Citizens should have a say in how municipalities order work. If they're not given that say through less-disruptive means, then they can choose to harmlessly tag places where maintenance is failing.

Why are we excusing civic inaction because it might cause an unexpected schedule change for road crews? Why am I supposed to be so full of concern for the ease of their schedule that I'm ok with broken streets?

In short, c'mon, man.

▲

kjs3 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This is just a dressed up way of saying "I don't care how the road crews work or who else they might be helping, I want them working on the problem I care about". You don't know if the crews are working on bigger problems (or bigger potholes), or they're working in a neighborhood you don't drive through and thus don't care about...if they aren't patching up your annoyance right now, then screw 'em, they suck at their job.

I've gone to our municipal planning meetings for these types of things, and there is always at least one person there with this sense of entitlement. They want to talk about "excusing civic inaction" or similar just like you, but when shown "this is what the crews are working on", the retort is "yeah, but that's not the pothole on my street" (with the usually unsaid "...so why should I give a phuk about those people").

These people usually show up at other meetings to complain about having to pay taxes to pay for those repairs. But that's another little joy of local politics...

▲

adampunk 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Just so we’re clear, “screw them” in this case means spray painting holes in the road. Just so we’re agreed that that is what is objectionable here.

I find it very hard to fault that person coming to the meeting wanting their street fixed early. What real sin are they committing except noticing that there’s a piece of infrastructure that they depend on that’s messed up? The city does not get a pass just because it claims to be busy elsewhere.

If I believed that the city schedule was optimal in every way, I could be convinced that nothing should change as a result of that person‘s complaints, but I don’t believe that. And even if I did, that person is providing a valuable service in the case that the city made a mistake somewhere. They do not know that the schedule is optimal (if it even is). They know their street is messed up.

▲

kjs3 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Just so we’re agreed that that is what is objectionable here.

I never said a single word about painting the pothole; I think it's a clever hack. I should have tried that when we were negotiating with the city about scheduling our much needed street repaving. But since you clearly assume whatever your opinion is is sacrosanct, I suppose it's not surprising you would assume I agree you are unquestioningly correct.

The city does not get a pass just because it claims to be busy elsewhere.

Yes, it does, particularly if it is. At least for the adults in the room. Resources are finite. They have to be allocated. They have to be paid for. No, that's never "optimal" for everyone, especially for people for whom 'optimal == 'what I want, done immediately, even at the expense of other citizens'.

	▲	adampunk 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>At least for the adults in the room. I think the idea that the city is already allocating resources optimally is pretty historically contingent, to put things mildly. Even in cases where it is, it's making choices about what to allocate and where and citizens are allowed to think those choices are wrong. In fact, well functioning cities use that information to better understand where those choices are wrong. If you want to be mad at someone who is annoying at city meetings because they can't see your picture that's fine, but don't conflate that with adulthood. It's certainly not the only bigger picture to have.

▲

ikesau 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I appreciate the pushback, but I wasn't actually saying people shouldn't do this. If a neighbourhood is being neglected because of some incentive structure they're powerless to affect, then yeah, take some action.

I'm just compulsive in pointing out trade-offs, and this blog post (understandably) doesn't have an interview with the civil servant on the other side presenting their perspective, so I wanted to raise the question here in case someone knew how it worked.