Quoted from the article "This is so funny the discussion on the bike rakes.... one poster arguing his article is more accurate because it has a breakdown that shows that it cost $23,458:33 per rake and the other saying his article which says the cost of $23,458:33 is more accurate. Sorry to break it to you guys but the difference between the articles is only $2:41 to provide each rake (including two motorbike parks and a laneway which was only necessary because the bike rakes were installed). Don't really think the difference in each article is worth of the attention you're giving it. No matter which article you read, for a council in such financial strive and putting up rates by 20%, it's not a good look spending this much money on 24 bike rakes, two motorcycle parks and a 32m lane way when, only 50m away were unused bicycle rakes.
""
But, even more ironic is @MaybeTop8 getting worked up about an article not being providing enough information when last week he was attacking posters on here questioning why an article wasn't balanced because it didn't provide enough information. Posters bias shining through again!!!
Work to install the two-tier bike rack in Shell Lane, off The Terrace, was carried out earlier this year as part of a council project to “make the area safer for everyone”.
Other work included widening the kerb, installing two new street lights at either end of the lane, installing extra security cameras and a new rubbish bin and adding two motorbike parks."
You right wing echo chamber boys are yukking it up and highfiving each other, good on you, that's what you all do. That statement above is a number of different things that are improvements in their own right.
As always, there are multiple takes on a complex situation where the only "facts" are presented by the fucking taxpayers union who worship at the altar of Seymour and Atlas.
It also has this sentence

That's 136000/24. Work it out yourselves and give yourself another self congratulatory round of yuk yuks.
"