Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats
- Thread starter GasBandit
- Start date
I am going to hell.
Toronto man builds park stairs for $550, irking city after $65,000 estimate
Thoughts? It's not perfect, but not crap either, and literally better than nothing.
Thoughts? It's not perfect, but not crap either, and literally better than nothing.
Dave
Staff member
The fact that someone says that this will cost $65,000 is just fucking stupid. And I applaud this guy. Even if they tear down his stuff and build new stairs, it'll be far cheaper than it originally would have been and it'll get done fast.
I'd like to see what the original stairs designed looked like--did they include wheelchair lift or somesuch? They mention accessibility specifically, and it's an outdoors location.
I understand the city's complaint that his stairs aren't up to code, because I can see those stairs deteriorating over time with wet weather. But it is better than nothing and $65,000 sounds completely fucking mental.
I'm guessing it's the "my brother owns a construction company" price. Or possibly the "we need to study it for a year with public consultations first" price. Take your pick.
There's a third option. The "He just had to pay for materials. We also have to pay our employees. And insurance. And permits." option.
You seriously believe that makes up the gap? Less than 1% of the cost is materials for a 1-day job? Please tell me you're kidding.
Depends on the materials used. Yeah, I can build you a shelf for $100, but if you want it done right and to last, you should probably go with someone else.
That said, the estimate does seem ridiculous.
I said nothing of the sort. I just said there are more expenses than just the materials.
If it's a job, you bet your ass I'm getting paid to do it. The first guy did it on his own time, and if he got hurt doing it, that was his own problem.
The problem with just throwing these numbers around is they're tainted with bias. Give us the whole picture so we know where that $65,000 is *really* going.
GasBandit
Staff member
Hey, the government has to use those $600 screwdrivers for these jobs, remember?
Looks like he built wooden deck treads with a hand rail on one side. The city would build concrete steps with 3 sets of hand rails, and a wheelchair ramp.
So a completely different job. This is the problem with these types of social vigilantism.
That might be right (@sixpackshaker can we get a link please?), but without bringing attention to the issue, there might never have been anything built. Even if this one gets torn down, now there's attention on the issue.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/toront...0-irking-city-after-65-000-estimate-1.3510237
The original link show pics of the steps he built. I am assuming what a city would build.[DOUBLEPOST=1500575945,1500575800][/DOUBLEPOST]The steps look really shitty and dangerous to use.
GasBandit
Staff member
Looks safer than that wheelchair ramp my office had that one time.
But yeah, there are plainly a lot of corners cut in that staircase build that I don't think should have, in something that will see heavy public use. I mean, if it was out back of his own house, then whatever. But that's gonna break and hurt somebody within weeks.
But yeah, there are plainly a lot of corners cut in that staircase build that I don't think should have, in something that will see heavy public use. I mean, if it was out back of his own house, then whatever. But that's gonna break and hurt somebody within weeks.
Would the city be liable for damages if anyone gets injured while using these stairs? Does the city have a duty to tear down non-code/dangerous urban furnishings? I have little to no knowledge of Canadian law.
I would assume the city would tear it down. It is not up to code for a rural Texas deck. I am pretty sure that would fail any code for any Western Civilization city.
GasBandit
Staff member
I am also not a lawyer, even less so a canadian lawyer, but my second-hand law knowledge (Mom WAS a lawyer) tells me that there'd be a case to be made, and the city would probably decide to settle rather than fight.
GasBandit
Staff member
No, we mean, if the city did not tear it down, and someone got hurt on it, it's likely the injured could sue the city.
Ahhh, my apologies for misreading. Thank you for clarifying for me.
Edited to change The hank to Thank as it should have been, though it did read kind of funny.
Last edited:
FYI, city projects are one big huge CYA-fest.
Cities have been sued for:
- Not understanding the problem
- Not understanding the solution
- Choosing the wrong solution
- Not implementing the solution
- Implementing the solution incorrectly
- Using too cheap of a contractor
- Using too expensive of a contractor
Etc, etc.
And the judgements aren't small - someone gets injured on city property, and if their lawyer can show that the city made an active decision at any point in time that could conceivably have resulted in the injury or the severity of the injury - Boom - the city is liable for pain and suffering damages on top of medical fees. So cities no longer make decisions themselves, they have to spend money on "consultants" who tell the city what, where, why, how, etc and those consultants do a lot of research (surveys, planning, geological, etc) depending on the project to give the city a sound basis on which to make a decision they can defend in court.
The majority of the cost of a project is spent long before ground is ever broken.
So $65k (52kUSD) to $150k ($120kUSD) and 3years (2.4USY) is normal for this type of project. Here are the salient points:
- There is already a handicap accessible path between the two points.
- The slope is protected by railing to discourage/prevent people from taking the shortcut
- The city is protected from frivolous lawsuits about falling down the slope because they've supplied railing that meets safety standards, and they've supplied adequate facilities to permit access to the various portions of the park
So does the city have to act? No. They could simply say, "We are not going to recognize, nor support, this shortcut." In fact it would be cheaper for them to increase the safety features of the site making it much harder for people to take the shortcut. But they decided to support what the citizens want, however they have to do it according to their normal process, which is slow and expensive.
Outrageous and ridiculous?
Most certainly.
A reasonable outcome, given our litigious society (which we've expertly exported to Canada)?
Most certainly.
Will the city tear down an unsafe staircase when it opens them up to $500k or more "pain and suffering" lawsuits for people who chose to ignore the safety rail, climb over it, and fall down a steep slope?
Most certainly.
About the only good outcome is that this little bit of publicity might force the city to act sooner on the project, which will necessarily displace other projects and screw up accounting, but that's not this citizen's problem.
Also, keep in mind that it's in Canadian money, so, you know. Someone send them another game of monopoly, the bills in the box should cover it.
Cities have been sued for:
- Not understanding the problem
- Not understanding the solution
- Choosing the wrong solution
- Not implementing the solution
- Implementing the solution incorrectly
- Using too cheap of a contractor
- Using too expensive of a contractor
Etc, etc.
And the judgements aren't small - someone gets injured on city property, and if their lawyer can show that the city made an active decision at any point in time that could conceivably have resulted in the injury or the severity of the injury - Boom - the city is liable for pain and suffering damages on top of medical fees. So cities no longer make decisions themselves, they have to spend money on "consultants" who tell the city what, where, why, how, etc and those consultants do a lot of research (surveys, planning, geological, etc) depending on the project to give the city a sound basis on which to make a decision they can defend in court.
The majority of the cost of a project is spent long before ground is ever broken.
So $65k (52kUSD) to $150k ($120kUSD) and 3years (2.4USY) is normal for this type of project. Here are the salient points:
- There is already a handicap accessible path between the two points.
- The slope is protected by railing to discourage/prevent people from taking the shortcut
- The city is protected from frivolous lawsuits about falling down the slope because they've supplied railing that meets safety standards, and they've supplied adequate facilities to permit access to the various portions of the park
So does the city have to act? No. They could simply say, "We are not going to recognize, nor support, this shortcut." In fact it would be cheaper for them to increase the safety features of the site making it much harder for people to take the shortcut. But they decided to support what the citizens want, however they have to do it according to their normal process, which is slow and expensive.
Outrageous and ridiculous?
Most certainly.
A reasonable outcome, given our litigious society (which we've expertly exported to Canada)?
Most certainly.
Will the city tear down an unsafe staircase when it opens them up to $500k or more "pain and suffering" lawsuits for people who chose to ignore the safety rail, climb over it, and fall down a steep slope?
Most certainly.
About the only good outcome is that this little bit of publicity might force the city to act sooner on the project, which will necessarily displace other projects and screw up accounting, but that's not this citizen's problem.
Also, keep in mind that it's in Canadian money, so, you know. Someone send them another game of monopoly, the bills in the box should cover it.
Ah yes, C$. I believe the current exchange rate for this quarter is around 1.33 ($1 American to $1.33 Canadian). So $48800 roughly.
Warning: IANAL but incoming legal shitshow in Canada: Boyfriend arrested after pregnant woman stabbed, unborn infant dies
The part that will make it a shitshow is the following, because the headline is not accurate (though I'll admit it'd be hard to be accurate in a headline on this one) according to the article itself:
Charge the boyfriend (doesn't say if father or not) with attempted murder? That doesn't seem like it would be controversial. Aggravated assault with a weapon at the least.
Or murder? Child became a person under Canadian law after they were born alive, but they were injured before they were considered a person via Canadian law. So can you charge the attacker of the Mom with murder of the child? Under the law as currently, he only attacked 1 person whom survived. But according to law, a piece of the Mother he attacked became a person, and then died later, as a direct result of his actions. So because of the direct results of his actions, a person died.
As I said, legal shitshow incoming.
The part that will make it a shitshow is the following, because the headline is not accurate (though I'll admit it'd be hard to be accurate in a headline on this one) according to the article itself:
Facts of the case:
- Boyfriend stabbed pregnant girlfriend
- Girlfriend survives
- Girlfriend gives birth via C-section - infant alive but wounded from previous attack
- Infant dies later
Charge the boyfriend (doesn't say if father or not) with attempted murder? That doesn't seem like it would be controversial. Aggravated assault with a weapon at the least.
Or murder? Child became a person under Canadian law after they were born alive, but they were injured before they were considered a person via Canadian law. So can you charge the attacker of the Mom with murder of the child? Under the law as currently, he only attacked 1 person whom survived. But according to law, a piece of the Mother he attacked became a person, and then died later, as a direct result of his actions. So because of the direct results of his actions, a person died.
As I said, legal shitshow incoming.
Very interesting. This article from 10 years ago about a killing mentions a similar case to what you've linked:
He'll be charged with manslaughter for the baby's death(or maybe 2nd degree murder so that there's room to plead down to manslaughter) and the only shitshow will be in the media and social media.
Why do I say this? There's a precedent:
[DOUBLEPOST=1500917607,1500917439][/DOUBLEPOST]Danggit. Ninja'd by a Dancelorda little way down the page the article said:
@Denbrought and @Gruebeard you both make good points about precedent, but keep in mind that the court case you refer to was from 1981, when it was less explicit that the unborn are not people, whereas the Morgantaler case was in 1988 (for the americans out there, it removed all legal frameworks from abortions in Canada, de-facto making them legal).
So it's possible there's a difference from before and after those dates. @Denbrought in particular the article you cite is about where the baby was never born alive, which is not such a shitshow in law as this could be, especially since the mother IS still alive.
So it's possible there's a difference from before and after those dates. @Denbrought in particular the article you cite is about where the baby was never born alive, which is not such a shitshow in law as this could be, especially since the mother IS still alive.
Again, I think it's just gonna be a shitstorm in a bottle raging in the echochamber of anti-abortion proponents grabbing at straws to use as ammunition in their boxing match with the bogeyman . . .
. . . where was I? Oh right. I actually think the law is sophisticated enough to differentiate between abortion and murder, and it will be just another trial
. . . where was I? Oh right. I actually think the law is sophisticated enough to differentiate between abortion and murder, and it will be just another trial
More recent precedent casts this case into sharper relief:
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2007/10/04/no_charges_in_fetus_death.html
In this case the case happened after abortion become completely unrestricted in Canada, however this child did not have a heartbeat and was unable to be resuscitated, and the court ruled that as it never lived outside the womb, it was never born, and thus was never considered a person to be protected under the law. Given that in this new case it can be shown that the child was born and lived after birth, then the courts will have to answer a slightly different question.
However, the ruling is almost certainly going to be that murder does not apply. Canada has, since 1988, held the position that unborn children are not granted any legal status, and that the moment of birth is the beginning of any rights.
The child had no rights at the time of the attack. To confer any murder charge on the case is to either retroactively apply rights, or to recognize that those rights existed prior to birth. Such a ruling would incense abortion advocates, as well as those who could be charged under the law for harming their fetus with drugs, alcohol, etc. Of course corporations also would be on-the-hook for possible charges if it could ever be shown that the jobs, environment, or other workplace coincidents brought harm to unborn children of workers. So there are a lot of groups who don't want to see any protections of any kind extended to the unborn, and at this point they have a lot more political clout than those who want some protections extended to the unborn.
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2007/10/04/no_charges_in_fetus_death.html
In this case the case happened after abortion become completely unrestricted in Canada, however this child did not have a heartbeat and was unable to be resuscitated, and the court ruled that as it never lived outside the womb, it was never born, and thus was never considered a person to be protected under the law. Given that in this new case it can be shown that the child was born and lived after birth, then the courts will have to answer a slightly different question.
However, the ruling is almost certainly going to be that murder does not apply. Canada has, since 1988, held the position that unborn children are not granted any legal status, and that the moment of birth is the beginning of any rights.
The child had no rights at the time of the attack. To confer any murder charge on the case is to either retroactively apply rights, or to recognize that those rights existed prior to birth. Such a ruling would incense abortion advocates, as well as those who could be charged under the law for harming their fetus with drugs, alcohol, etc. Of course corporations also would be on-the-hook for possible charges if it could ever be shown that the jobs, environment, or other workplace coincidents brought harm to unborn children of workers. So there are a lot of groups who don't want to see any protections of any kind extended to the unborn, and at this point they have a lot more political clout than those who want some protections extended to the unborn.
How many people can I ninja with a single post?
ALL THE PEOPLE!How many people can I ninja with a single post?