Lets use a little "common sense": if the city's estimate is correct and a new traffic light is $100,000 (which seems very high), and let's say that new light will last for at least 20 years (which is conservative), that would be roughly $5,000 per year. If removing it would require a crossing guard at say $25,000 per year (with pay, benefits, insurance, etc), that would cost taxpayers $500,000 over the same 20 years. Which would make more sense? It would be nice if our elected leaders left emotion out of these decisions and decided them on pure facts and economics. If the facts support a new traffic light fine, if not then private citizens can raise the difference if they want a light.

And all of the racist comments just cloud the issue, sad