3 ms·
> functional and built to last. How about making it cost effective. The same can be achieved for far less. The city is massively mismanaged. The world is laug
by systemvoltage 4y ago
> functional and built to last.
How about making it cost effective. The same can be achieved for far less.
The city is massively mismanaged. The world is laughing at us with our $20k trashcans that would still be overfilled and not enough capacity to empty them on time. These types of programs make me question any policies to increase taxes, instead the question citizens should ask is "How can the gov increase efficiency by 2x?". Focus should probably be entirely on improving productivity. Programs like this are everywhere and a giant insult to tax payers.
- m0llusk 4y agoYou aren't taking the issue seriously. Trash cans getting trashed is a big problem for the city. Ideally they should last decades, but cheap ones end up failing in only a few years. Most other cities also do not have the problem of homeless digging everything out of the bins all the time so building them to discourage that doesn't come up a priority. Sanitation is a basic government service that is currently under strain in San Francisco so the primary task is to reach a basically acceptable level of service which currently is not the case. In general San Francisco aims for a higher level of service which costs more and that is something citizen voters can decide if they want to. Your idea that productivity is strongly linked to minimization of investment is not broadly held or proven.