I have no idea why it was replaced. The old one was perfectly fine. It handled the traffic out of our 6-house cul-de-sac quite well. It had no graffiti, no sand blasting, no missing pieces, and no gunshot holes.
I'm curious to know what this entire effort cost the taxpayers of this city. Were the stop signs in other cul-de-sacs also replaced? There are a lot of them in the neighborhood. Were those in a state of disrepair? Ours certainly wasn't. Even more interesting is the fact that our city, like many I'm sure, have been faced with a lack of revenue in recent years, and have had to make numerous cuts in city services. Yet for some reason, they're replacing signs unnecessarily. I can certainly think of some better places to have spent those funds.
4 comments:
Harump! Bureacracies! :o) ( And I don't know how to spell either word).
Blessings!
Deborah
Maybe this is a result of stimulus money? Alot of that money was given to states/cities/etc with the understanding that certain projects would be done - whether needed or not. Or maybe it has something to do with new federal regs that are ordering all street & traffic signs to be replaced. http://www.wdio.com/article/stories/s1858814.shtml fun times.
Whatever it is, Lorraine, it's straight-up LAME! What a complete and utter waste. Bah!
Perhaps the other signs around your neighborhood were already damaged beyond repair, so they decided to make replacements. It would be just weird if the old sign in your cul-de-sac were different from the other new signs, wouldn't it? Maybe that's why everything had to go, to give way to the new batch. It will be just as useful anyway. :)
Post a Comment