This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
MDL reports that the Madison City Commission Monday night ordered residents of Division Avenue from Third Street north to build sidewalks. Residents have until next August 1 to dig a path and pour that concrete. They also get to pay for it themselves.
Now I'm all about sidewalks. When my wife and I come to town, we love tossing Madville Times Jr. in the baby-backpack and hiking around our fair city (in search of the Unexpected™, of course). We appreciate the value of sidewalks in promoting safety and exercise. Sidewalks are highways for feet, and we like seeing our tax dollars go toward such useful public works.
But wait a minute: the city isn't building these public works. They're telling private parties to build and pay for them themselves. Sure, one can argue that the folks living along Division will use the sidewalks more frequently than other residents, so they should pay more of the cost. I'm dubious about that argument, but I'm even more dubious about saying the homeowners should shoulder the full cost. Sidewalks are a public good. They benefit everyone, directly or indirectly. Sidewalks make life easier for the mail carrier, for visitors, and for our friendly Mormon missionary boys (keep trying, boys -- Madison isn't all saved yet!). Even if you drive everywhere, sidewalks do you good by getting pedestrians out of the street and giving you more room to swerve about in your Caddy.
Sidewalks are kind of like schools: everyone benefits, everyone pays. And nobody likes unfunded government mandates. Maybe the city could shake a little money loose to ease the burden on Division Avenue homeowners and help cover this unexpected expense.
The Predictability of the Sioux Falls City Council is painful to watch
-
Former City Councilor Big T wrote an excellent letter to the editor about
how the citizens need to vote on the new parks’ expenditures. I would
agree, $77 ...
14 hours ago
That would work in theory, but this isn't the first time the city has enacted an ordinance requiring sidewalk installation. They've done it for several years, phasing in the requirement for sidewalks.
ReplyDeleteThe city does some sidewalk installation on property owned by the city. Property not owned by the city is left to those property owners. I'm not saying it's fair, because I wouldn't be happy either if I owned property where a sidewalk was being required, but the city can't start paying for it now, if they haven't paid for it in the past.
If the city has to pay for it, that means tax dollars, which means that EVERYBODY has to pay for it.
ReplyDeleteSo I (hypothetically, since I live in PA) paid for my own sidewalk/purchased a property in which a sidewalk was included in the price of purchase, and now I have to pay for somebody's else's sidewalk?
Uh, no thank you. Just like I'm responsible for the expenses in ensuring my house meets fire-codes (another public good, albeit indirectly), you [the hypothetical person installing a new sidewalk] are responsible for your expenses.
Now, you could go the school-route as an example of public-good that is spread to all, and then I'd have to back-pedal and point to what elisa said about phasing in, etc. It's not like sidewalks or education are new developments springing out of the blue. Madison was filled with sidewalks-a-plenty in the 1970s. And a few annoying places without them, or with hazardous crumbling spans.
I'm surprised to hear that the requirements have only been enacted recently.
Standard operating procedure -- indeed, precedent creates great inertia. If other folks have already paid for their sidewalk, then there would likely be a ruckus if the city chipped for the new sidewalks.
ReplyDeleteOne could say that the sidewalks weren't included in the original purchase price -- Madison is rather belatedly adding these requirements. Is there a difference in areas where sidewalks have never been required?
The old rule used to be that if your street was fully developed, you had to put in sidewalk and that's why you see so many areas with spotty sidewalk installation. If it was still gravel, no sidewalk was required, but it was assumed that eventually you would install sidewalk as your neighborhood developed. When Division was developed, many homes had already been built and since Division was originally gravel with curb, nobody put in sidewalks. Once it was blacktopped, newer homes built on Division were required to install sidewalk with their home construction project. So, the landowner either dodged the bullet when they built and didn't install, so now they need to pay, or they paid upfront to install sidewalk when they built their home. It is completely fair and unbiased since nobody is paying more than their neighbor for the land they own, other than maybe inflation adjustment for cost of materials and labor. Think of what they made on that money sitting in their savings account while their neighbor had a smaller savings account, but had a nice sidewalk to look at and shovel. As a walker, I'm all for sidewalks all over our community. I'm tired of dodging traffic. Put 'em in and quit whining.
ReplyDeleteThe city doesn't pay for shoveling the sidewalks, yet mandates that they be shoveled. The city doesn't pay for residential mowing, yet mandates that the lawns be mowed. I see no hypocrisy on the sidewalk installation ordinance.
ReplyDeleteAnd I prefer it to be taken up by the property owner... that way he can secure the best (or cheapest) deal. The city could hypothetically play favorites and give the mayor's nephew the job for double what it's worth.
Prices stay reasonable when the service-provider has to look the bill-payer directly in the eye. This applies to health care, too.
You'd better believe that if the city paid for these sidewalks I'd be the first one in line asking for money retroactive to my sidewalk installation a couple years ago. As for anon. who says we were getting interest on the money saved, there are many people who were not investing that money but living off the little they had.
ReplyDeleteThat is not to say that I think it is wrong to have consistent sidewalks; I'd be driving my kids to school if we didn't because 9th
Street is too dangerous to walk on the road.
DJ
Sidewalks are important enough that we need to build them one way or the other, and I'll roll with the general sentiment that the way we've paid for them in the past will have to do. Still, concrete isn't cheap, and some families may not have the budgetary wiggle room to absorb this new expense, even by August 1. There are plenty of fancy houses along Division, but as Anon 12:18 reminds us, some people are just scraping by. At the very least, perhaps the city will consider some temporary cost-sharing or deadline extensions for folks who demonstrate a need.
ReplyDeleteDavid and the free market -- I might buy the argument that individual homeowners will seek out better deals than the city might and thus save money. Heck, some people might even put in their own sidewalks (turn my dad loose with the skidsteer, I think he could do one lot-length walk in a day). But the analogy does not extend to health care, where comparison shopping is mostly impossible and do-it-yourself isn't an option (even my dad can't replace his own heart stent).
If I remember correctly, if a homeowner doesn't have the current dollars to install sidewalk, the City will install it and provide the homeowner up to 7 years to pay back the City with low interest through an assessment. We wouldn't have this controversy if the City had rules in place back then that were enforced instead of the willy-nilly hit-and-miss practices of the past engineers and former commissioners. We should require sidewalks be installed when property transfers and on all new construction.
ReplyDeleteIn Oshkosh, they come around every so often and require homeowners to replace their sidewalks. The current price is $75/square if you let them do it. Yes--they'll come and do it if you don't get it done in a certain amount of time and charge you $75.
ReplyDeleteEven better, homeowners have to pay for street repair. Recently, Jackson was widened. Homeowners lost the use of their street and driveways for a few months as well as a portion of their yard permanently. It was widened so that the speed limit could go up. And anyone who lives on the street got to pay 1000s for this privilege. (If you live on a corner lot you get to do this twice as often!)