More on the CDBG recommendations

I've been talking a good bit about the upcoming allocation of stimulus funding through Community Development Block Grants and Rapid Re-Housing money, and I wanted to touch on another point that I noticed in the recommendations made by the Athens-Clarke County Human and Economic Development department.

One of the proposals includes allocating $50,000 for the retro-fitting of low-flow toilets in low-income households. While it's not an awful expenditure of money by any means, I do seriously think there are some flaws with this proposal. Some are philosophical (kind of) and others are pragmatic.

Dealing with the latter first, I've asked around to some friends and colleagues in the construction industry regarding the cost of retrofitting. My initial impact, upon seeing the proposal, was that $50,000 was a lot of money to swap out some toilets and, by posting such a big number, there was little way you could effectively spend it all.

However, it appears that the cost and installment of the low-flow toilet isn't the biggest concern, but rather additional costs that will almost invariably result. For instance, one local builder said that most of this retrofitting will be done in older homes (since the majority of low-income families are living in older homes). In turn, these older homes often have numerous other challenges and infrastructure damage that needs to be addressed, and much of that damage - rotted wood - is found around in the bathrooms near water fixtures (i.e. toilets).

As a result, as the toilet is removed, a variety of things will become apparent. For instance, the flange may not fit the new fixutre or be stable enough to support it ... and switching out an older flange often requires an adapter, as well as a new wax ring.

Not terribly shocking, but now, this builder said, you're just scratching the surface. Since most of the rotted wood is located near water fixtures, there stands a good chance that the floor will have to be repaired or replaced. In turn, that means the floor covering, typically vinyl, will need to be replaced in addition to the sub-floor and, as often the case, the floor joists.

Adding to the problem is that since toilets are often situated on or near the outside walls, then the potential exists for rotted wood along the outside walls and load-bearing walls, meaning an even more extensive repair.

All of a sudden, what appears to be a rather simple solution - replacing a toilet - has morphed into a much more costly, extensive renovation project. One of the folks I spoke with who was either overseeing or managing some existing renovation projects said that virtually all of them had required this type of renovative work in the bathrooms.

While those conversations were eye-opening to me, they also paralleled a nagging philosophical problem I had with the recommendation - again, if one can label it that - which is that if this money is supposed to be providing a stimulus to the economy and is being funnelled through a grant program aimed at providing services to those in need (more or less), then why just do low-flow toilets? Why not allocate more money and use it to provide more significant renovative work in the low-income community? Rather than have it be accidental through the toilet initiative, why not pool together some of the small chunks into one big chunk of funding, thus getting more bang for your buck?

Let private contractors bid for the services or just allocate them to the Athens Housing Authority or another non-profit and put them to work fixing up homes.

There's roughly $360,000 sitting there in federal money that could be put to good use, and it would be nice to see this one-time burst of money be spent in a way that brings about a long-term, net benefit.