How to counter high cost of recycling and smoke detector?

[YoDaddy]

What is the best way to counter the high cost of enabling recycling and smoke detectors? Tax rise for high density something? I am running a 25.000 a week income and that quickly turns very negative when enabling recycling and smoke detectors. Thank you

 

[Kharisian]

The same way you'd make money in any other situation, I'd imagine. The big thing for me would be to use those kind of policies on specific problem areas. If you have an industrial district with lots of buildings burning down, it might be worth a smoke detector. A city block that you can't increase the land value of will benefit from the policies that improve the value of parks and the tech level of buildings. In my own view, policies should be used where city planning falls short and their costs are meant to reflect that, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Doc Savage]

Have you looked at reducing the budgets of the Garbage and Fire departments after these were put into effect..?

In a city of near 30K I was able to nuke 2 incinerator plants and still had garbage collection to spare. The net effect
was a loss of about 3K in income from 25-26K. I could still cut back on garbage services and reduce it more but left
it as I was still expanding at the time.

In all honesty, a recycling program is going to cost something. It isn't a realistic expectation to get it for free, it's more
like the cost of doing business. Cleaner business that will eventually lead to less pollution and less traffic. That's more
than enough to justify the money I spend on program and an expense I anticipated I'd have to make eventually.
_

 

[BlackViper.com]

Make districts and enable it for only the trouble areas.

 

[JerkyJerry]

What I have found for the smoke detectors is the following:
If I enable them as soon as I can (1st or 2nd population achievement reached) it is a minor hit to my financials. However if I wait until I have 15k or 20k population it is a major strain on my financials.
I watched a video just a couple of days ago where the poster stated: "Smoke detectors are installed on all existing buildings when the ordinance is first enacted. Then once all of the existing buildings have them installed all future buildings will be made with them and thus be the responsibility of the builder not the town/city."
So if you wait until you have a population of 20k (for example) the town/city is responsible for their cost and instillation on every building in the city. However after the initial purchase & instillation has been completed by the town/city the builder is then responsible to install them to be in compliance with the newly enacted ordinance.

I don't know if recycling works the same way but I'm thinking it may :closedeyes:

 

[EvilTom]

To mitigate the cost you can only have high density housing. These will have higher household and work counts and therefore high tax income in a smaller area. The policy is per building, so you need less buildings for such a high population.

 

[JerkyJerry]

To mitigate the cost you can only have high density housing. These will have higher household and work counts and therefore high tax income in a smaller area. The policy is per building, so you need less buildings for such a high population.

WHAT???????????

This makes no sense and does not answer the OP

 

[EvilTom]

WHAT???????????

This makes no sense and does not answer the OP

You are incorrect in both your assertions. The OP asks how to counter the high cost of smoke detector ordinance. He even suggests raising taxes, which is a viable counter to increasing costs, but does not resolve the root cause and many not be the best long term sustainable plan.

I suggested that he, in essence, reduce the number of buildings that he uses for a given population by using high density rather than low density buildings. Because smoke detector policy is per building you would have less buildings for the number of people in your city.

I will simplify:
So if you have 1000 buildings for 1000 people and it's 5c per building then you're essentially costing 5,000c for those 1000 people.
If you can get those 1000 people into 100 buildings (high density can have as much as 10 households per building) you will only be spending 500c for those 1000 people.

 

[Cymsdale]

What I have found for the smoke detectors is the following:
If I enable them as soon as I can (1st or 2nd population achievement reached) it is a minor hit to my financials. However if I wait until I have 15k or 20k population it is a major strain on my financials.
I watched a video just a couple of days ago where the poster stated: "Smoke detectors are installed on all existing buildings when the ordinance is first enacted. Then once all of the existing buildings have them installed all future buildings will be made with them and thus be the responsibility of the builder not the town/city."
So if you wait until you have a population of 20k (for example) the town/city is responsible for their cost and instillation on every building in the city. However after the initial purchase & instillation has been completed by the town/city the builder is then responsible to install them to be in compliance with the newly enacted ordinance.

I don't know if recycling works the same way but I'm thinking it may :closedeyes:

Eh, that sounds like a lot of B.S. I'm pretty sure the policy is simply fixed-cost-per-building.

As for mitigating cost, the answer is simple, just use it only for specific districts where fire management is a problem. Ideally, don't use it at all.

 

[JerkyJerry]

Eh, that sounds like a lot of B.S. I'm pretty sure the policy is simply fixed-cost-per-building.

Yeah for buildings already built
But for those that have yet to be constructed the builder of those buildings has to provide the smoke detectors not the town. You know, just like in real life!

You want to cut the cost of smoke detectors enact the ordinance as quickly as you can. Whenever you enact it, YOU are responsible to install them in all existing buildings. After that they are built into every new building that is built, forever.

 

[JerkyJerry]

You are incorrect in both your assertions. The OP asks how to counter the high cost of smoke detector ordinance.

And the answer is:
To enact the ordinance as soon as you can as YOU are responsible for installing and purchasing all smoke detectors for every existing building in your city. That will counter the high cost of the smoke detector ordinance. If you wait until you have 20k population YOU the mayor will have to pay for every smoke detector and their instillation.
Do it soon and pay less
Wait until you have a larger city and pay more!
THAT answers that question

 

[EvilTom]

And the answer is:
To enact the ordinance as soon as you can as YOU are responsible for installing and purchasing all smoke detectors for every existing building in your city. That will counter the high cost of the smoke detector ordinance. If you wait until you have 20k population YOU the mayor will have to pay for every smoke detector and their instillation.
Do it soon and pay less
Wait until you have a larger city and pay more!
THAT answers that question

Your suggestion seems flawed, but I have no evidence to counter it at the moment without further testing. Do you have proof of your suggestion? Have you tested it? There is no in-game text that says this. I would perhaps suggest that you do not take someone on YouTube's word as the ultimate truth. Did they just say that's how it works, or did they prove it? Sometimes they do get it wrong, and there's no shame in that. If you could provide a link to the testing that will help us understand.

Of course it's cheaper to put smoke detectors in a 5k city than a 20k city. It is very easy then to not notice the increase when your city grows to 20k from the 5k as you're used to it.

So essentially what you're suggesting is that if you have a city of 5 houses and you enact the policy and then the city grows to 10 houses the cost of the policy will not increase or double?
This will be easy to measure in a test and I intend to have a go at this later and record it. I would suggest that the cost of the policy will be the same whether you enact it from the beginning and you have 10 buildings, or enact it AFTER the 10 buildings are built.

If anyone wants to do the test independently, I would be happy to share results and if I'm wrong I will be more than happy to concede the point to you . I am only after a scientific result and as part of that I'm happy to make mistakes, learn from them and change my views.

I would also like to suggest that your argument is not the only way as the issue of tax and budgets is a complicated one. We could debate what is the best way to reduce buildings burnt down, but that is not what the OP has asked. Really, in my cities I don't use the policy as my fire coverage is excellent.

 

[unmerged(184583)]

well I guess I could test it pretty easily. I enacted smoke detectors very early in my current city, so maybe deactivating it, then reactivating it, the cost would be wildly different if this is true...

EDIT: Not true

Before change, city policy cost : 17,080
after change, : 15,594.96
then after reactivating : 17, 081.28

theory dead.

 

[EvilTom]

well I guess I could test it pretty easily. I enacted smoke detectors very early in my current city, so maybe deactivating it, then reactivating it, the cost would be wildly different if this is true...

Perhaps, but a possible (but not certain) extension of what JerkyJerry is suggesting is that the buildings remember if they have smoke detectors in (as how else would the game know between buildings before and after it was enacted).

I think the cleanest test would be to use the All Unlock Mod and start a new city. Then put down power and water. Lay down a road and build 5 (well any number but would have to be more than 1 but small enough to so that the houses do build) 1x1 houses. Enact the policy. then build another 5 1x1 houses. see if the cost increases. If the cost does increase then that proves that is it per building regardless of when they were built. If the cost does not increase (or even doesn't double) then it calls into question the mainstream view and even what the tooltips suggest and that JerkyJerry is indeed correct. At this stage record the policy cost.
For confirmation a new city would have to be then created with the same power and water buildings as before and then lay down 10 1x1 houses and once they have been built then enact the policy. Note down the policy cost. If this is the same as the first test then it is indeed per building.

 

[JerkyJerry]

Your suggestion seems flawed, but I have no evidence to counter it at the moment without further testing.

So you challenge me with no evidence? That is scientific? May I ask, what science?

 

[unmerged(184583)]

even if they "remember" things like that, don't forget, I deactivated smoke detectors, meaning the cim's should have thrown them away and forgot about them. Fast forward 2 months. Then reactivate it and fast forward 2 months again. I think my test is pretty solid.

 

[Cymsdale]

Of course it is per building. What jerkyjerry is saying makes no sense since the detectors are a weekly cost. If there is some issue with the timing of the policy, that sounds more like a bug than anything else.

 

[EvilTom]

So you challenge me with no evidence? That is scientific? May I ask, what science?

You did the same with no evidence. I was willing to accept that currently we both have anecdotal evidence, I only suggested that your suggestion SEEMS flawed. I am willing to test and get back to you and admit if I'm wrong. You seem to struggle with this.

Aren't you verging on the border of trolling at this point? I do not wish to get into a full argument. I would just like you to prove what you're saying (or cite evidence with sources) if you're asserting something so vehemently. I intend on proving it either way and am willing to accept the outcome. Are you?

Preliminary evidence from Shiggs713 suggests that you are indeed wrong, but, not to insult Shiggs713 on his/her effort I would like to see this for myself and also do it in a slightly more repeatable form and not in an already built city. Thank you Shiggs713 for looking at this, it is much appreciated and will help in understanding this. Testing is very helpful in getting to the bottom of misinformation and misunderstand of concepts in the game in the absence of developer input.

 

[JerkyJerry]

meaning the cim's should have thrown them away .

LOL
Cim's should have?
LOL

What kind of tests are you running where cims think or better yet you think cims did something? LOL

 

[EvilTom]

Of course it is per building. What jerkyjerry is saying makes no sense since the detectors are a weekly cost. If there is some issue with the timing of the policy, that sounds more like a bug than anything else.

Thanks for the input. This is why I commented that JerkyJerry's suggested seemed and felt flawed to me. I hope to prove it though. Any confirmation from CO will be welcome too.