Monroe Mayor Ron Marsh earlier this week continued his push for sidewalk installation throughout the city, true to a 1996 study which created a priority list for installation.
So far, the city has 68 percent, or 137 miles of the sidewalks installed. About 32 percent, or 43 miles, remain.
Since last July, Marsh has championed an installation program that would speed up the process, having all sidewalks installed by 2017 rather than 2024 as planned.
But his plan discounts the major complaints from the public - that sidewalks aren't needed everywhere and that private individuals and businesses shouldn't have to foot the entire bill.
On Tuesday night, the Monroe City Council approved sidewalk installations for 2008 by a 6-3 vote, but not without some concerns expressed by the three aldermen, including Thurston Hanson, who voted against the measure.
Marsh had submitted to the Judiciary and Ordinance Review Committee earlier in the night a plan to add or re-word language of the sidewalk installation ordinance.
In one section, "Mandatory Installation," Marsh has listed six specific exceptions to installation: no curb or gutter, safety hazard, engineering, weather, trees/landscape and financial hardship.
Weather, trees/landscape and financial hardship are already exceptions listed in the current ordinance, but Marsh's plan would take all exceptions and make them postponements to installation, not permanent escape.
That's not a good change, and would force concrete on more people who don't want, or need, sidewalks cutting through their front lawns.
Marsh also proposed rewording a part of the ordinance that would require residents to apply for and obtain permits, and to submit "self-repair agreements" with the city before the self-installation of new sidewalks, just as they do now to repair or remove a sidewalk themselves.
Who wants to fill out more paperwork to perform something that many consider an unpleasant, and unnecessary experience already? Not many, we're sure.
Hanson's concern was with property owners "having to" comply with mandatory installations.
"Nobody has a problem with sidewalks if they don't have to pay for them," Hanson said.
The program was created 11 years ago with the goal to "construct sidewalks in all developed areas of the city," including all new construction and locations "not presently served by sidewalks." The actual importance or benefit of sidewalks in a particular location was considered only in its placing on the priority list.
That was the program's major flaw, revealed by the number of protests from both homeowners and businesses seeking exemptions. There simply are portions of the city where sidewalks are unnecessary and would go virtually unused. Private property owners shouldn't be forced to pay for that excess.
But Marsh continues to push the installation to its completion.
"Just because one has to pay under a bad policy doesn't mean another has to be victimized by a bad city policy," Hanson said. "It seems to me that if someone has been victimized under a bad city policy, they wouldn't want someone else to be victimized too."
We agree. It's time for Marsh to take a step back and ask himself, why rely on an 11-year-old study that was flawed from the beginning to push something that isn't needed everywhere and some people can't pay for?
So far, the city has 68 percent, or 137 miles of the sidewalks installed. About 32 percent, or 43 miles, remain.
Since last July, Marsh has championed an installation program that would speed up the process, having all sidewalks installed by 2017 rather than 2024 as planned.
But his plan discounts the major complaints from the public - that sidewalks aren't needed everywhere and that private individuals and businesses shouldn't have to foot the entire bill.
On Tuesday night, the Monroe City Council approved sidewalk installations for 2008 by a 6-3 vote, but not without some concerns expressed by the three aldermen, including Thurston Hanson, who voted against the measure.
Marsh had submitted to the Judiciary and Ordinance Review Committee earlier in the night a plan to add or re-word language of the sidewalk installation ordinance.
In one section, "Mandatory Installation," Marsh has listed six specific exceptions to installation: no curb or gutter, safety hazard, engineering, weather, trees/landscape and financial hardship.
Weather, trees/landscape and financial hardship are already exceptions listed in the current ordinance, but Marsh's plan would take all exceptions and make them postponements to installation, not permanent escape.
That's not a good change, and would force concrete on more people who don't want, or need, sidewalks cutting through their front lawns.
Marsh also proposed rewording a part of the ordinance that would require residents to apply for and obtain permits, and to submit "self-repair agreements" with the city before the self-installation of new sidewalks, just as they do now to repair or remove a sidewalk themselves.
Who wants to fill out more paperwork to perform something that many consider an unpleasant, and unnecessary experience already? Not many, we're sure.
Hanson's concern was with property owners "having to" comply with mandatory installations.
"Nobody has a problem with sidewalks if they don't have to pay for them," Hanson said.
The program was created 11 years ago with the goal to "construct sidewalks in all developed areas of the city," including all new construction and locations "not presently served by sidewalks." The actual importance or benefit of sidewalks in a particular location was considered only in its placing on the priority list.
That was the program's major flaw, revealed by the number of protests from both homeowners and businesses seeking exemptions. There simply are portions of the city where sidewalks are unnecessary and would go virtually unused. Private property owners shouldn't be forced to pay for that excess.
But Marsh continues to push the installation to its completion.
"Just because one has to pay under a bad policy doesn't mean another has to be victimized by a bad city policy," Hanson said. "It seems to me that if someone has been victimized under a bad city policy, they wouldn't want someone else to be victimized too."
We agree. It's time for Marsh to take a step back and ask himself, why rely on an 11-year-old study that was flawed from the beginning to push something that isn't needed everywhere and some people can't pay for?
