Twenty Reasons Why the City Isn't Serious About Sidewalks

[XLFD]

On February 9th, the Ludington City Council had the first reading of the newly proposed Sidewalk Ordinance which stated that Ludington property owners had to make sure they either install a sidewalk before selling their property or make sure that the buyer of their property installs a sidewalk.  Failing this, they have to pay the City of Ludington 50% of the estimated sidewalk-installation cost, and the City of Ludington will see that this money is used for installing sidewalks at the property. 

But existing city law (section 46-71(b)) says that Ludington property owners are already required to build sidewalks and that the city council establishes the priorities for building sidewalks.  "...it is the intent that as public funds for the public portion of the cost of such sidewalks exists, that all of the properties adjacent to a public street in the city shall be required to have sidewalks."

The existing ordinance on sidewalks has been around since at least 1984, so the city council has had plenty of time to establish their priorities.  One would think that the property the city owns would be at the top of the list for priorities, since it is public land owned by the people of Ludington and under the stewardship of the city government.  Connie Vlahos noted that a lot of city property is without sidewalks, and several others have mentioned that to me.  The perception out there is that the City is being rather hypocritical by having you pay money to them to construct sidewalks when they don't ever seem to get around to it. 

The perception is correct.  Of the fifty plus properties the City of Ludington owns, over a third of them lack their own mandated sidewalks.  Here is the best look of that statistic given that this is February, and our photography unit can't get out to each lot. 

A special thanks to Bing maps for providing us a good look at these properties in the middle of winter.  The full list of Ludington properties reviewed were found at the Ludington assessor site and are available here (City Property List 1.PNG and City Property List 2.PNG), these pictures and summaries go straight down the list: 

1.  928 N Harrison:  The 900 block of N. Harrison lacks sidewalks everywhere, the small COL parcel is no exception

2:  926 & 927 N. James:  The city owns these two parcels across from each other on the 900 block of N. James, which is totally devoid of sidewalks on either side of the street.

3.  213 S. Lakeshore (old Coast Guard Station, adjacent drainage field):   This is the first picture that shows actual sidewalks, which are on the east side of Lakeshore in front of the private residences, but are absent on the west side, where public property lies.

4)  428 E. Dowland (proposed fire station lot purchased by City in 2007):  The big green lot is all city property, which had a terrible sidewalk on Dowland between 2007 and 2013 (which you can see in this picture).  When Dowland was rebuilt, so was that sidewalk, but as a corner lot, it still needs a sidewalk on the street to the east. 

5)  925 First Street:  No sidewalks anywhere near this undeveloped parcel on First Street.

6)  1012 Olmstead:  Belonging once to the Coast Guard, but not even near the water, this property is devoid of any sidewalk.

7)  602.5 Lake Street:  Lake Street has no sidewalks.

8)  200 S. Park:  This corner vacant lot has a sidewalk on Looomis but not in the 200 block of Park.

9)  900 W. Loomis (Boat Launch and parking lot):  They'll charge you for parking there, but S Stearns (circled in red) has no sidewalk, just a small shoulder where people are walking next to traffic

10)  906 N. Lakeshore (Cartier Park and Lakeview Cemetery):  This expansive plot of public land lacks sidewalks on Lakeshore, Bryant, and Rath Street, but features plenty of internal walkways.

11)   1006 S. Washington (Copeyon Park):  The Washington frontage has no sidewalk, unlike the private houses down most of S Washington.  The recent condo development to the north is also deficient.

12)  800 E. Ludington (Leveaux Park):  This triangular bit of land is only sidewalked to the east, but needs to be covered on all sides according to current policy.

13)  104 W Lowell:  The 100 block of W Lowell is devoid of sidewalks.

14)  975 First Street (DPW Building):  The multi-million dollar building could not afford a couple thousand for a sidewalk.

15)  1000 N. Ferry Street:  Like the rest of that block, no sidewalks exist.

16)  501 First Street:  Unlike the south side of First, the north side has no sidewalks.

17) 903 Pine:  Sidewalks on Pine Street are non-existent.

18)  806 N. Harrison (warehouse):  The city warehouse lacks sidewalks on Harrison Street and on Rowe Street to the east (if that is also part of the property).  They don't want people to see the barrels and tall grass around it.

19)  810 E Danaher (water tower property):  While it looks as if this property is compliant, the city acquired the building to the immediate west of the water tower, demolished it, and even took out the sidewalk, thereby making them non-compliant when they did not replace it.

20)  800 N Gaylord (Water Tower):  Next to the Cartier Park and Lakeview Cemetery, this is the biggest lack of sidewalks on city property, lacking sidewalks on the three adjacent streets.

[Willy]

Good job . I bet most of the City Council doesn't know how much property the City owns, or the location of the property. Not only have you discovered what property the City owns but everyone can now see exactly where they are located. It is ironic that the City has not cleaned it's own house yet but it's even more astonishing that they installed all of those nice paved walkways in Cartier Park without giving a thought to the lack of external sidewalks and all the hub bub about tearing up the dunes at the end of Ludington ave and installing a walkway at the beach when across the street, City property boldly lacks street side sidewalks. The City has to take the initiative and comply with the Code that every property owner must follow and lead the way by setting a good example and get City property in compliance. I do believe they have only 30 days to comply so they better get cracking.

[XLFD]

I wasn't even aware of the amount of property the city had without sidewalks other than the DPW and the parks, until I researched the issue a little while back. 

The medical buildings and adult foster care facilities that have sprung up in recent years have gone up very predominantly without any sidewalk abutting the streets on their properties.  Even school property lacks sidewalks in front of their venues, biggest example is Oriole Field, but every school has some non-compliant property within a couple hundred feet if not actually on school grounds.  These are the priorities for sidewalk installation, not whether a property exchanges hands.

[stump]

[AQUAMAN]

That's exactly why I said in another post elsewhere that the city sets a poor example to the public. Until and unless they create the needed sidewalks on their own properties, they should sit down, shut up, and do their own homework first. And any citizens being hassled for not having sidewalks, should form their own group to insist the COL cleans up their own mess before butting into private property owners business! Same old rule, do as I say, not as I do, per the City and Shyster Shay III.