PM Township's Proposed Sidewalk Policy as Short-Sighted as Ludington's Was

[XLFD]

In the summer of 2015, a special city council meeting was held in the basement at the Ludington City Hall to discuss several topics, among them a new sidewalk policy proposed and offered a first reading at the previous regular scheduled meeting.  At that meeting and the two previous ones discussing this topic in April, there were a few people, myself included, who expressed a lack of confidence in the proposal. 

The minutes of that June 11 meeting have John Shay concluding:  "There has been public comments regarding the sidewalks to nowhere and the properties that have unique features such as power poles, trees, landscaping, retaining walls. City Manager Shay stated that these public comments as well as arguments from others are persuasive... Shay suggested that maybe the City Council look at approaching the sidewalks at a different angle and prioritize the sidewalks to hit high trafficked areas and not focus on those areas that do not get a lot of pedestrian traffic."

The council wisely sent the issue back to committee where it has sat since.  But now, Pere Marquette Township has devised a similar ordinance for their business district with similar faults.  The Mason County Press introduces the basics:

PERE MARQUETTE TOWNSHIP — When the Pere Marquette Charter Township Board of Trustees meets Tuesday, Nov. 22, it will consider adopting a sidewalk ordinance. The ordinance is scheduled for a second and final reading before the board takes action.

The ordinance will require properties with street frontage in commercial 1 and 2 districts, along with residential 1 and 2 district, to build sidewalks when the properties have been improved with nonresidential developments or residential developments other than single family detached and two-family dwellings.

These areas include commercial properties on US 10 between the western township line, Jackson Road, and the eastern township line, Meyers Road. It also includes commercial properties on South Pere Marquette Highway from US 10 to the railroad tracks. Residential zones include the northern portion of the township with the exception of the northeastern corner (an area about a half mile east of Jebavy Drive to Meyers Road and then a approximately half mile north and south of that area). It also includes the Buttersville Peninsula north of Buttersville Park to the Ludington city limits (Crosswinds Condominiums).

The ordinance also addresses maintenance and installation sidewalks as well as snow and ice control.

Township Supervisor Paul Keson said the planning commission has been working on the ordinance for several months and that the township has received numerous comments about it, most of them positive.

The board meets at 6:30 p.m. at the township hall, 1699 S. Pere Marquette Highway.

http://www.masoncountypress.com/2016/11/21/pm-township-considering-...

The full policy at the PM Township website is here, which is hidden in their site rather conveniently, for if you go to their home page and go to public notices from their you get the following:

Which sends you back to the home page if you follow the link.  Fortunately, you can find the ordinance with a keyword search. 

Some clarifications are in order. 

1)  The raised shoulder of the road which extends much of the distance along the 'PM corridor' where people sometimes walk now is not a sidewalk, as it has no space between it and the highway. 

2)  The Planning Commission can waive the requirement if the improvement is minor in scope. 

3)  The township will not help with any costs of the sidewalk. 

4)  The sidewalk owner is required to make sure the sidewalk is not obstructed and remove snow or ice within 24 hours. 

5)  No difference is given between public and private lots, so if improvements are made to the Mason County Fairgrounds or Airport, the county will be required to build sidewalks along their substantial holdings. 

6)  The MDOT will almost assuredly be involved with each application since these are state highways and right-of-ways.

Now, I have been a long-term advocate of smart sidewalk policy in Ludington, putting them almost at the top of my priorities 2010 and maintaining that with my 2015 article 20 Reasons why the city isn't serious about sidewalks.  The basics on sidewalks is that they become of little use if you don't have many property owners in a row that have them.  A bunch of disjointed sidewalks-to-nowhere are perhaps worse than having no sidewalks at all as far as community walkability is concerned. 

In Amber Township, Applebee's constructed a sidewalk (see picture above) without an ordinance in place once it redeveloped its restaurant that burned down.  Nobody ever uses it, just like few will use any in PM Township until all or the vast majority of property owners have sidewalks in front of them, which they will be forced to pay for and maintain and forced into snow removal thereof even when their neighbor has no sidewalk in place or snow removal mandate. 

Like Ludington's proposed policy, it will have an adverse effect on property owners.  In Ludington, it would have added an extra 'sidewalk tax' of up to $5000 to the buyer of a property which had no sidewalk.  In PM Township, any new construction may add double that amount in sidewalk construction fees, since PM Township will not foot you 1/2 of the costs like the city does (if this passes, you have to believe that Ludington leadership will look to vacate this policy in the future, as they considered at the June 2015 meeting). 

The end result is that businesses in PM Township will be less likely to do any major improvement if it involves creating a sidewalk that may not otherwise be feasible and might not fall within their budget.  The long-term effect is a bunch of sidewalks peppering this district and offering little if any to the area's walkability will just make the PM Township planners and board look like fools. 

And they will be for not figuring out that any sensible policy for sidewalks cannot be done piecemeal like this, with sidewalk construction based on who wants to make other property improvements or any other arbitrary condition like property sales.  They must ensure that the county properties that make up a large portion of this area are affected, and will make the improvements even if they can legally avoid them.  Priorities need to be set. 

[Robert]

All one needs to do is look at a Google map of part of the proposed area and see the areas that need attention.  You can see a clear line cut by years of travel on the ground.  All signs of movement seem to be within the area of Jackson to PM HWY.  I'm sure there is travel beyond this but one would assume that those doing so travel on the paved shoulder of the road.  Not being a city dweller I assume that the paved shoulder that extends outside of the normal driving surface would not be considered a sidewalk in that it is part of the road and not a separate pedestrian walk way?

 

[shinblind]

If they require that sidewalks be installed then should the traffic signals also be configured to allow say a handicapped person adequate time to cross the 5 lanes of roadway?
What would this do to traffic flow during the summer months?
It seems that one would follow the other, else wise you have a sidewalk with no means of crossing the highway.

[Anon]

Sidewalks should have been installed in long ago.  The starting point should not be how complicated they can make it.  The starting point should be that sidewalks are mandated by local code and taxpayers will foot entire bill.  Put it on a ballet and promote it like they do their other most favorite pet projects. 

[XLFD]

Welcome to the forum, Anon.  If you were starting a city from scratch, I would be in 100% agreement with you, mandate sidewalk construction.  But there is no easy answers when you have cities that were already well established before the advent of the automobile.  A simple mandate passed into law is hard to enforce when there is a limited amount of sidewalk construction companies able to do the work and even harder to be equitable, particularly when you already have numerous public entities that have failed to comply with the existing law and put in sidewalks when they were improved upon or built (favorite example, the DPW Building).  PM Twp would have an additional problem because they do not need sidewalks for all of their properties, just the better-traveled business areas.

If you can propose a workable solution for Ludington or PM Township, air it out

 

[Anon]

I had the pleasure of visiting small neighborhood directly across the street from PCA in Manistee.  Very small little neighborhood that had Sidewalks.

I do agree with you about the better-traveled business areas.

I think mandating sidewalks and having taxpayer foot the bill is an excellent idea.  Sidewalks add value to homes.  Instead of taxpayers supporting, through their local elected 'officials', needless and nonproductive public beer activities throughout the years and instead of spending more than a $1 million on painting water towers, the city and townships could better represent the citizens by implementing infrastructure that adds value, safety, and convenience to the citizens.

[Anon]

I will leave the 'proposing workable solutions' to those better equipped than myself.