Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
When you say the infrastructure runs underneath structures, do you mean the mobile homes? As in you know moveable properties? I may be having one of my logic oversight episodes you were talking about, but I think there is a chance the city would be able to avoid ripping through a trailer's living room.
|
Yes. Mobile homes. Those things that are named that because they're made in one place, and assembled in another. We no longer call them that, becaues they're not actually any more mobile than a house built on site. Nowadays, we call it pre-fab.
"Mobile" homes sit on grade, houses sit on a foundation. It's still a big job to move either one. There are no wheels and no trailer hitch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
So according to you the actual costs were either $11 or $17 million, the disparity between those estimates makes me question their accuracy, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. In any event the price tag on its own doesn't make or break the case for whether or not it is a viable investment. If we looked at the price tag of any single service the city does in isolation everything looks expensive. Look into how much it costs to repave the street infront of one city bloc, if we just looked at the price in isolation on everything we'd never fix anything. Obviously the land is valuable, but the city selling it doesn't really benefit me so why would I be opposed to the people who it does effect fighting to keep it? Considering how much this repair would cost me individually as a taxpayer I couldn't justify displacing people in order to save money so that someone more fortunate can eventually profit. You don't have to agree, but to be honest I considee my taxes being spent on helping others to be one of their least wasteful uses.
|
I've got no problem with you agreeing with people for fighting it. It's all the BS you're spewing instead of facts. If you had any kind of fiscal awareness, you'd realize that repairing something like this is a waste of money from the perspective of the taxpayer. Either way, the City is moving houses, but you're suggesting that they put them back afterward, in a place that, as long as things are being moved, should be higher density. The place ran it's course. Arguing that the City is being greedy as opposed to prudent is where you're missing the point. That's the same point you always miss. I swear to God, if a rich man pulled a sliver out of your toe, you'd accuse him of stealing from a poor man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi
The funny thing is, I haven't been arguing what the city should or shouldn't do. The few posts I had made in this thread up until you started attacking me for doing so had not been advocating this at all, I was simply commenting on how the city has handled the situation and whether or not there is an argument to be made against the way they've dealt with this as opposed to just believing the city can do no wrong.
I'm sorry if my terminology offends you. We can agree to disagree about your perceptions. This isn't my battle to fight, I'm just supporting the people who are fighting it, hopefully that doesn't ruin your day.
|
That's all you ever argue, iggy. You're as predictable as an equation, except you don't understand the math behind paying for things logically as opposed to emotionally. That's not always a bad thing; you just don't know what you're talking about. And my day has been great, thanks.