Milwaukee

5 readers

2 users here now

Group for Milwaukee area and SE Wisconsin.

Banner image by Bfkenney on Wikimedia Commons, licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0. Icon is Sunrise Over the Lake (People's Flag of Milwaukee) by Robert Lenz, released into the public domain.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

sirfrenchtoast@midwest.social

hukaulaba@pawb.social

Salad_Fries@midwest.social

Milwaukee business crashed into for a third time in as many years, Alderman reacts (www.tmj4.com)

submitted 1 year ago by mke_geek@lemm.ee to c/milwaukee@midwest.social

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Westmoreland: "Bad. I mean it's a domino effect. One business leaves, other businesses could leave. That's the last thing we want."

He's hoping policy changes and the new 2% sales tax increase, set to take effect in January, can help combat the destruction.

It's not only businesses leaving the area, which makes people want to leave the area, but also increased costs for the entire community. There's more costs for putting in extra "traffic calming measures". There's extra costs for repairs to damage caused by reckless drivers. There's loss of life. There's increased insurance rates if you own a car in Milwaukee.

He hopes the sales tax increase can also help add more police to the force to help hold people accountable.

Hopefully!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Bob@midwest.social 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

You're spot on. Police don't stop bad stuff from u happening, they just show up after the fact and issue tickets. And no, tickets are not a deterrent for events that people don't think through logically, they're just a revenue scheme.

Narrowing the road, narrowing the intersection, street parking, trees, and so on are are small things you can do to make drivers slow down naturally and increase the safety and pleasantness of an area. Honestly I have no idea what this area looks like, but even if extra police fixed the problem, they're an ongoing cost, while infrastructure changes are a one-time cost.

[–] mke_geek@lemm.ee 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If people keep damaging the infrastructure (for example 29 times knocking down metal signs on the bump outs) then yes, it's an ongoing cost.

[–] Bob@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago

If people keep damaging the infrastructure, the infrastructure is designed wrong. Either it needs to be strengthened to withstand multiple impacts or a different change needs to happen so people stop hitting things they're not supposed to.