Suburbia's foot soldiers
One my pet peeves in my neck of the woods is inconsistent
sidewalks. Note to my colleague Mike: Yes, you may "rag on me"
knowing full well that there are much larger fish to fry in this world. Indeed
I need to get a life, but if this issue is one of my larger ones, then I'm not
doing too shabby, right?
Runners, joggers, walkers, skaters and whoever else utilizes
sidewalks in our area or most of Suburbia/Exurbia U.S.A. must contend with
inconsistent sidewalk offerings. Whether one is traveling a few hundred yards
or a number of miles, the sidewalk user is most likely confronted with a
sidewalk path that either ends on one side of a street and begins on the other
-- or completely dead ends, also known at a "Sidewalk to Nowhere." I
confess that it's a hassle when I'm on any type of long run. Yes, I deal with
the inconvenience, but it would sure be nice if communities like ours would
have a common sense comprehensive sidewalk/trail plan.
Certainly building owners, homeowners, local governments
have been faced with this dilemma for years. It is a dilemma because if it
wasn't, we wouldn't have inconsistent sidewalks. Take for instance in the case
of Sandy Springs, Georgia. Sandy Springs is one of the "older newer
cities" in the Atlanta metro area. The city has a set of convoluted rules
concerning sidewalks that has been met with a fair share of its own
controversy. In short, any new development or re-development requires the folks
engaging in such activity to be responsible for installing their own sidewalks.
It seems that plan takes inconsistent sidewalks to a brand new level. Not only
do sidewalks end in one place and pick up in another, but now this idea is
asking everyone to install their own piece of the sidewalk network thus the
city would offer a wide variety of sidewalks.
It seems that Sandy Springs' sidewalk plan is to save money
for the city thus placing that burden upon those develop or re-develop land.
Whether that plan is to put the city within certain fiscal parameters or not really doesn't tackle the problem of
inconsistent sidewalks. Certain residential folks who have problems with Sandy
Springs' sidewalk plan would like a waiver if there is a sidewalk already on
the other side of the street. It was
suggested that if one was to obtain a waiver, he/she would pay a
$150-a-foot-fee to go into a fund to pay for future improvements. I'm doubting
that city leaders, business owners and residents are on board with that
suggested fee requirement.
These days it's probably asking for too much for communities
to worry about building sidewalks, trails and bike lanes when there are far
larger issues on their plates. Still, there's nothing to be proud of when
pedestrians are faced with inconsistent sidewalks, thus forcing them out onto
the street or worse yet, creating their own footpath in a patch of weeds. Indeed
nothing comes for free in this life, but a network of connected footpaths for
citizens is something that all communities ought to strive for in the future.
Comments