Citizen street striping job gets painted over

Remember this?

While the city claims that it is legal for Zach to do this because of the 80% approval from the neighborhood, one has to question the liability of the city and and safety concerns of having a citizen buying his own paint and standing in a public street painting stripes?

It’s bad enough citizens risk their safety trimming city owned trees in the boulevard now they have citizens striping the streets, something public works and the traffic department should have paid for and contracted after Zach did the legwork of the approval process. Are we so destitute for money in the city we now are having citizens buying and painting city streets?

I guess the city recently re-striped North Main, somehow they were able to scrape the money together, but ironically it wasn’t to touch up the job Zach did. The city repainted the parallel parking spots taking away the angled parking Zach created. So I guess the city has money to stripe the streets when they are covering up citizen’s hard work.

The city’s chief traffic engineer claimed they decided to go back to parallel parking because the Bakery closed. Huh? I guess they don’t think the place is ever going to reopen. Let’s face it, the real reason they painted over Zach’s work was to cover up the embarrassment of having a citizen do their job for them. Lazy asses.



3 comments ↓

#1 Fluff Mc Fluffin on 07.20.17 at 3:55 pm

That and the citizen’s paint job was stupid as all get out. It was like running some weird slalom course going north on Main. I support going back to the way it was.

#2 l3wis on 07.20.17 at 4:13 pm

It was a very progressive idea. People didn’t like it, because they were too stupid to understand you back into your parking spot. We struggle with progress in this town.

#3 Fluff McFluffin on 07.21.17 at 3:57 am

I remember the conversations. Unfortunately progressive doesn’t always mean right, or needed. I think this was a clear case of trying to improve upon the mousetrap.

Leave a Comment