Got a blog tip? Contact us
« Death Made Delicious | Main | 311 street photo project could use your help »
NYC's new 311 plan
On WNYC today, I heard about a new Bloomberg plan to create teams of "SCOUT Inspectors," who will drive across every city street once a month and report on quality-of-life matters: overflowing trashcans, street potholes, and the like. This struck me as strange: Isn't this what 311 is for? Are there not enough problems reported to 311 that the City needs to hire investigators to drum up more work? Is there something I'm missing here or is this some lame PR move?
If Bloomberg is serious about fixing public streets and spaces, there's got to be better way of going about it. Here's one thought: why not try crowdsourcing and utilize the cheap labor of motivated residents? A website that allowed people to submit photos of 311 conditions (potholes, overflowing garbage, SUVs blocking sidewalks), along with the locations, would be neat. If substantial numbers of people participated, the City wouldn't need to invest so much in SCOUTs and would be better equipped to prioritize what needs tending to.
City officials would never go for it, but if such a photo pool was public, it'd be a neat tool for keeping tabs on the city's progress... not unlike Uncivil Servants. On my block, several bricks in the street are missing, making it dangerous for bikers; and there's a dead (or dying) street tree. Photos of this kind of think would, if collected in large numbers, be helpful to city agencies, whether they realize it or not.
I'm tempted to try launching a flickr pool and seeing if other people are up for documenting city decay. It'd also be fun to solicit and include photos of things that the city doesn't normally count as a quality-of-life violations: illegal street advertising, for instance.
Anyway, if anyone has any thoughts on the above, please be sure to comment.
Posted by carrie on 08/16/2007 | Permalink
Comments
Cranky old man in the making that I am, I call 311 all the time. The operators spend so long poking around in their computer system and stick so closely to their scripts that it takes at 5 to 10 minutes on the phone to impart even the most basic information. Sometimes all I have is literally an address and a specific complaint, which should take 30 seconds for them to jot down. So I can see why people don't do it more. Allowing people to submit photos would be great, but on a more basic level, 311 needs to work on getting the callers' information faster so the caller can end the call.
Posted by: Damian | Aug 17, 2007 11:32:23 AM
I called 311 once--I was annoyed about a city bus driven dangerously--and they kept transferring me and making me wait, then they wanted my name (and I think my address too, I can't remember), which I didn't want to give. All I need is some angry guy who blames me for being reprimanded!
Posted by: Andrew | Aug 18, 2007 12:18:27 AM
I have to say 311 is a BIG JOKE, Let me tell you that I've called 311 several times they are so busy trying to stay on track with the script that half the time they are not listening to you.
Posted by: Junior | Aug 25, 2007 7:23:19 AM
I disagree. I love 311; it's a hell of a lot better than looking in the phone book to figure out who at what agency you need to call. But, sure, it has its problems. It's usually great for addressing common complaints and bad for the more unusual ones. When I've called to report sick street trees, for instance, there is no option for that; you have to report a DEAD tree and then ask the operator to write a note explaining that you don't want the tree removed.
Posted by: carrie | Aug 25, 2007 2:21:49 PM
Wish my city had 311. I work for the fire dept and this 311 number sounds great. People here call 911 emergencies and most often NON-EMERGENCIES!! I'm sure it has its flaws but from what I've read it sounds better than other systems.
Posted by: Chad | Jun 18, 2008 11:35:33 AM
