I believe that emergency conditions are exempted and I certainly
understand that. New building stuff though would require that more
expensive tunneling under the new blacktop be done rather than allowing a
cut across brand new asphalt.
and as others have said -- prior planning prevents pi$$ poor performance.
New building activities seem to be the worst offenders and that is something
that could easily be foreseen prior to new paving for at least a year. It
wouldn't be so bad if they did a halfway decent job covering their divots,
but they don't. Most contractors who do that kind of thing slap on a little
road patch, drive a compactor over it and call it good. A couple weeks
later and there's a 2 inch ditch perpendicular to road travel that just gets
exacerbated as water gets absorbed into the patch and mud thrown during the
There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage
Again, that's a lot easier to say than to accomplish (having sat on
planning commissions and county supervisors and the ilk)...
Quite often there are events which are going on that
a) planners in roads don't have access to inside knowledge of intents of
developers who may be holding such information in close confidence for
various reasons; land acquisition and competitive position being simply
two of the most obvious, and
b) scheduling and budgeting for the maintenance projects may have
lifetimes of 5 and even 10 years prior to the actual observable work and
there may be (and often are) immutable funding issues involved such as
bond revenues or State or Federal cost-shares that have constraints on them.
Again, it's easy to say "shudda'" from the sidelines and in some few
cases can be justified even. All in all, there's much in reality that
tempers that that the folks are doing the best they can w/ what they
have in resources and information available at the time.
Like the closure of a particular armory that started the thread -- there
was no intention at the time the work was done to close it and it was
not predicted the State budgetary crunch would come to pass that such
extremities would be required. Monday morning q-b'ing is much simpler
once events have transpired.
Tough. This stuff is decided at public meetings with legal
notifications in the appropriate places. If a developer doesn't keep
track of important measures affecting his decisions, tough.
How does that affect the planning? First step first. The road should
surfacing should be last.
I'm sure there are justifications. Poor planning is not one of them.
Sure. Shit happens. When roads are planned it should be known that
sewers (whatever) also need work. I've seen new roads torn up six
months after being completely resurfaced, to put new storm sewers in.
Say road was already there and needed maintenance and had been scheduled
/budgeted in the long-range plan. Then the development comes. You
suggesting turn down a sizable improvement and jobs, etc., that comes
from that? Sure....do that a few times and see what it does for future
development in the community....
No, but there are some areas over which one may not have complete control.
Again, perhaps. Then again, perhaps the funding for the two projects is
from two totally separate sources that have conflicting budgetary cycles
and other constraints. You would suggest giving up both to avoid the
Trust me, it's much easier to say "shudda" than it is to always avoid
what appears to be silly...and g(o)a(head)a(nd)amhikt :)
Again, that demonstrates the difference between government entities and
business and the fallacy that one can truly operate a government as a
business. It makes a good ideal and one tries to be as frugal as
possible, but in the end the purpose of the government is to serve its
constituency and business is a major constituency.
Throw such roadblocks in the path of development and industry and see
how long it takes to ride _that_ rail out of town... :) (One end, of
course, being carried by the same fella' as is also on the rail for the
"inexcusable" waste of resources).
No, I'm talking of other budgetary and legislative organizations and
mandates and on and on and on all of which are players and many of which
are out of the control of local legislative bodies--at that level they
are little more than peons trying to keep up w/
EPA/DOT/rest_of_alphabet_soup in DC as well as the same counterparts in
their own state capitol all the while trying to advance whichever
project it is over the other casts of thousands seeking to do the same
for _their_ communities...
Well, that's the problem--the two entities themselves are likely
reporting to separate bosses and simply fulfilling _their_ mandates.
And, if it were only two that would be a reduction of a sizable number
in all likelihood... :)
If it all were being done at a city or county (or often even at the
State) level, this coordination could be feasible to some degree. The
problem is that even such local items as a street repair is tied into
the funding cycles and planning for everything else in the entire
jurisdiction and monies virtually always have strings. Much of the time
the web to get even a small task funded is impacted by the big budget
projects because it takes getting them in place to make the dispensable
local budgets available. Then, of course, one throws in the vagaries of
bond issues and other voter initiatives that can cause changes in course
No idea what "mmq" is but the planning commissions in general set policy
and goals, not specific projects. It's finding the funding for those
projects that generally creates the issues because, as noted, DOT (say)
funds the surface road but it'll take a grant from somewhere else to do
the sanitary system. Those two aren't in synch and likely never will be
and there's precious little local governments can do to make it so.
Sad, perhaps, but true...
Again, not that it wouldn't be great in the ideal world that all carts
follow their own horses; simply pointing out that often what appears
screwed-up locally isn't necessarily that the locals didn't know what
they were doing only that they didn't have the resources in hand to get
the ideal solution. So, given that, the choice often comes down to go
ahead as you can knowing there's a fixup having to come later or blow it
all off in hope of the ingredients all coming together again later. In
reality, the chances of the latter if have gotten a part already taken
care of are vanishingly small and the choice is generally between going
ahead and scrapping the whole project for the foreseeable future. The
latter generally also doesn't set well w/ constituents.
It's only a fallacy because governments refuse to operate like
businesses. They certainly can, though it's not likely because they
make the rules for businesses and are under no obligation to follow
the same rules.
Crap. The roadblocks in front of business are far more stringent. If
businesses do what governments do regularly, they owners would be
thrown in jail.
That attitude among politicians is exactly why everything costs
double, and more. Government loves graft.
Perhaps they are doing exactly what their boss wants. The "boss" is
incompetent, lazy, a crook, or all of the above. ...likely the
Come on! COordination is possible even with a business thrown in the
middle of all three. There is no incentive for government(s) *or*
their employees to be efficient.
Monday Morning Quarterback
They can wait or not do. In any case they *aren't* required to waste
We all know it's true. What sad is anyone defending the practice.
The "ideal" solution certainly isn't to rebuild a road then do the
sewers under it. That's simply a waste of taxpayer money and there is
*no* justification for it.
Again, would be ideal but...it's not at all unlikely that the funding
for the resurfacing will disappear not to be seen again the following
year(s). So, the choice may come down to not repairing a very bad
surface at all or having a surface that is far better than the previous
even if it does have a repair.
Particularly since most large $$ projects of that type have matching
funds, if those funds are not used when/where allocated the local
authority generally is not there to use them somewhere else and they
will disappear. Once that project has been through the competitive
cycle and won but isn't completed, its chances of a returning win in any
near term future are, as mentioned above, virtually nonexistent.
It's not nearly as trivial a task as it seems, even for relatively small
jurisdictions to avoid all the seemingly obvious to the outside observer...
Followed by periodic street flooding during gentle showers because the
new resurfacing lowered the streets 3' below original grade to act as
secondary flood control channels per the Master Flood Control Plan
designed by the bottom 10% of the affirmative action graduate engineer
curriculum and administered in two languages by "educated beyond their
intelligence" government employees ...
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.