Quote:
Originally Posted by bulldurhamer
It's also noted that Candi cdebaca tried to get $100,000 for homeless bathrooms. that was denied. so next time you see a homeless guy shitting in your alley, remember that denver refused to put $100,000 worth of homeless toilets and cleaning stations in place while happily spending $300 K sidewalks inspectors. btw, it looks like that's two salaries pushing $150,000 for sidewalk inspectors. probably yet another thing we need to look at deeper.
|
I know everyone on here loves to be reactionary and the city budgetary process is a confusing process but this is some Douglas County-level "muh taxes" misunderstanding of how civic budgets work.
A) The homeless toilets and the pay for the sidewalk inspectors are not tied together in any way. You're just taking a hot-button issue and tying it to another number to make it seem connected. Unless you know something we don't, there was nothing in any article that said that the Mayor and city council deliberately sunk Candi's proposals to hire a sidewalk inspector.
B) You're insinuating that the sidewalk inspector (there is only one, the other position is a project manager) is over-paid without saying it. But if you admit that you think they're over paid you might have to face arguments about what exactly a sidewalk inspector is and does, whether that person needs to be certified and trained, and whether or not you really think your unemployed, ex-con cousin could do the job better (because that's always the next line: "My 5-year-old can inspect the sidewalk") I notice you didn't attack the line item for the $189k affordable housing attorney. Is that because affordable housing is a more popular program or that you believe that an attorney deserves $189k?
C) You aren't showing an understanding of how budgeting for a position like this works, and that's a serious civic issue. These positions aren't filled yet and the city will put out a rec with a pay range based on experience. That sidewalk inspector could only make $75k or they could make $150, but the city can't just guess at the exact salary, because they can't go back for more money when they found a great candidate who needs to be paid more. So they request money in the budget to fill that position with some breathing room. That position probably also requires budget for things like a desk and computer and seats in software or specialized equipment and transportation, which may be included in that number as well.
D) Even if that is
just the salary, I KNOW you understand how expensive Denver has gotten. If you want to attract and hire experienced employees you need to pay them a living wage and make that wage comparable to what they would make elsewhere. $150k is good money, but considering the average home price is so outrageous now, it's probably near the bottom edge of a household income required to afford a single family home.
E) There is also a
huge assumption here about if Candi's suggested approach and budget will work and are viable. Just like here
https://denverite.com/2022/02/01/to-deal...nearby-encampment-because-the-city-wont/ where the writer of the article failed to challenge Candi about the cost. And failed to ask the city official about WHY the city would prefer to fence the area off instead of adding toilets and a dumpster. Or ask about the challenges of maintaining a city-owned dumpster. Because I guarantee the city doesn't want to put dumpsters or bathrooms by encampments because then they will be responsible for pickup, area cleanup and safety and all of those things are expensive. Most public restrooms in parks have been closed and there is an attendant for the downtown toilet trailer to prevent vandalism and junkies ODing inside. And they have to be cleaned often too or it is just as bad or worse than having no dumpster or toilet. It's going to be terrible for the neighborhood to have a tipped-over portapotty flooding the sidewalk or for the air to be filled with the stench of dead junkie baking inside in the July sun. $100k is probably WAAAAY low for a successful program like this if the city also has to bake in attendants or police presence.
Now, had she proposed a $100k for community grants for neighborhood-managed resources (like the locals rent the portapotty and are responsible for it and all of the permitting, but the city had money to assist) it may have been successful. But Candi is great at challenging the system and much less successful at long-term strategic planning or actually getting things done.
And the biggest thing for me, as always, is that putting money into cleanup doesn't solve the root problem, it just addresses a symptom of it. That's all we ever talk about, fighting the symptoms and not addressing the problem.
And let me be clear, letting people camp on the side of the road is not "humane" and doesn't solve the problem either. I don't think people should camp wherever they want. Endlessly supporting NIMBYs fighting "highrises" or affordable housing is not solving the problem either. The need to keep a precious "view" or "neighborhood character" is helping fuel housing cost increases too.
So yeah, Candi's underplanned, poorly-thought-out $100k for toilets is a bad idea and was rightfully shot down. But that has nothing to do with sidewalk inspectors.
Prev
Linear Mode
