Friday, May 9, 2008

Pothole Issues

Monday May 12 will be a Finance Committee meeting to revisit the issue of whether or not to pay for damage caused by potholes on SR 57. Last Monday at the City Council meeting, several people who submitted claims to the City's law director spoke out at the meeting, asking the City to reconsider the initial denial of these claims and render payment for the damages caused by the deteriorated road.

Although the CT reported that the City would be paying for pothole damage, City Council has only agreed to take another look at this issue and see if there is any willingness to render payment for some or all of the associated damages.

If you have strong feelings either way, feel free to show up and speak out at the Finance Committee meeting Monday evening.


Ladalang said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Ladalang said...

If the streets were properly maintained, potholes wouldn't cause damage. I think the innocent driver should not have to eat the damage after paying taxes to maintain those very streets. I realize the city doesn't have the money to pay to maintain the streets but I think paying for the damage is a lot less costly than maintaining the streets, it should be one or the other. If someone's property was damaged as a result of neglect of my property, I would be legally responsible. The city should be under the same obligation since they have been assigned to maintain the streets and given the money to do that.

It isn't just a budget issue. The budget should reflect the actual cost to maintain the streets, it's too important an issue to ignore the problem and assume the money will come from somewhere. And then expect citizens to look the other way because of poor budgeting and improper maintenance.

Sure we don't have the money, but the question is why, where did it go? Why wasn't enough money alloted for streets? In a strong effective city budget infrastructure is a number one priority. The idea is make what you have work or cut where necessary to pay your bills.

Ed Sinegar said...

If this were an isolated incident, then maybe the argument could be made to not pay the claim. 47+ incidents, indicate gross neglect by the city in allowing 57 to fall into such a poor state of disrepair. Grace states that the city does not have money set aside to pay these claims. Well, guess what? I'll bet these people whose cars were damaged didn't have the money set aside either. The city may not not be legally responsible for these damages, but morally, they should pay every one of these claims.

Mark F. Craig said...

The next Finance Committee meeting to discuss these claims will be on May 27, commencing at 6:30 p.m.