4 ms·

none of the local politicians in this article express any embarrassment or shame over their city's failure to maintain the streets in good working order

wilg 7y ago
Well, they did say that that there is a $100 million road improvement fund and some kind of "pothole blitz". I'd rather hear a plan than an apology I guess.
jdavis703 7y ago
Oakland has been a tough place, and one of the things this has meant is we really don’t have a big budget. A lot of people are seeing the SF/SV wealth pouring in, but because a lot of land is still being taxed at levels from 10-40 years ago the city isn’t getting that money. That means we’re getting the government services of several decades ago. This is an issue for a lot of other California cities beside Oakland — and the 2020 split roll ballot initiative will give Californians a chance to better fund our government. Further our new transit department, OakDOT, is doing creative work with a limited budget. They’re taking the MVP approach to rolling out better infrastructure, while also being one of the first DOTs to prioritize equity in terms of who gets access to limited transit funds first.
- SandersAK 7y ago
  It's not the funding that is the problem. It's a cultural issue inside of OakDOT and the city gov't. Oakland has $600m ready for transport projects: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-s-plan-to-improve-roads-stuck-in-a-rut-13701540.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-s-plan-t... They say they can't hire people, even with those budgets and with residents wanting to help / collaborate.
  - gedy 7y ago
    Likely because they'd have to be unionized and pensioned, which they probably can't afford long term.
viraptor 7y ago
Should they? Doing this work officially has a large overhead. At their level they need to plan for the current + future work and covering whole areas effectively rather than fixing single issues. Taking one-off workers like people from the article do would be a bureaucracy hell. Not defending the bad state of the road. But if they do the best they can with the available budget and get as much of it allocated as they can... should they be ashamed? And ashamed of what - state funding? government? money allocation? Or maybe they're actually bad at their jobs. But from this article is hard to tell.
stellar678 7y ago
The current crop of local politicians are not to blame - it’s squarely the fault of generations of politicians and voters who severely overbuilt road systems without a plan to fund maintenance. We should tear out 50% of our asphalt and replace it with dense housing - there’s a shocking number of giant, underutilized roads that are large enough to accommodate entire buildings. That’s how you increase density and actually fund your infrastructure.
- sxates 7y ago
  Are you talking about oakland specifically or American cities generally? I don't really think this applies to oakland, which was built out 50-100 years ago and has almost no new roads in the last several decades. Maintenance was deferred here for way too long, and now it's going to take a long time and a lot of money to get caught up.
- HillaryBriss 7y ago
  > severely overbuilt road systems without a plan to fund maintenance I've heard this before (in Los Angeles), but what I don't quite get about this explanation is: how did they have enough money to build the roads in the first place, back in the days when Oakland had a smaller population and tax base? Also, does it actually cost more money to maintain the roads then to build them in the first place (really not sure, maybe it does)?

wilg 7y ago

Well, they did say that that there is a $100 million road improvement fund and some kind of "pothole blitz". I'd rather hear a plan than an apology I guess.

jdavis703 7y ago

Oakland has been a tough place, and one of the things this has meant is we really don’t have a big budget. A lot of people are seeing the SF/SV wealth pouring in, but because a lot of land is still being taxed at levels from 10-40 years ago the city isn’t getting that money. That means we’re getting the government services of several decades ago. This is an issue for a lot of other California cities beside Oakland — and the 2020 split roll ballot initiative will give Californians a chance to better fund our government. Further our new transit department, OakDOT, is doing creative work with a limited budget. They’re taking the MVP approach to rolling out better infrastructure, while also being one of the first DOTs to prioritize equity in terms of who gets access to limited transit funds first.

SandersAK 7y ago
It's not the funding that is the problem. It's a cultural issue inside of OakDOT and the city gov't. Oakland has $600m ready for transport projects: https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-s-plan-to-improve-roads-stuck-in-a-rut-13701540.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Oakland-s-plan-t... They say they can't hire people, even with those budgets and with residents wanting to help / collaborate.
- gedy 7y ago
  Likely because they'd have to be unionized and pensioned, which they probably can't afford long term.

viraptor 7y ago

Should they? Doing this work officially has a large overhead. At their level they need to plan for the current + future work and covering whole areas effectively rather than fixing single issues. Taking one-off workers like people from the article do would be a bureaucracy hell. Not defending the bad state of the road. But if they do the best they can with the available budget and get as much of it allocated as they can... should they be ashamed? And ashamed of what - state funding? government? money allocation? Or maybe they're actually bad at their jobs. But from this article is hard to tell.

stellar678 7y ago

The current crop of local politicians are not to blame - it’s squarely the fault of generations of politicians and voters who severely overbuilt road systems without a plan to fund maintenance. We should tear out 50% of our asphalt and replace it with dense housing - there’s a shocking number of giant, underutilized roads that are large enough to accommodate entire buildings. That’s how you increase density and actually fund your infrastructure.

sxates 7y ago
Are you talking about oakland specifically or American cities generally? I don't really think this applies to oakland, which was built out 50-100 years ago and has almost no new roads in the last several decades. Maintenance was deferred here for way too long, and now it's going to take a long time and a lot of money to get caught up.
HillaryBriss 7y ago
> severely overbuilt road systems without a plan to fund maintenance I've heard this before (in Los Angeles), but what I don't quite get about this explanation is: how did they have enough money to build the roads in the first place, back in the days when Oakland had a smaller population and tax base? Also, does it actually cost more money to maintain the roads then to build them in the first place (really not sure, maybe it does)?