Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 3.25 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Winter Walking and Cycling
(09-15-2020, 01:30 AM)the_councillor Wrote: Nobody is happy that we were unable to come up with a solution... but neither has any other city.

What about all those cities that clear the sidewalks?

And what are you going to do if something files an AODA lawsuit against the city because the city-owned sidewalk they need to use is regularly impassable through the winter?

Oh well, at the rate we’re going there isn’t going to be significant snow in winter before long. Although to be fair that isn’t the fault of any one city.
Reply


(09-15-2020, 07:52 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(09-15-2020, 01:30 AM)the_councillor Wrote: Nobody is happy that we were unable to come up with a solution... but neither has any other city.

What about all those cities that clear the sidewalks?

And what are you going to do if something files an AODA lawsuit against the city because the city-owned sidewalk they need to use is regularly impassable through the winter?

Oh well, at the rate we’re going there isn’t going to be significant snow in winter before long. Although to be fair that isn’t the fault of any one city.

He has allied himself with perfect in the fight against good or and better. Apparently unless every sidewalk is clear 100% of the time, it's not a "solution", even if it is vastly better than the current situation, and makes everyone, disability advocates and homeowners alike happy.
Reply
(09-15-2020, 01:30 AM)the_councillor Wrote: 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.)

Oh, I quite think some of you were happy to get your way.  I will fully admit though, I was wrong and you were right, doing the pilot was a waste of money. I mean, it gave very clear data, and I had hoped that data would sway council, sadly, I was wrong about that.

I do wish that you could admit you were wrong though, you claimed city clearing wouldn't improve things, and you were clearly wrong, the data shows that, the experience of those walking shows that. But you continue to persist in the belief that it doesn't solve anything. Your beliefs are still wrong, the pilot was successful, city clearing was supported by those who experienced it.

As to your points, you're wrong, Ioanidis explicitly talked about being worried about someone who "made what they felt is an effort to clear their sidewalk" getting a ticket, and he felt that was a negative thing. I know, I was there, yes, it was in the context of focusing on "repeat offenders", but he clearly suggested that he wanted to change the standard to ensure that some sidwalks which inspectors felt were unclear should not be ticketed if some effort was made. I was there, I was listening.

On the topic of repeat offenders. They make me very frustrated. But if you had read the staff report carefully, you might have seen this bolded underlined passage.
   
Repeat offenders make up less than 1% of the uncleared sidewalks that inspectors ticketed. So you (and Ioanidis) want to focus on 1% of the problem instead of 99% of the problem.  Please explain why this is? Yes, it is some of the more frustrating offenders, but not the biggest problem.

You did increase clearing for seniors, those with disabilities, great, you are choosing to implement the most expensive possible program. What a waste. Gazolla, in his own .... meandering....way was getting to this point...  If only one in six households in the city qualified for this program by being a senior or a disabled person, you would be spending over ten million dollars to run this program...of course, it's probably not that high, you'll probably never spend millions because you will probably never satisfy demand. But that's only my opinion.

In any case, the core of the issue is this. I am a taxpayer, and I am very angry that you are going to waste an excessive amount of money on pro-active enforcement. There is ZERO evidence that it works, I want my government to make evidence based decisions. Yes, I know you believe it will work, but you have no evidence for it.
   
Even the report explicitly states there is no evidence for it. So why are you wasting my money on it. If you were unwilling to spend on city clearing, whatever, that's a difference of opinion of priorities (yes, priorities, it's not a matter of affording it, we afford lots of expensive programs), but instead you wasted more money on ideas that have no evidence behind them. As a taxpayer, this is insulting.
Reply
(09-15-2020, 08:48 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: ...
In any case, the core of the issue is this. I am a taxpayer, and I am very angry that you are going to waste an excessive amount of money on pro-active enforcement. There is ZERO evidence that it works, I want my government to make evidence based decisions. Yes, I know you believe it will work, but you have no evidence for it.

Even the report explicitly states there is no evidence for it. So why are you wasting my money on it. If you were unwilling to spend on city clearing, whatever, that's a difference of opinion of priorities (yes, priorities, it's not a matter of affording it, we afford lots of expensive programs), but instead you wasted more money on ideas that have no evidence behind them. As a taxpayer, this is insulting.

This is my current perspective on the matter. Proactive enforcement was attempted, and did not work, so it should be given up. What are we as ratepayers paying these people for? So that council can pretend that something is a priority? Forget it.

Councillor Marsh says that there are too many people in Kitchener living on the edge who would evidently lose their homes if handed an $86-a-year tax increase. That sounds pretty dire. So why not lay off the proactive enforcement officers and hand those people back the twenty dollars a piece or however much it would be? They're just play-acting at enforcement, anyway. I have talked to these people, they have told me that they have no clear standard which they apply to sidewalks.

It's all a big joke: we should stop pretending to care, stop spending money buying private households snowblowers and paying people to walk around not issuing tickets, and just do nothing. The result will be the same- poor winter mobility- but at least the price tag will be lower.
Reply
(09-15-2020, 07:39 AM)jamincan Wrote: @thecouncillor: I want to say, I really appreciate that you are honestly willing to have a dialogue about issues and it's one of the things that I respect about you, even if I strongly disagree with you on this particular issue.

Fundamentally, the problem with snow clearing is that you either have a clear route, or you don't. If you have 50% of the route clear, it's only marginally better than having 100% of it uncleared. We already know that the existing program for clearing snow from sidewalks (through enforcement of bylaw standards and then city clearing of non-compliant properties) is not effective. Even with most residents being compliant, enough are not that the way is effectively impassable for a certain subset of the population such that wheelchair users are often forced to go onto the street with cars to get by. The mechanism we have to address this is slow and lenient such that it may be well over a week before anything is done (if it is addressed at all).

We know the City of Kitchener is failing to provide clear sidewalks for residents. I judge the effectiveness of you and the rest of council by how well the city fulfills its mandates and the money you are spending now is accomplishing next to nothing towards that goal. It's the definition of wasteful spending. I happen to think a municipal clearing program is the most efficient way for the city to meet its mandate but I'm open to other ideas that might work. I know that the existing program is wasteful and largely spending theatre to demonstrate that you are doing *something* rather than nothing (the worst kind of spending, in my book, by the way). I'm skeptical that the minor tweaks that are proposed to the existing program will fundamentally change it especially as they seem to do nothing to address the problems that have already been identified with the existing enforcement scheme.

One thing that I think the city could do better without necessarily spending more now is changing how they evaluate the situation. Current measures are deceptive. Just to use random numbers - 90% of properties clearing sidewalks seems much better than 75% being cleared. But is it really? Has accessibility actually improved for the people who need to use the sidewalk? You can't evaluate the situation by assessing each property individually. The reality is that one property that is non-compliant on a key route is a much bigger problem than a property at the end of a cul-de-sac. Properties on streets with bus routes are way more important than properties on less-busy streets with no bus routes. Evaluation should take this context into account as it actually tries to understand how the present situation affects accessibility which is the fundamental need that we are trying to serve.


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.

We also re-focussed proactive-bylaw on the priority routes.
Reply
(09-15-2020, 01:12 PM)the_councillor Wrote:
(09-15-2020, 07:39 AM)jamincan Wrote: @thecouncillor: I want to say, I really appreciate that you are honestly willing to have a dialogue about issues and it's one of the things that I respect about you, even if I strongly disagree with you on this particular issue.

Fundamentally, the problem with snow clearing is that you either have a clear route, or you don't. If you have 50% of the route clear, it's only marginally better than having 100% of it uncleared. We already know that the existing program for clearing snow from sidewalks (through enforcement of bylaw standards and then city clearing of non-compliant properties) is not effective. Even with most residents being compliant, enough are not that the way is effectively impassable for a certain subset of the population such that wheelchair users are often forced to go onto the street with cars to get by. The mechanism we have to address this is slow and lenient such that it may be well over a week before anything is done (if it is addressed at all).

We know the City of Kitchener is failing to provide clear sidewalks for residents. I judge the effectiveness of you and the rest of council by how well the city fulfills its mandates and the money you are spending now is accomplishing next to nothing towards that goal. It's the definition of wasteful spending. I happen to think a municipal clearing program is the most efficient way for the city to meet its mandate but I'm open to other ideas that might work. I know that the existing program is wasteful and largely spending theatre to demonstrate that you are doing *something* rather than nothing (the worst kind of spending, in my book, by the way). I'm skeptical that the minor tweaks that are proposed to the existing program will fundamentally change it especially as they seem to do nothing to address the problems that have already been identified with the existing enforcement scheme.

One thing that I think the city could do better without necessarily spending more now is changing how they evaluate the situation. Current measures are deceptive. Just to use random numbers - 90% of properties clearing sidewalks seems much better than 75% being cleared. But is it really? Has accessibility actually improved for the people who need to use the sidewalk? You can't evaluate the situation by assessing each property individually. The reality is that one property that is non-compliant on a key route is a much bigger problem than a property at the end of a cul-de-sac. Properties on streets with bus routes are way more important than properties on less-busy streets with no bus routes. Evaluation should take this context into account as it actually tries to understand how the present situation affects accessibility which is the fundamental need that we are trying to serve.


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.

We also re-focussed proactive-bylaw on the priority routes.

And how is the city addressing the issue of by-law effectively being toothless due to the constant resetting of the clock meaning that a property can go a week with no clearing without the city taking any steps to resolve the problem? Proactive enforcement is meaningless if they can't enforce against anyone but except the most egregious offenders.
Reply
(09-15-2020, 01:12 PM)the_councillor Wrote:
(09-15-2020, 07:39 AM)jamincan Wrote: @thecouncillor: I want to say, I really appreciate that you are honestly willing to have a dialogue about issues and it's one of the things that I respect about you, even if I strongly disagree with you on this particular issue.

Fundamentally, the problem with snow clearing is that you either have a clear route, or you don't. If you have 50% of the route clear, it's only marginally better than having 100% of it uncleared. We already know that the existing program for clearing snow from sidewalks (through enforcement of bylaw standards and then city clearing of non-compliant properties) is not effective. Even with most residents being compliant, enough are not that the way is effectively impassable for a certain subset of the population such that wheelchair users are often forced to go onto the street with cars to get by. The mechanism we have to address this is slow and lenient such that it may be well over a week before anything is done (if it is addressed at all).

We know the City of Kitchener is failing to provide clear sidewalks for residents. I judge the effectiveness of you and the rest of council by how well the city fulfills its mandates and the money you are spending now is accomplishing next to nothing towards that goal. It's the definition of wasteful spending. I happen to think a municipal clearing program is the most efficient way for the city to meet its mandate but I'm open to other ideas that might work. I know that the existing program is wasteful and largely spending theatre to demonstrate that you are doing *something* rather than nothing (the worst kind of spending, in my book, by the way). I'm skeptical that the minor tweaks that are proposed to the existing program will fundamentally change it especially as they seem to do nothing to address the problems that have already been identified with the existing enforcement scheme.

One thing that I think the city could do better without necessarily spending more now is changing how they evaluate the situation. Current measures are deceptive. Just to use random numbers - 90% of properties clearing sidewalks seems much better than 75% being cleared. But is it really? Has accessibility actually improved for the people who need to use the sidewalk? You can't evaluate the situation by assessing each property individually. The reality is that one property that is non-compliant on a key route is a much bigger problem than a property at the end of a cul-de-sac. Properties on streets with bus routes are way more important than properties on less-busy streets with no bus routes. Evaluation should take this context into account as it actually tries to understand how the present situation affects accessibility which is the fundamental need that we are trying to serve.


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.

We also re-focussed proactive-bylaw on the priority routes.

You folks, and city staff for that matter, can stop misstating the improvement in sidewalk clearing any time you like.  Going from 15% to 6% is a 60% improvement, not a 9% improvement, it doesn't take a math degree to understand this, but I do happen to have one.
Reply


(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?
Reply
(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.
Reply
(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 what a terrible 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?


oh man... neither Dan nor I are incorrect but let's put it another way to be clear.

Presently, for every 100 homes with a sidewalk, 15 aren't passable.  If we spend $10 million/yr we clear 9 of those 15... but 6 are still impassable.

The source is in the data in the staff report.

No need to be cruel, this is why people avoid engaging.
Reply
(09-15-2020, 02:57 PM)the_councillor Wrote: No need to be cruel, this is why people avoid engaging.

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.
Reply
Thank you both Dan and the_councillor for explaining my error as well. I appreciate the correction, and should have said so earlier.
Reply
(09-15-2020, 02:57 PM)the_councillor Wrote:
(09-15-2020, 02:43 PM)robdrimmie Wrote: Dan pointed this out, but I need to chime in on what a terrible 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?


oh man... neither Dan nor I are incorrect but let's put it another way to be clear.

Presently, for every 100 homes with a sidewalk, 15 aren't passable.  If we spend $10 million/yr we clear 9 of those 15... but 6 are still impassable.

The source is in the data in the staff report.

No need to be cruel, this is why people avoid engaging.

I do wish staff had released the raw data....because this oversimplies the situation.

It could be that 6 of 100 sidewalks are blocked....or it could be that on 6 of 100 days all sidewalks were blocked...

Given the functioning of plows, that's at least equally likely, the truth is probably somewhere in between, and given my experiences, far closer to every sidewalk being cleared most of the time.
Reply


(09-15-2020, 03:26 PM)robdrimmie Wrote:
(09-15-2020, 02:57 PM)the_councillor Wrote: No need to be cruel, this is why people avoid engaging.

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
Reply
(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.

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.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links