Bad logic on Schenectady's city body shop

I read in the paper that Schenectady might close the body shop in the municipal garage, which repairs damage to city owned vehicles. This supposedly results from an insurance change, providing a very high deductible on collision coverage to city vehicles, which in turn is a result of numerous at-fault accidents related to persistent poor driving by operators of those vehicles.

Currently the operation of the shop is paid for by settlements from the insurance carrier for the vehicles, and the high deductible will eliminate most of those payments, as the city essentially self insures for most mishaps. No settlement money to pay for the body shop results in closing the shop. It all sounds logical if you don't think about it.

The problem is, that now the city will have to pay for repairs itself. And presumably the body shop has been doing repairs for less than the independent repair shops, so why does it make sense to pay those same outside shops to fix damage when you pay for it yourself instead of using an insurance settlement? Has someone forgotten "a penny saved is a penny earned?" Unless the city plans to leave the damage unfixed and have the city workers going about in unsafe junkers until they are sold by the pound as scrap instead of as used cars, someone has to fix them! And if internal repairs are more cost effective, then how does it make sense to spend more elsewhere, and give up the control over the quality and scheduling that doing repairs yourself brings?

I'd like to think common sense will prevail, the city paid to set up the shop, to the extent that numbers are available to the public it looks as if it saves money, and the only reason to shut down the body shop would be because the city vehicles were having fewer accidents. I'd rather see that demonstrated by results than assumed as a given because it sounds good to say "retrain drivers to have fewer accidents." I'm a skeptic, and once the body shop is closed, even if it will save money the cost of restarting may negate the savings and force the city to use more expensive commercial repair services. Leave it open for six months after the proposed retraining takes place, then decide the best course. As a taxpayer I love to see my money spent wisely, but control over the entire repair process has value, too. The city should quantify the results of driver training (why didn't they do training originally?) before declaring success and deciding that the municipal body shop is no longer needed.

No time to skimp - SUVs for evidence techs

As a long time SUV owner[1], I have a good understanding of what difference an SUV can make in shortening travel time in bad weather, and in making travel possible at all when the destination is not on a paved road.  So I speak from experience when I say that Schenectady should stop dithering over cost and get an SUV for use by the "on call" evidence tech.

I see no need for each tech to have an SUV, the purpose is to make sure a very necessary trained person can get to a crime scene, not to provide transportation in lieu of a personal vehicle for the entire staff. Government workers should bear the same responsibility as everyone else for arranging to get to work at their normal location and hours, but when "get to work" isn't the same place or same hours all the time, the one tech on call should have a vehicle suited to the demands of the job, which require going anywhere, any time of the day or night, any day of the week, and promptly. While bringing with them whatever special equipment is needed. Requiring any employee to have a personal vehicle like that is unreasonable, it is special equipment and should be provided.

It would seem even more reasonable to have two vehicles like that, one at home with the on call tech outside of working hours, and one waiting in the Foster Avenue "Garage Mahal" the city built recently. Planning for one vehicle to be unavailable occasionally is good management, vehicles need maintenance, crimes don't always happen one at a time, and a backup would be a reasonable precaution. But it should be the reserve, in the garage, not someone's personal perk or as a spare ride for the garage workers. By alternating the use of vehicles, the mileage will be spread between them, and should be low. That should make these a long term investment rather than something which needs to be replaced frequently.

An SUV is a heavy duty vehicle, its extra capabilities justify the bad mileage and somewhat higher cost of such transportation. Note that I am talking about a "real SUV," and while marketing people may try to deceive the public by calling an all wheel drive (AWD) station wagon such as the Explorer an SUV, it's not. Lest we forget, the "U" is for "utility," and that includes body on frame, a two speed transfer case, robust load rating, high ground clearance, and rear wheel drive. See below for why these features matter. Vehicles such as the Chevy Suburban and Ford Expedition are built on truck frames, and are big, heavy, expensive, rough riding, and capable. Two SUVs make sense for evidence techs, more don't, and lesser vehicles would compromise their ability to the do the job.

In case anyone suggests just getting a few trucks and putting caps on them, I did consider that myself, but it seems like a poor way to save money. First, big capable trucks aren't that much cheaper than an SUV. And an SUV has a lot of marginal utility. That's a term which refers to things it can do which an alternative could not. Compared to a truck, the SUV holds longer evidence with seats folded, and can provide at least some climate control for evidence. And the ability to carry extra passengers into a remote crime scene is valuable, ask any detective how they feel about walking a half mile or more in mud, or rain, or bitter cold. Carrying passengers in some cases will save time, and if those passengers are medical personnel, might save a life. The advantages of an SUV justify the cost, it's just a more adaptable vehicle.

Why SUV features are beneficial:

• body on frame - easier to attach special equipment to the frame, easier to fix if getting to a remote crime scene results in undercarriage or cosmetic damage.
• two speed transfer case - allows the vehicle to be safely used to move things at a scene to gain access, and remove obstacles preventing preservation of evidence. Also useful for pulling stuck official vehicles out of the mud at a crime scene.
• high load rating - because evidence isn't always light.
• high ground clearance - one of the things which really helps travel over bad or nonexistent roads, prevents getting "high centered" with the frame on an obstacle and wheels off the ground.
• rear wheel drive - because equipment and evidence go in the back, because weight shifts to the rear going up hills, because trailers (if needed) put weight on the back. You don't always drive in four wheel drive.

 [1] I have been driving an SUV since 1973, and owned an AWD station wagon (Subaru) at one time as well. I spent 12 years working out of town an making a 100+ mile commute in whatever weather there was, first daily and later three times a week, and I wound up putting about 100k miles on several SUVs. I used to regularly go fishing and camping with my family, often dozens of miles from the nearest paved road. For several years I had a truck with a plow and did driveways and small parking lots.

Thank you Joe Allen

For the last eight years or so, my wife Pat Davidsen was President of the College Park Neighborhood Association, and on many occasions had discussions with members of the Schenectady City Council about both the issues of the association and other city policies of interest to taxpayers. She had strong opinions about many of the members of the council, which she shared with those council members on occasion when she felt that one or another of them was not putting the best interests of the residents first in their decision making.

She passed away recently, and perhaps she was not as outspoken with the council members who did do a good job, who did return phone calls, and who did make an effort to listen to arguments opposing the direction of the city policy. Councilman Joe Allen is retiring after this council term, and I would just like to say that if she never told you in person that she approved of the way you served, let me say it for her, thank you Joe Allen, and have a pleasant retirement.

This really stinks

I see that the city of Schenectady is preparing to take over operation of the sewage treatment plant, and hopes to save a million dollars doing it. The plant's neighbors have expressed reservations about the ability of the city to control noxious odors from the plant. Some say it has been better since an outside operator took over, while others say that problems, while fixed quickly, are still common.

Odor has been a problem elsewhere in the region in the past, there was a time when the Albany dump would make nearby Washington Ave nearly unbearable when the wind blew the wrong way. Small recurring problems really anger people more than a major problem which happens only once. A single big problem makes people angry and provokes a reaction which fades with time, and eventually becomes a "Remember the time when..." story, A small problem which happens over and over is like the famous Chinese Water Torture, where the discomfort is small but repetition breeds desperation, you seethe in anticipation of the next time, and often develop a "This is never going to stop!" feeling.

Consider the neighbor's dog who comes into your yard, digs up your flowers, and uses your wading pool for a commode. If it happens once, the anger fades, the damage gets fixed, and life goes on. But if that dog barks under your window in the middle of the night almost every night, disturbing your sleep time after time, eventually that is likely to bring out a reaction which might make the newspapers. The constant anticipation of something unpleasant never lets you have a "Glad that's over" moment, and you get madder and madder.

Suggestion of the day: When the city takes over, put some serious effort into problem prevention, and be proactive rather than reactive. Eliminating a problem which has been driving people crazy will probably save money in the long run and generate a lot of good will.