Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Condition of our public areas and boulevards

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by DanC View Post
    Originally posted by KC View Post
    I think the issue is: if you build it, maintain it.

    Don’t build it and then steal away proper and predictable maintenance funding in order to go and build something else.

    Maybe the City should create maintenance funds. Increase every home owner’s taxes by a percent or two and put the funds into dedicated sustainability funds. After 10-20 years the accumulated funds would then start to increasing pay out larger percentages of maintenance costs.

    The same for infrastructure replacement and say, plan to split the future capital cost 50/50 between the sinking fund and new debt financing.
    This is exactly what the neighborhood revitalization levy does?

    All capital projects include budgeting for forward looking maintenance and a maintenance plan.

    The issue here is that people think it isn't be maintained ENOUGH by opinion.
    DanC, is the issue here that "people think it isn't being maintained enough by opinion" or is the issue here that "people can pretty much look at it and see that it isn't being maintained enough"? while this discussion is primarily about medians and boulevards and parks and paths and community centres and sports facilities (grass areas), you could have a similar discussion about road surfaces, sidewalks, lamp standards, signs, barriers, structures and buildings, sewers, storm ponds, pedestrian crossings and lights...

    all capital projects include budgeting for "forward looking maintenance and a maintenance plan"? i think the problem with that as a response is two-fold. firstly i would be surprised if that policy has been in effect long enough to impact more than a very small part of the city's overall infrastructure and secondly i don't think those monies are actually set aside and dedicated for that purpose although i'm open to being corrected. if i'm not mistaken what that means is those monies simply go into the overall pot and are long spent by the time the project that provided them needs it.

    i also find it interesting that many of the areas that are the most obvious when it comes to poor landscape maintenance were and continue to be built by the private sector to standards and specs that the city has no intention of maintaining. examples in that regard include entry features and pocket parks and trails and boulevards and medians - simply the most obvious places to showcase what's not being done. if the city want's low to no maintenance xeriscapes, why does it insist on manicured grassy spaces that only look great for the two years prior to their being turned over to the city? and i'm not just talking about new subdivisions here - that would apply to the aboriginal art park and the approaches to the new walterdale bridge and to louise mckinney park and the proposed upgrades to dawson park...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

    Comment


    • #47
      Take a look at the Fort Rd near 66 st. Many of the trees and shrubs they have planted have died and the boulevards have lots of sand and gravel all year. Have a look at 98 av and River Rd. Much of the boulevards are a mess and much of the trees and shrubs have died. 97 st from 137- 153 ave is another great example. If we are going to invest money into these projects then they have to be maintained, if not, we are wasting our money.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by kcantor View Post
        Originally posted by DanC View Post
        Originally posted by KC View Post
        I think the issue is: if you build it, maintain it.

        Don’t build it and then steal away proper and predictable maintenance funding in order to go and build something else.

        Maybe the City should create maintenance funds. Increase every home owner’s taxes by a percent or two and put the funds into dedicated sustainability funds. After 10-20 years the accumulated funds would then start to increasing pay out larger percentages of maintenance costs.

        The same for infrastructure replacement and say, plan to split the future capital cost 50/50 between the sinking fund and new debt financing.
        This is exactly what the neighborhood revitalization levy does?

        All capital projects include budgeting for forward looking maintenance and a maintenance plan.

        The issue here is that people think it isn't be maintained ENOUGH by opinion.
        DanC, is the issue here that "people think it isn't being maintained enough by opinion" or is the issue here that "people can pretty much look at it and see that it isn't being maintained enough"? while this discussion is primarily about medians and boulevards and parks and paths and community centres and sports facilities (grass areas), you could have a similar discussion about road surfaces, sidewalks, lamp standards, signs, barriers, structures and buildings, sewers, storm ponds, pedestrian crossings and lights...

        all capital projects include budgeting for "forward looking maintenance and a maintenance plan"? i think the problem with that as a response is two-fold. firstly i would be surprised if that policy has been in effect long enough to impact more than a very small part of the city's overall infrastructure and secondly i don't think those monies are actually set aside and dedicated for that purpose although i'm open to being corrected. if i'm not mistaken what that means is those monies simply go into the overall pot and are long spent by the time the project that provided them needs it.

        i also find it interesting that many of the areas that are the most obvious when it comes to poor landscape maintenance were and continue to be built by the private sector to standards and specs that the city has no intention of maintaining. examples in that regard include entry features and pocket parks and trails and boulevards and medians - simply the most obvious places to showcase what's not being done. if the city want's low to no maintenance xeriscapes, why does it insist on manicured grassy spaces that only look great for the two years prior to their being turned over to the city? and i'm not just talking about new subdivisions here - that would apply to the aboriginal art park and the approaches to the new walterdale bridge and to louise mckinney park and the proposed upgrades to dawson park...
        Yea, having the largest continuous park in North America adds to the resource load, since you brought up all those parks.
        Ken, I have a hard time believing the COE doesn't review opex as part of capital project budgeting. I guess for roads and parks maintenance you wouldn't handle it like that.

        COE needs more money to hire more resources, that is the real answer. Who wants to pay? I'd be willing to pay extra to a "make it beautiful fund" but I'm not sure the majority would. Maybe a City Council could sell that if it goes into a specific budget line item.
        Last edited by DanC; 03-06-2019, 02:21 PM.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by DanC View Post
          ...
          Yea, having the largest continuous park in North America adds to the resource load, since you brought up all those parks.
          Ken, I have a hard time believing the COE doesn't review opex as part of capital project budgeting. I guess for roads and parks maintenance you wouldn't handle it like that.

          COE needs more money to hire more resources, that is the real answer. Who wants to pay? I'd be willing to pay extra to a "make it beautiful fund" but I'm not sure the majority would. Maybe a City Council could sell that if it goes into a specific budget line item.
          maybe we need someone to campaign with the same platform that the new governor of michigan first took to the polls?

          as one of only two states where cannabis is legal (california is the other) the campaign was based on a "fix the damn roads" slogan using state revenues from cannabis being dedicated to their maintenance.

          unfortunately, said the new governor after taking office and doing the math, after spending the amount of money that would have to be spent on cannabis in order to generate enough money to actually fix the roads, "...no one is going to care about the damn roads".

          except you and me.
          Last edited by kcantor; 03-06-2019, 02:33 PM.
          "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

          Comment


          • #50
            Edmonton is a thinly populated city with lots of useless space between buildings and roads. Simply put, most of the open lawn we have isn't used for much.

            I know the province is responsible for maintaining Anthony Henday Drive but we don't need all this grass:
            https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5123...7i13312!8i6656

            The city did cut back on mowing certain areas like this, good job but there is still more cutbacks that need to be made:
            https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5036...7i13312!8i6656

            Such as this:
            https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5056...7i13312!8i6656

            Too much grass that nobody uses.
            https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5122...7i13312!8i6656

            Wasted space beside major roadways that should be developed:
            https://www.google.com/maps/@53.5510...7i13312!8i6656

            If we reduced the amount of lawn that needs maintaining to just the areas that are actually used we would have an easier time maintaining them. The excess lawn can be left to go wild, or be used to plant crops, trees, bushes etc. Doing this will go a long way to making Edmonton more environmentally friendly.
            Edmonton first, everything else second.

            Comment


            • #51
              it can take up to 80 years of an area to become naturalized.

              Comment

              Working...
              X