost of ~$118k now and ~$53k each subsequent year.)
- we changed pro-active bylaw enforcement to focus on priority-walking routes (e.g. school and shopping areas.)
- requested an issue paper in time for budget on how we might increase the number of pro-active inspectors through seasonal methods (e.g. deputize tree/forest maintenance staff for snow events in the winter.)
Like City-clearing, these changes won't solve the problem, but it is an improvement until a solution is found. The difference is this approach leaves a funding-hope for other initiatives. Unless you believe there's no limit to how high we can raise taxes*, approving full-city clearing would have frozen all other progressive actions for the better part of a decade, Covid or not.
(* Remember that we can't tax progressively. Property tax does not distinguish between a single mother in a $450k townhouse vs. a couple of Google engineers in a $450k condo.)