Priorities 2010

[XLFD]

Young acquaintances of mine want to take bike rides along with me to go to all the neat places in Ludington. The marina park, the city beach, the bike path loop near Cartier Park, Memorial Tree Park, etc. have all been our destinations. We are both nervous when they have to ride in the road, so we keep to the sidewalks. That is we would keep to the sidewalks but for one problem. There are a lot of streets in the city of Ludington without sidewalks by them.

 I asked a question last year about why 301 N William St was being forced to fix their sidewalk. I and others have ridden on their sidewalks with no problems, unlike several other sidewalks that are impassable, halfway done, or missing.

 It got me thinking: why do some folks have sidewalks while others don't? There are many new ritzy-looking houses on the north side of town with no sidewalks but on the south side, with generally older, less fancy houses almost everyone has sidewalks. I checked the city charter and found that the Ludington Municipal Code in section 46-71 Sidewalks Required says (underlining added for emphasis):
 
a) New Construction. Any property owner within the city constructing a new dwelling or other principal building under the city's zoning ordinance of any nature shall be required to construct a sidewalk along the front lot line of such property within one year of obtaining a building permit for such structure. Where the construction is on a corner lot, sidewalks shall be constructed on both the front lot line and side lot line adjacent to the public streets of the property. No building permit shall be issued...until and unless the submitted plans provide for the construction of a sidewalk.

b) Existing Buildings and Vacant Lots. The owner of any existing dwelling or property upon which any building is located or any vacant lot, adjacent to a public street, shall be required to construct a sidewalk...the city council shall establish a list of priorities for addressing sidewalks from time to time. However it is the intent...that all of the properties adjacent to a public street in the city be required to have sidewalks.
 
This section went back at least to 1984, so all new construction between 1984 and August 2009 should now have sidewalks by part a) of the local law (presuming they were issued building permits). Sadly, this is not the case, and I will mention just three examples, though you will find over a hundred more if you check all the permits issued during this time.

 

1) Snyder's Shoreline Inn, 903 W Ludington, fills the whole block it is in, but has no sidewalk on any of the four public streets, even though foot/pedal traffic should be high around there, being right near the beach.

 

2) The Memorial Medical Center, 1 Atkinson Drive, has no sidewalks up Atkinson or Lawndale, on the north. Nearby DHS, CMH, doctor's offices, and elderly care facilities shamefully have no sidewalks running along the streets that serve them. Safety is a key part to staying healthy, isn't it?

 

 

3) The Ludington DPW, 975 First St, this five year old structure inside the city limits, disgracefully, has no sidewalk abutting First St. Ironic, given their oversight on such projects.

 

 
 
All existing buidings prior to 1984 (at least) without sidewalks have been, according to city charter, put on a priority list by the city council to address their lack. By my count, there are well over 500 properties within the city limits without one or more mandated sidewalks. Priorities? Over 25 years of forcing pedestrians and young bicyclists into the street, often around obscuring foliage is apparently a safety issue which is not a priority of the city? 
 
The city council's priority last month was to single out a resident on a corner lot whose sidewalks were better than hundreds of other sidewalks and substantially better than those people who have failed to install any sidewalks at all. Those people are the ones that push our precious kids using their bike or feet into the unfriendly street. They are the ones who make local mothers afraid to let their child walk or pedal to the school that is just a few blocks away.
 
I am not accusing those who have failed to install a sidewalk as being ogres; I have relatives and friends who do not have the required sidewalks. I am accusing the city of being negligent in regards to the public good for way too long by failing to have it's building inspectors enforce the new construction law and the failing of it's councilors in setting priorities for installation of sidewalks at existing buildings and lots. 

Paul S. Peterson (1st Ward) of 1022 N William, Greg Dykstra (2nd Ward) of 510 N Harrison, Dave Weston (4th Ward) of 505 Fourth, and Kaye Ferguson Holman (at-large) of 324 Sherman Oaks Drive-- 57% of the city council last year, have all determined that the repair of a fair sidewalk at 301 N William has a higher priority than installing a sidewalk or two at their own residences. Fortunately, they do not live in actual glass houses. 

My priorities include the welfare of my family and of other pedestrians and bicyclists in this city, and to increase the actual 'walkability' and 'rideability' of our neighborhoods. Instead of constructing a DPW building without a sidewalk that costs $2.4 million of our money, or nearly a million dollars on an unnecessary transient dock, let's devote a small fraction of our taxes into righting a quarter of a century of neglect, and reset our priorities as a community. Let's build sidewalks; let's start now!
 
As we travel to and fro, I can't help but think that some day in a couple of years, the young rider I accompany may be on their own riding their bicycle, keeping to the sidewalk as much as they can, as most kids naturally do, but having to enter the street due to a missing sidewalk. I appeal to you, the reader of this piece, to take action so that they and hundreds of other innocent kids in Ludington, aren't put at such unnecessary risk. 

[Edie Lindsey]

Am I right in understanding that any building newly constructed since 1984 needs to have a sidewalk according to the charter? What's the penalty for not doing so? I have had to ride a bicycle more than I want to lately (vehicle problems, don't ask) and my big tires are travelling across a lot of nice lawns in Ludville.

[Sweater Cows!]

I thought bikes weren't supposed to be on the sidewalk.

[XLFD]

In general, unless local laws say otherwise, bicycles have the right to be on sidewalks, Sheila.
Michigan Legislature - Section 257_660c.mht
In Ludington, bicycles cannot be operated in the business district's sidewalks (South james, and Ludington Ave. between Harrison and William), even though that's where almost all the bike racks are!

Edie, section 46-74 of the code says: "Whenever the city shall determine that a sidewalk is in disrepair or is unsafe, or that no sidewalk exists where required, and consistent with the resolutions of the city council establishing the priorities for the installation or replacement of sidewalks from time to time as the budget shall permit, the city shall give written notice to the owner of the abutting premises by mail addressed to the last known address of the owner shown on the tax roles of the City of Ludington, or by delivering the notice to the owner, or by leaving it with a person of suitable age and discretion at the premises, or by posting such notice in some conspicuous place on the premises. The notice shall specify the construction or replacement of the sidewalk required and the specifications. Thereafter, if such owner fails to repair, replace or construct such sidewalk within 30 days of such notice, the city may proceed under Chapter 42 to have such sidewalk repaired, replaced or constructed and to assess not more than 75 percent of the costs upon the adjoining property pursuant to Chapter 42 of this Code."

The city is definitely choosing not to enforce this provision, to the detriment of the public good.