Thanks for providing these numbers, Dorian. They show what many of us have long suspected: the city spends more in paying off claims related to deferred maintenance than they would have spent if it had actually been performed.

Politicians don't want to budget for unglamorous projects when they can instead use our money for those that provide photo ops or sweetheart deals, knowing that taxpayers will be left on the hook for the "unforeseen consequences" of their irresponsibility—preferably long after they've moved on to higher office.

The city used to claim that sidewalks were the homeowner's responsibility, and had a 50-50 program, where the homeowner paid 50% and the city paid 50%, a kind of grant program. Who is actually responsible?

When these settlements are paid, insurance is covering most or all of the cost. To the less-than-sophisticated observer, that means that they cost the city little. Not true! The insurance industry isn't totally populated with fools, and it doesn't lose money year after year. When a city or state or school district or business has a history of costly claims, the insurer raises the premiums to reflect the cost of claims that it can expect. There's no free lunch in buying municipal insurance. Whether the city pays the claims directly or through an insurance policy, it pays! And it is a sure thing that some outlays to keep the streets and sidewalks in good repair will prevent and will be less costly than paying claims. In San Diego infrastructure maintenance has been neglected for decades, hence there is a huge backlog. The mayor claims to be attempting to catch up with the backlog, but that's not anything that seems to be a major effort. And we all know how frustrating it is to play "catch up ball."

Well,a that is something that would never happen in Mexico.