5 ms·

When I was a kid, my dad was the mayor of our town. This story reminded me of his time in office. For example, they did a venture with a contractor using a new

When I was a kid, my dad was the mayor of our town. This story reminded me of his time in office. For example, they did a venture with a contractor using a new paving technique, in an attempt to lower future costs for street paving. When it didn't work, there was a clause protecting the city and the work was repaired at no / little cost. Of course the local newspaper raked the city over the coals for the burden of long construction times, completely ignoring that local government had attempted to do something innovative and cost-saving for its citizens. In another case, the downtown area had become destitute, especially as the main shopping area shifted to the outskirts of town. In an effort to revitalize, the city put up new decorative lamp posts, flower baskets, and did an attractive concrete stamping on new sidewalks. Once again, everybody complained about government waste, when really the city was trying to do what it could to make it a more attractive community and encourage more businesses to reopen / stay downtown. My point is, while perhaps the singing road didn't have its desired outcome, I give them credit for trying to do something novel.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
jstarfish 9y ago
> Once again, everybody complained about government waste, when really the city was trying to do what it could to make it a more attractive community and encourage more businesses to reopen / stay downtown. Having grown up in an area with no sense of style or flourish, I can appreciate the sentiment behind that. Every time I go to Japan or most of the west coast I'm blown away by how much effort goes into making the community look...nice. However, all too often, a city's attempt to do this involves a contractor or supplier charging obscene amounts of money for the end result. Hence the accusations of waste. Case in point: Sandy Springs, GA recently paid $99,333 for the city's new logo. The result is the caliber of work I'd expect from a Fiverr task.
- poulsbohemian 9y ago
  I understand exactly what you are saying. In the community where I reside now, I'm the one foaming at the mouth mad at the city for the things they do. Frequently, citizens get exactly what they want, for example in elections. In the case of my childhood home, most people really didn't care about the empty buildings, they didn't care about the row of derelict taverns. They struggled to see a better way forward. So regardless of what the city did, someone was unhappy.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- mng2 9y ago
  That reminds me of an infamous episode from my hometown's history: the surprise 'Welcome' sign installed by the county's Art Commission. It was widely panned and ended up being taken down after two months. Looking back at it now, the sign was indeed somewhat tacky, but the perception that the county had done this without seeking local input is what really drove the vitriol. [0]: https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Saying-Goodbye-to-Castro-Valley-Welcome-Sign-2795148.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Saying-Goodbye-to-Castro... [1]: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2011/07/22/castro-valley-canoe-sign-sunk/ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2011/07/22/castro-valley-canoe-...
  - ryandrake 9y ago
    Wow, crazy story! “Let’s secretly decide to put up this eyesore, spend $100k of taxpayer money on it, then when people don’t like it, try to re-educate them and convince them to like it.” Classic case of government waste and arrogance.
  - slededit 9y ago
    If they painted the "smile" a different color I think it would be less garish
ryandrake 9y ago
I don’t know—maybe it’s an unpopular opinion but I’ve always believed in judging a policy or action by its results rather than by the intentions behind it. Did the revitalization project work? To a taxpayer, waste is waste, no matter what good intentions you had.
- vertex-four 9y ago
  Surely the result of that is that the Government should never try anything new, because it might not work - and even worse, that they should spend large sums of money removing all possible risk from everything they do have to do, to the point that doing the job twice over would be cheaper/take less time/etc, because that looks better than failing once?
- poulsbohemian 9y ago
  The program itself was a trivial cost, as it essentially fell into "regular maintenance" anyway. The difference was whether they did boring sidewalks and lights or more visually appealing ones. And yes, for a time it really did help that downtown area. And again, in the case of the streets - even free wasn't good enough for some people. Often, what constitutes "waste" is really a matter of spin. During that time, the city was chastised as "anti-growth." Well, guess what, that's because a group of land developers wanted to build thousands of houses, but didn't want to set aside land for schools, fire departments, and other amenities that all the people living in those houses would need. Point being, you can't please all the people all of the time.
- dingo_bat 9y ago
  Imagine if your workplace also functioned like that. Punishing you for every second spent on a project that didn't pan out to a working product. It might be fine in a sweatshop, but you won't get any innovation that way.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

jstarfish 9y ago

> Once again, everybody complained about government waste, when really the city was trying to do what it could to make it a more attractive community and encourage more businesses to reopen / stay downtown. Having grown up in an area with no sense of style or flourish, I can appreciate the sentiment behind that. Every time I go to Japan or most of the west coast I'm blown away by how much effort goes into making the community look...nice. However, all too often, a city's attempt to do this involves a contractor or supplier charging obscene amounts of money for the end result. Hence the accusations of waste. Case in point: Sandy Springs, GA recently paid $99,333 for the city's new logo. The result is the caliber of work I'd expect from a Fiverr task.

poulsbohemian 9y ago
I understand exactly what you are saying. In the community where I reside now, I'm the one foaming at the mouth mad at the city for the things they do. Frequently, citizens get exactly what they want, for example in elections. In the case of my childhood home, most people really didn't care about the empty buildings, they didn't care about the row of derelict taverns. They struggled to see a better way forward. So regardless of what the city did, someone was unhappy.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
mng2 9y ago
That reminds me of an infamous episode from my hometown's history: the surprise 'Welcome' sign installed by the county's Art Commission. It was widely panned and ended up being taken down after two months. Looking back at it now, the sign was indeed somewhat tacky, but the perception that the county had done this without seeking local input is what really drove the vitriol. [0]: https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Saying-Goodbye-to-Castro-Valley-Welcome-Sign-2795148.php https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Saying-Goodbye-to-Castro... [1]: https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2011/07/22/castro-valley-canoe-sign-sunk/ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2011/07/22/castro-valley-canoe-...
- ryandrake 9y ago
  Wow, crazy story! “Let’s secretly decide to put up this eyesore, spend $100k of taxpayer money on it, then when people don’t like it, try to re-educate them and convince them to like it.” Classic case of government waste and arrogance.
- slededit 9y ago
  If they painted the "smile" a different color I think it would be less garish

ryandrake 9y ago

I don’t know—maybe it’s an unpopular opinion but I’ve always believed in judging a policy or action by its results rather than by the intentions behind it. Did the revitalization project work? To a taxpayer, waste is waste, no matter what good intentions you had.

vertex-four 9y ago
Surely the result of that is that the Government should never try anything new, because it might not work - and even worse, that they should spend large sums of money removing all possible risk from everything they do have to do, to the point that doing the job twice over would be cheaper/take less time/etc, because that looks better than failing once?
poulsbohemian 9y ago
The program itself was a trivial cost, as it essentially fell into "regular maintenance" anyway. The difference was whether they did boring sidewalks and lights or more visually appealing ones. And yes, for a time it really did help that downtown area. And again, in the case of the streets - even free wasn't good enough for some people. Often, what constitutes "waste" is really a matter of spin. During that time, the city was chastised as "anti-growth." Well, guess what, that's because a group of land developers wanted to build thousands of houses, but didn't want to set aside land for schools, fire departments, and other amenities that all the people living in those houses would need. Point being, you can't please all the people all of the time.
dingo_bat 9y ago
Imagine if your workplace also functioned like that. Punishing you for every second spent on a project that didn't pan out to a working product. It might be fine in a sweatshop, but you won't get any innovation that way.