Ever since March I've wanted to get a definitive answer to a question. The question is: How can city property owners get the master sidewalk and trail plan changed?
In my last aldermanic campaign, I had quite a lot of support from the residents on Baytree Lane and Westbreeze Drive for one main reason: I supported their opposition to having sidewalks built on their streets.
I went to the Neenah Common Council meeting last night to follow through on my promise to those folks who voted for me to help them petition the Council to do something about sidewalks. I transcribed the recording I made of the Public Forum segment of the meeting, including the comments made by Council members on this topic.
Over that span of 17 minutes I was satisfied that the master plan could be amended in a relatively straightforward manner, one that didn't involve a city-wide referendum. It all depends on how much and what kind of political pressure is brought to bear by the citizens most affected (I wrote on this topic at that time here and here).
So here is the transcription of the Public Forum at last night's meeting. I will say right off that I did make an error in my remarks: the streets north of Breezewood running up to the high school are not neighborhood subcollector streets. If Deputy Public Works Director Kaiser had been at the meeting, he could have pointed that out right away. No sidewalks are planned for those streets nor are there any ordinances or statutes requiring sidewalks for those streets. My comments:
Steve Erbach, 1017 Babcock St. I am following up on some research and some questions I asked at end of March -- particularly at the Public Services & Safety Committee meeting on March 24th -- dealing with sidewalks.
I attended the Council meeting several years ago when it was held in the library before this Council chamber renovation was completed. At that meeting, the Sidewalk and Off-street trail map and plan was approved. There was a big easel...the map was there with all the very detailed information of the proposed sidewalks and trails for the next...well, there isn't a time limit. But there is a differentiation between sidewalks planned in the current Capital Improvements program and then sidewalks and trails planned for beyond that point.
I received the most recent map from Deputy Public Works Director Kaiser a few weeks ago and I brought it with me in case anybody wants to look at it [witness holds up rolled-up map].
When I was campaigning at that time in the area of the city south of Breezewood Lane -- particularly on Westbreeze, Baytree, Meadowbreeze Circle, that area -- people were not aware that a sidewalk was planned to be constructed in 2011, subject to approval of the budget for that purpose. I brought along a copy, while I was campaigning, of the 5-year plan and pointed out the line item that laid out the budget for the sidewalks to be built on Baytree, Shaggy Bark, Meadowbreeze Circle, and Westbreeze. On Westbreeze the plan is for two sidewalks, one on each side. So the residents of that street would be facing a special assessment of about $2100 based on the budgeted amount in the Capital Improvements Plan.
I asked several questions at the Public Services & Saftey Committee meeting on March 24th about sidewalks; particularly those sidewalks that are planned to be put in on neighborhood subcollector streets. Baytree is a subcollector; so are the streets that are in that area. I got some decent answers. I know that the residents of Baytree submitted a petition to the city to have the construction of the sidewalk on Baytree be moved off by two years to 2011. That put the construction squarely into the time frame when the other sidewalks were proposed to be built in 2011. Those plans were already there, so the Baytree sidewalk is now to built in that same year.
As Council President Stevenson pointed out at the Public Services & Safety Committee meeting, whether to build a sidewalk or not is a political decision. I note that there are no proposed sidewalks on the map for Baytree north of Breezewood Lane, nor for Pinehurst, Inverness, Wedgewood, or Mulberry Lane. All those streets are subcollectors [Note: see above.] and are closer to the high school than Baytree south of Breezewood and all the streets in that area.
The main question I would like to have answered is this: what would it take for the lines [witness holds up the map] that are drawn on this map for that area of the city -- or, indeed, for any area of the city where there are proposed sidewalks in neighborhood subcollector streets -- what would it take to have those erased from the map? So that the sidewalks are NOT proposed in the budget and the residents of those streets would NOT have to submit petitions every time the budget cycle came back around for approval for the money for those sidewalks.
Must a city-wide referendum be placed on the ballot to have those lines erased? Or can the Council act during a regular Council meeting and, with a simple majority, direct that the map be altered to remove the proposed sidewalks for that area.
The Public Forum was then closed by Council President Stevenson and he made some introductory remarks:
Council President STEVENSON: I know the Public Services & Safety Committee did review the very map that Mr. Erbach brought up. I guess my opinion would be that, if the Committee chose and asked for that modification to be made to that map, that that would have to come to the Council, I would think. The Committee reviewed it -- that is a working document. That's a document that's not ever written in stone, but is subject to Council review with every budget that's submitted on an annual basis. Larry, do have any comments regarding that?
Public Works Director WETTERING: My only comment would be that, from a technical standpoint, there is a need there for the sidewalks, but, of course, Council can direct us to remove those at any time and we would do so. So, as Mr. Erbach said, it comes down to a political decision.
Alderman PIERGROSSI: I was just going to opine that that map is approved by the Council, so, in the end, it comes down to a Council decision whether or not [the sidewalks] are on there. Year after year statistics change for given areas. The traffic counts change, and so I think it's always open to review. Just because it's simply removed does not mean it's removed in perpetuity.
So, Stevenson, Wettering, and Piergrossi all attest that changing the sidewalk map is a matter of a Council vote...a political decision. At this point, my question had really been answered.
Now Alderman Juday Zaretzke stuck her oar in the water. I was given tacit permission to respond, though, normally, the speakers at a Public Forum only get to go the microphone once:
Alderman ZARETZKE: I guess I would like to ask Mr. Erbach why we would want it erased. Is it because "Don't put the sidewalk in my back yard or my front yard"? I guess I'm questioning why you would want that erased.
ERBACH: I imagine, since I'm not affected by those sidewalks -- I don't live in that area -- but I was researching a question for the people that live there, that did submit petitions to the Council to have the sidewalk construction delayed. They were not aware of any way to have the lines removed other than what seemed obvious, which was to submit a petition signed by all the residents of the street -- almost all residents of the street.
Why would they want the line removed? To not have a sidewalk built. Their own reasons...I can only speculate, the same as you. But is it so terrible to NOT want to pay, as the residents of Westbreeze would have to pay about $2100 per home to have sidewalks installed on both sides of the street? Is that so terrible NOT to want to pay that?
So, I imagine that if it was known that the Council was considering removing the lines entirely and that this, pardon the reference, but this Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads...that some year if they aren't paying attention and the Council passes the budget for the year and the sidewalk is built, that...well, they can't STOP it once the budget is approved and construction is...and the saw horses are put up. Why would any citizen want to have something changed on a semi-permanent basis? Again, I can only speculate, but their reasons are their reasons. Why are their reasons less valid than others'?
Which left a couple things un-said. Mainly that it would be hard cheese to tell tax payers that their reasons for not wanting a sidewalk built aren't good enough.
Alderman AHLES: Sidewalks, in my term on the Council and in discussions prior to being on the City Council, have always been a very interesting debate, in my opinion. When I moved into my neighborhood we were effectively isolated from pedestrian routes into the city, because there was no sidewalks on County Trunk A or on South Park Avenue, a town road at that time -- it still is a town road -- at that time, and it's interesting living in that subdivision for a number of years with no pedestrian routes into the city -- anything that would be considered safe to travel in on -- basically just gravel roads and ditches to go in there. So, I actually sat in on the discussions that led up to the initial design of the pedestrian routes and plans that would have the city back-filled with sidewalks by around 2010 or 2011. This was back in probably the 2000 time frame, 1999; sat in on a lot of meetings to go through that. It was an interesting learning experience about the design and the routes that were established and to understand that.
In my term on Council here I've always been supportive of what our traffic engineers lay out as either safe school walking routes or pedestrian corridors. It's one of the things I find myself looking at when we deal with subdivision plans and when we look at what a new development would bring to the city and how it'll move pedestrians as well as vehicles out of that subdivision and into the municipality.
If I'm correct, that corridor that you're talking about for this one in particular originally was planned as a walking route as well as a neighborhood subcollector for the potential school being planned over in that area. Of course, that school hasn't materialized, but I don't think that would warrant us removing that possibility from that map; because if the school district would put something in in that area, whatever, we would need a corridor to bring students into that school area.
With all that being said, the flip side to that coin is basically what do you do with the sidewalks that are in the city in places that don't meet the guidelines or the current standards for sidewalks...do we go back and remove those sidewalks? People that have shovelled their sidewalks and maintained them and had 'em there for 50 or 60 or 70 years, it becomes a very tricky question very quickly as to what to do. There would be those probably present in the audience here that would say that a sidewalk is a destination into a place within the city instead of a nuisance to have in their front yard.
The only way to solve the sidewalk debate for this Council or future Councils or any other Council in my opinion -- this is just my opinion, not Council's position on this -- but the only way to solve it would be to do what Appleton has done and make 'em required everywhere in the city and strive for that goal and put 'em in there and then they would be fair for everyone; that there'd be no discussion or debate over 'em, because the minute we start changing our policies and backing off on what is correct for that, it becomes very UNfair to the people that had 'em for a number of years and becomes unfair for areas that, you know, under any current standards wouldn't have 'em. A cul-de-sac, for example, or something like that that currently has sidewalks in place.
From a more personal level, every year at Christmas time I'm reminded of a fatality that occurred in the city of Neenah. As I look out at a statue memorializing a 14-year-old girl that is no longer with us because there was not a sidewalk for her to be walking on one evening within the city of Neenah.
It's an item that I take very serious and I follow the recommendations of our Public Works Department on where sidewalks are recommended and where they do belong within the city.
Alderman Ahles' comments are a preview of the feelings of most of the Council members towards the sidewalk plan. That is, let the pros tell us what's needed. Public Works Director Wettering alluded to that professional perspective when he said, "from a technical standpoint, there is a need there for the sidewalks". So it'll boil down to whether the pros, the planners know best and whether citizens should just sit back and let the pros handle it.
But Ahles' comments highlight a non-issue: that to be "fair" the city would have to consider what to do about all of those sidewalks that have been in place for decades. Suggesting that the city might consider removing those sidewalks to be "fair" is, not to put too fine a point on it, absurd. As Mayor Scherck reminded everyone a while back when there was a discussion about clearing snow from trails, the city has changed its level of service and its policies at various times throughout its existence. For example, garbage used to be picked up twice a week and the sanitation workers would actually carry the cans to and from residents' garages.
The point is that not only are services and policies not "cast in stone", but things already bought and paid for are what's known as "sunk costs". It simply isn't prudent, practical, or even logical to consider ripping out sidewalks as a matter of being "fair".
Alderman Ahles' point about the death of the girl is an appeal to pity; that is, sidewalks should be built so that no one ever again dies because of missing sidewalks. If that is to be accepted as a valid reason for building the sidewalks in the area we talked about, then the city had better be ready to build sidewalks everywhere that they're missing, whether the street is a subcollector or no. For example, on those streets north of Breezewood leading to the high school. I've heard from a number of people living there that kids drive their cars like maniacs up and down those streets. Is that not a higher priority area in which to provide pedestrian protection?
Council President Stevenson made some additional, wandering remarks about the issue:
STEVENSON: I think the issue of sidewalks today is at the same level that it always is for the Council, where you have to weigh the public benefit for the all versus the private investment of the individuals. I'll summarize the, that the trouble that Council and the trouble that the issues that the Council has to weigh; and I think it would be, I think with all the elements that's out there now regarding criteria for sidewalks that exists for that area I think it would be...we should have to tread slowly before we consider taking those off the map. Considering that school district owns property there and it's been very public about the fact that some day a property could be built there or a school could be built there. So I think it would be...before we started thinking that way, it's wise to be more communicative about the potential versus removing it then that's starting...interjecting questions as to if and when.
So the school district may build a school out that way. Might it not be more "fair" to have those people that live there when the school is built pay for sidewalks? Why should current residents pay for sidewalks that lead to a "potential" school that may never be built?
Finally,
AHLES: One other item on there, a few weeks back I had dropped off a letter to the Public Works Director Wettering that I had found interesting, an article written about ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) requirements for sidewalks and how municipalities if they don't...one of the interpretations of that ADA requirement was that if you're not providing equal pedestrian corridors the ADA items can apply. There was one I gave Director Wettering just to review the engineering firm that was discussing it had recommended that cities actually do an audit of their pedestrian corridors looking not only for ADA requirements in accesses, for example, the ramps and that that we put in at intersections and things like that but to look for obstructions or issues that would occur that would prevent people with disabilities from having equal access to the pedestrian corridor. So even if we tend not to like the ideas of sidewalks, there is things out there such as the ADA requirements that could apply even if we decided that as a Council, as a political decision, that we didn't like it then maybe in a case where there'd be a requirement under those statutes.
Putting aside the fact that I think that the ADA is an atrocious example of overweening government, here is an appeal to fear of federal lawsuits, the same sort of fear that moved the city council in New Haven, Connecticut to disregard the firefighter exams as qualification for advancement because the city might be the target for discrimination lawsuits. Again, if Alderman Ahles expects that argument to hold water, the City Council had better be ready to build sidewalks all over the place in case lawsuits are filed claiming that the city isn't doing enough to meet the requirements of the ADA.
So, the upshot is that the residents of the Baytree / Shaggy Bark / Meadowview Circle / Westbreeze sidewalk corridor can work towards having the Council amend the city's master sidewalk plan.