Poor maintenace

Poor maintenance

Second NOS news item on this Monday: https://nos.nl/artikel/2287387-meer-geld-voor-achterstallig-onderhoud-bruggen-afsluitingen-dreigen.html
Once again private and public parties agree that the maintenance of the environment, in this case infrastructure, isn't up to scratch. Once again they call for investment and action. Once again I'm puzzled: as a citizen (which also means taxpayer) I've been investing heavily in such matters - or so I thought. Where did the money go? Was it wisely invested as it was supposed to? The public parties that so eagerly call for investment were to manage this investment, so also to take effective action. Did that happen?
I have few reasons to doubt the claim that maintenance has to improve. Every day I encounter something in the environment that requires attention. I also understand why the private parties call for action: they stand to gain business. What fails to convince me is the attitude of the public parties: they are supposed to be in the lead in such matters, not only executing orders but also evaluating the relevant actions and monitoring the situation. Did they do their job properly but failed to convince their political masters that further investment was necessary and so play it through their friends in industry and the mass media? This seems doubtful. Both politicians and civil servants seem to pay little attention to unglamorous matters like maintenance. Somehow it seems preferable to let things deteriorate and then come into the foreground as a saviour and initiator of grand projects. Poor, neglected, underrated maintenance …