City misspending money
Original post made by common sense on Mar 1, 2013
* Buying 17 Compressed Natural Gas Honda Civic cars at $27,046 each. A regular gas Honda Civic would cost $20,350. So in order to project a "greener" image, the city is spending $105,000 more than it needs to.
* Loaning the Palo Alto Housing Corporation $2,600,000 so that they can buy the properties on Maybell for constructing high density housing.
* Hiring a consultant for $281,850 to do a study of 5 different bike projects, such as what happens if a bike path connects Wilkie Way with El Camino.
* Spend another $335,000 for lawyers investigating the Mitchell Park Library construction
* and the city council will discuss how to spend more money on the California Ave streetscape improvements (remember this project was where the city gets a $1,100,000 grant, and spends $500,000; it's now a $1,100,000 grant, and the city is spending $2,300,000).
So to sum it up: in one week of city spending: $720,000 on consultants, fancy cars, and another $2,600,000 in a "loan". That's $3,300,000 in one week that could have gone for infrastructure.
The city can't afford to fix the infrastructure, but they can overspend on fancy cars, hire consultants to study bike paths, loan money to create high density housing which many in the neighborhood are against, and because of mismangement of current construction projects, are spending another $335,000 to figure out why Mitchell Park library isn't going so well.
on Mar 1, 2013 at 11:31 pm
Are you surprised, common sense? I am not. this is business as usual for the council-- consultants, unneeded street stuff to appease the car haters, lawyers and " green" stuff.
Doesn't matter who is on the council, we get the same BS. Of course they will have plenty to at themselves over.
on Mar 2, 2013 at 9:02 am
I suspected this "poverty plea" of the city was just BS for a long time. My brother worked in city financial management for years, and told me the city and its schools we're rolling in dough. He said it was a dull job because there were no financial challenges. He quit and got a job working for the city of SF ( more challenging and paid better, to boot ).
on Mar 2, 2013 at 9:05 am
@Common sense (love the name!)
If the City is truly planning on trying to pass a bond, they need to show focus and restraint in their current spending. As Marrol says, needs not wants.
We don't need a bike bridge, we do need smooth, pot-hole free City streets.
We need fireman and police officers, we don't need a Children's Theater paid for by the City.
Until I see common sense spending by our City on ONLY needs, I will never vote to give them more money. Once the needs aka as backlog of infrastructure spending and safety issues are taken care of, THEN we can consider the more frivolous or feel good projects.