The City of Peoria should cover 100% of sidewalk replacement cost.
And that’s all I have to say on the matter. Actually, it’s not. Sidewalks are basic city infrastructure that should be maintained just as much as city streets are. People like to talk about the ‘broken windows’ theory of cleaning up a neighborhood, what better example than a sidewalk? If you lived on a street with crumbling sidewalks, would you really invest in your home and keep it tidy? Not likely. Now if you lived on a nice street with lovely new sidewalks and maybe some ornamental lighting, would you, possibly unconsciously, keep your home and yard looking nicer? Probably. If your neighbor did the same and another neighbor down the street did the same, before you know it the place would begin to attract better home owners and tenants.
If you drive around this city, look at the ‘nice’ neighborhoods. I’ll bet they have nice sidewalks too. Now look at some of the higher crime areas. Sidewalks? If they exist, they’re not always in the best shape, and quite frankly the poorer residents can’t afford to have them fixed anyway.
Granted, this will never happen as the council seems dead set on throwing money at pet projects and private developers instead of focusing on what should really matter… services such as police and fire, and basic infrastructure.
Fix a broken sidewalk, fix a broken city.
September 18th, 2009 at 3:05 pm
I never quite understood this whole splitting the sidewalk cost thing.
September 18th, 2009 at 7:29 pm
You’re lucky. Springfield residents have been paying 50% for many years, now (I think). As of 2007 (last I could find) the cost for the Springfield property owner was:
Sidewalk: $2.75 per square foot or approximately $11.00 per lineal foot for a four (4) foot sidewalk (the minimum length to be replaced is 10 lineal feet)
Driveway approaches: $4.00 per square foot
Curb & Gutter: $12.00 per lineal foot
The people in my 100 year old neighborhood mostly take their walks in the street because the sidewalks are so rickety.
September 19th, 2009 at 6:04 am
Add alleyways to the list too. Some of the alleyways in our neighborhood probably get more traffic than some roads.
September 19th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Yes, it would be wonderful if every neighborhood had great sidewalks – and I agree that more than 50% should be covered by the city – but I don’t think the broken window/bad sidewalk comparison works.
Many of the “nice” neighborhoods do have newer sidewalks that aren’t crumbling, but I would argue that has more to do with 2 factors. If the nicer neighborhood you are looking at is a newer neighborhood, then the simple fact is that subdivision was likely built with sidewalks and in some cases the city might not have even born any cost for the sidewalk. The cost of sidewalk in area with nice new homes is such a small fraction of the total cost the developer knows they’d be foolish not to build the sidewalk. If the nicer neighborhood is older, I think it is still more a function of economic status. If you have a $150-200k house or make $80/100k per year – the several hundred maybe $1000 to replace the sidewalk every 10-15 years doesn’t seem like that much money. On top of that it is an investment in your $200k house.
On the other side if your property is worth $40-50k and you are barely making the monthly payments $500 or $1000 seems like a lot of money. Money that could be used for food, electricity, gas, or to improve the home you live in. That’s why, even with the relatively low percentages that the homeowners have to pay currently (10-20%), the city is not covered in brand new sidewalk.
Should the city cover 100%? Probably in certain areas where no one can afford it. In fact I have a bigger problem with the 10% for low income homeowners going to 25% than the overall number going to 50%. Should the city cover 100% everywhere? No. The amount of sidewalk that could be added to a city is practically infinite. By the time you finish adding all the sidewalk it is time to start replacing the work you did 10 years ago. How do you decide where the priorities are? If you have residents willing to have “skin in the game” is it not more likely that they will be (relatively) better stewards of what they get. That said, I favor a solution where sidewalks in severely blighted areas be added/replaced at 100% – and elsewhere at some percentage greater than 50%.
All that said the city can only afford what it can afford – so 50% is better than axing the city’s sidewalk program completely.
September 19th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
“it is time to start replacing the work you did 10 years ago.”
Huh? A sidewalk had better last a great deal longer than 10 years. Most of the sidewalks in question… were either not built properly in the first place, non existent, or they are a good deal older than 50 years. The sidewalks in my neighborhood are a good 20 years old and show no signs of needing replaced.
Sidewalks, roadways, alleyways… are basic infrastructure. Samer, would you apply the same logic to roadways. The amount of roadway that can be added to the city is practically infinite (I disagree but your words). By the time you finish adding all those roads up north, you will be repaving them. How are your priorities decided?
“On top of that it is an investment in your $200k house.”
Um no… the sidewalk is on city property. Its an investment in the city by the city. Do their part to make neighborhoods nice and home values will follow, which leads to better tax revenues. My home value benefits from the nicer sidewalk I have out front and is hurt by the crummy alleyway out back.
September 19th, 2009 at 1:00 pm
Mahkno,
I’d agree that sidewalks should last more than 10 years – but what I’ve heard is that it is in the 10-15 year time frame they start to significantly degrade. That is purely anecdotal number so if you want to assume 30/40 years thats fine. It doesn’t really change the argument too much though. My primary point is that with the level of resources sidewalks get (in almost every community – not just Peoria) is relatively small. It is great to have well kept sidewalks – but the bottom line is that if you exclude the walkable areas of town (by Bradley and most of downtown and maybe a few other pockets like the Sheridan triangle) the resources need to go to roads rather than sidewalks. The crucial infrastructure sidewalks are in those walkable areas and the sidewalks to get from bus stops to shopping centers, schools, hospitals, etc.
Outside of those areas they are an amenity. The sidewalk in most neighborhoods is used by the people in the immediate area. When I was in high school I lived on the corner of W Hanssler Pl and Ellis (near Sheridan Rd). We had nice side walks – which was great when I say wanted to take my siblings over to the McClure library. That said – on the busiest of days only a handful of people walked on the sidewalk in front of our house. It was an amenity of where we lived – not crucial city infrastructure – unlike roads that are necessary for cars to get to an address – people can walk on the edge of the road. I am not saying that is ideal – but in most neighborhoods there isn’t so much traffic that a sidewalk is a required safety feature. Where my parents live, down here in North Carolina is a great example. It is a purely residential area – and I would say they should have sidewalks -but they don’t. That said, the people in that area have kids out playing in the yard and go on walks as much as I have ever seen in a neighborhood.
If we look at the phrase “practically infinite” all I meant to imply was that given practical limitations – basically the idea of scarcity of resources – the demand might as well be infinite. How much time and money should the city or state spend adding sidewalks to War Memorial? That may seem ridiculous – but I have seen people walking down War Memorial and that is certainly a bigger safety issue than a lot of other places. Who decides what areas get sidewalk? If the city put sidewalk anywhere anyone wanted sidewalk – they would never get to the end of the list.
On to the investment in your home. The city may technically own the land and the sidewalk – but it affects the value of your home (like you said). You and I agree (I think) that sidewalks are a great thing to have – if you are looking at homes to buy and one is in a neighborhood with nice sidewalks and the other home has crumbling or non-existent sidewalks you might be willing to pay extra to be in the neighborhood with the good sidewalks. Also, the sidewalk isn’t always owned by the city. I don’t know the percentages, but part or all of many sidewalks are on easements in which the underlying property is still the homeowners – the government just has rights to an easement for the sidewalk, utilities, etc. Also, no matter what the property ownership is you still have some or all of the risk of owning the sidewalk. You are responsible for shoveling it in the snow and if you don’t shovel the snow and someone trips and breaks a bone on the sidewalk they can sue you for it (along with the city).
September 20th, 2009 at 12:33 am
I agree with PI and Mahkno. I would argue that by Samer’s definition, cul-de-sacs are an amenity as well. They get little use, and the use they do get is only by those few people who live there, and they’re really not necessary. It’s nothing more than a glorified shared driveway. Let the residents on the cul-de-sac pay for it! At least 50% anyway.
September 20th, 2009 at 9:20 am
CJ-
I am all for cul-de-sacs being treated as an amenity. Though I don’t think that the city pays for most cul-de-sacs at original construction – the developer does (at least in newer subdivisions). As far as re-paving I don’t know how often that happens (given how little that piece of road is used) – but I could easily get behind people living in cul-de-sacs bearing an above average burden for city costs that are higher – due to the cul-de – sac (roads/snow removal/ garbage/etc.).
Though to some extent I imagine this happens through property taxes. Property taxes are based on an assessed value and I would think (though I don’t know) that a home on a cul-de-sac would have a higher assessed value (because homes on a cul-de-sac are often considered desirable when purchasing a home they can get a higher price).
As I mentioned in a previous comment I used to live on the corner of Hanssler and Ellis and while the house was being built my parents were given the option of having the entrance of the house face Ellis or Hanssler. The difference – property taxes. Hanssler Pl in that area as a nice grass median with lights and a few trees. That is it had an amenity – and because of that property taxes were higher for a house with a Hanssler address than an Ellis address. We ended up going with the Hanssler address because of the way the property was situated (the house would have looked odd being sideways) – but we could have built a very similar house on the same property and had a difference in property tax.
I would think sidewalk vs no-sidewalk and cul-de-sac vs no cul-de-sac – property taxes go up with amenities if for no other reason than the property with or near certain amenities are more valuable. Just like being a block from a great school or nice park or library can raise property values too.
September 20th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Samer — Well, until the city starts charging cul-de-sac residents 50% of the cost of maintaining their cul-de-sacs, I don’t think the city should charge 50% to maintain sidewalks. Like you said, an amenity (whether cul-de-sacs or sidewalks) adds value to a home, and thus we’re already paying our fair share of the maintenance cost via our property taxes.
September 20th, 2009 at 11:50 am
CJ -
3 things:
1) It still brings up the question of when is a sidewalk necessary – vs when is a sidewalk a nice thing to have?
2) 2 wrongs don’t make a right – just because cul-de-sacs are not charged extra doesn’t mean getting new sidewalk installed should be completely free.
3) I am not actually a proponent of the 50% split – I just think that given the current resources available to a sidewalk program that 25-50% is better than no program at all. As I mentioned a couple comments ago I think it would be reasonable to pay for certain blighted areas at 100%. Perhaps even a sliding scale where the longer its been since the city spent money on the sidewalks – the city pays a higher percentage.
September 21st, 2009 at 11:44 pm
You know, whenever I sit and think about what sort of community I might want to move to, the first thing that pops into my head is “I wonder how good its sidewalks are.”
I never think about what sort of amenities are going on. Like recreational stuff… you know: parks, museums, trails, outdoor stuff to do with family and friends… nah, to heck with that.
It’s only “sidewalks” in my books. I don’t care who pays for ‘em… build a sidewalk, and they will come.
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:00 pm
And it never occurred to you that when people visit a community, they don’t notice how run-down it is?
September 22nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
I beg to differ about “nicer” neighborhoods having “nicer” sidewalks. Have you tried to walk down Moss Avenue lately? Those sidewalks are crap. And I mean CRAP. I think it is a newer/older issue. Most “bad” neighborhoods tend to be in older parts of the city.
I don’t have a sidewalk in front of my house and I live on a cul-de-sac. I can’t say how the condition of my sidewalk affects my home improvement. Although, the sidewalks in our neighborhood are not great (they are old) and the level of home care in our neighborhood varies greatly. I think owner-occupied status has more to do with home improvement than anything else. Very few renters want to take good care of a home they don’t own and very few landlords want to invest lots of money in homes they don’t personally live in.