Better that the man should have done nothing, and people continued to use the unsafe pathway until finally someone got injured and sued the city; likely costing more than the initial quoted price of $65K… yeah, that makes total sense.
2 Likes
Unfortunately for some legal people, it does. Because they can argue that it wasn’t an official path and should never have used it. 
Honestly, too many lawyers have really fucked things up.
There is also the possibility that the stairs should indeed cost $65000 but the major wanted to seem frugal so he made an under the table deal with some contractor to do this for $10000 in exchange for getting a good public contract later.
2 Likes
I would think that tactic wouldn’t hold water unless the area was clearly marked and blocked off from public access.
Especially given that according to the original story, numerous requests for a stairwell had been made previously, and were dismissed.
1 Like
Unless someone gets hurt at one of the other couple dozen parks in the city that could have had their problem remediated with the same money. Doing something is generally better than nothing in these cases, but the evaluation yardstick isn’t this versus project nothing at all. It is this versus whatever else they were going to do with the resources. That’s exactly why there is a gruelingly long public process for making that determination.
1 Like
You seem to focus quite a bit on hypothetical scenarios which could happen rather than what actually did happen:
The man made a unilateral decision which seems to have shamed the city officials into doing what was needed.
*shrugs
3 Likes
Here’s a better video of the stairs in question:
You get what you pay for.
3 Likes
Hypothetical arguments like these seem to me a derail into meaningful discussion because it devolves into a No True Scottsman type of arguments.
“Well the money could have been used more better things” without giving meaningful examples, or actually discussing that the stairs are being built and focus around that.
1 Like
I’m sure that’s not at all unintentional.
It seems to me that the bottom line is this:
The city had a choice to either block off an unsafe pathway in their park, or to take the proper measures to make it safe.
Whether there are other access points in the park or other parks in that city need renovations more is highly irrelevant; such considerations do not negate the responsibility on the part of the park to maintain a modicum of public safety… a responsibility it seems that they were neglecting until it was brought to the public at large’s attention.
2 Likes
That is only true once the stairs were erected. Prior to that there is some assumed risk in using an unsanctioned and unimproved path.
1 Like
Across the street from my front window is a slope on city park property. It used to have 3 rotting 8x8 treated timber steps, in serious disrepair, but still very much in use. After an elderly neighbor slipped on them spraining his ankle, the steps were removed - not replaced with new ones, just removed for “safety’s sake”. Now, I get to watch everyone slipping down the 4’ dirt/mud slope that remains, no grass was planted, nothing. They could have replaced them and put of a handrail cheap, but in Ann ARbor more likely they would have hired an engineering firm, a landscape architect, ADA and LEED advisor, etc etc. and it would have cost 10K. What is a citizens recourse in situations like this?
I could give many more examples of our city simply removing something to reduce their liability instead of fixing it, replacing it, or adding to/bettering the “people’s solution”. What is it about a bureaucracy that transforms simple solutions into expensive messes? LAck of oversight? Lack of leadership? Too much oversight? Paralyzed by legal fears? Whatever it is, I could do without it.
2 Likes
Forgive me if I don’t just automatically believe that arbitrarily.
From what I understand:
-
This is publicly maintained property, in a park. (If Canada works the way the US does, that means it’s technically taxpayer funded.)
-
People were using the pathway prior to the existence of any stairs, and had requested that some be put in, repeatedly.
-
The requests eventually caused someone in a city government office somewhere to seek out quotes for the construction costs.
Again, we’re back to hypothetical “what if’s” instead of “what happened was…”
There’s no way now to “prove” that a person who fell and was injured prior to the erection of the stairs would not be able to successfully sue the city for damages, especially in light of the fact that the city was fully aware of the need.
There’s a good reason that they still put up ‘caution’ and ‘slippery when wet’ signs in public spaces after it rains; it’s a “given” that wet ground is slippery, but without signage stating the obvious it’s still a potential liability, despite any “assumed risk.”
Fake News, I bet. Have you seen the body? Have you run DNA tests on the body? If not, then how do you know for sure that Ford and bin Laden are not sharing falafel somewhere? Thank goodness Trump is in charge.
Yes, that’s sarcasm.
2 Likes
A shortcut like this (the original dirt steps), created organically by people just trying to save a few steps, can be very difficult to remove. The city would need to build a solid, unclimbable fence (maybe even a wall!) to prevent using the slippery shortcut.
I see this all the time on corner lots; a small shortcut forms, saving perhaps 8 steps. A rut just wide enough for single file walkers or bicyclers. Lawn owner attempt simple solutions (signage, porch-sitting-fist-shaking, simple post & rope fence), all to no success. For owners who really want it to stop, 6’+ high wrought iron fencing seems to work.
It’s easy to just put it down to laziness and lack of respect for other’s lawns. But there’s some sort of “Madness of Crowds” thing going on. I’ve always been freakishly cautious to not corner cut other’s lawns.
I’ve committed to not put up a fence if ever I own such a lot. Instead, I’d wait until the inevitable short cut is created and then make it into proper walkway, with paver stones, solar LED lights, and maybe even a couple of shrubbery for that nice two-level effect. Even though I’m pretty sure my nice walkway would lead to an even shorter shortcut (well, longer from a Pythagoras point of view), as the “crowd” seems to need to make shortcuts.
Props to the old guy for doing something. I’m half-convinced he knew his non-code-compliant stairs would shame the local gov’t to get a proper estimate and make the problem go away. Wouldn’t surprise me to find out he’s a construction contractor who knows how to play the game.
I may have thought about this too much…
2 Likes
1 Like
Well… yeah, because generally before one does something, one should consider the hypotheticals of what could happen to make a good decision. Thus pointing out all the things that could have gone wrong is perfectly valid in evaluating someone’s decision.
I’m not even saying he did the wrong thing here, but “It all worked out in the end” is not the right defense for his actions.
1 Like
So you’re with the “do-nothing” camp.
Duly noted.
Goodnight.
and he didn’t have to spray paint a dick on anything.
Depends. If he thought “This will force action” then it was a good call. If he thought “This will fix it!” then it was an insanely stupid decision.
But really I just wanted to point out that your ends justifying the means rationalization is disturbing, regardless of how good a decision it actually was.
Cheers.
1 Like
