Comments on: Sidewalk vote will test Council’s credibility

By: tada...

tada... — Tue, 16 Mar 2010 13:45:51 +0000

perry, maybe nobody walks cuz theres no sidewalks!

By: Perry Greer

Perry Greer — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 14:16:29 +0000

I think the sidewalks are silly. No one walks down Tates Creek road. I drive it every day. In any case, it is all over now. Maybe David Stephens will finally ride off into the sunset, instead of imposing his opinion of what is best for Lexington on the rest of us.

By: Postk49

Postk49 — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 02:40:25 +0000

Why not built bike paths with the sidewalks. The bike paths we have in our city are just 3 foot wide section on busy streets that dont offer bikes any protection. Are new sub division required to built separate bike paths from roadways, if we want to be bike friendly that would be the way to do it.

By: Elaine McDonald

Elaine McDonald — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:40:42 +0000

Lexington needs the walks. Safety demands sidewalks and bike paths. Bravo to enlightened intelligent council members who vote yes. Don’t let two snobs on council ruin Lexington. I live in the area but have a sidewalk we maintain. Have to shovel snow or trim branches? The Tates Creek residents should have to maintain public access now. They are lucky the city is paying for the walks with federal aid. Otherwise they should have to pay to build them.

By: Chris

Chris — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:38:52 +0000

I’m sure they just don’t want “those” people near their homes.

“Those” people being the same ones you likely don’t want whenever something happens near your home. “Those” people are a dicey group of people whose definition and demographic change depending on the group that cites their existence.

In most cases. “Those” people are apartment or other multi-family unit dwellers who might be too close to single-family “alone-together” mentality folks. In this case, “Those” people represent an even greater threat, because they may include those who are not of high enough socio-economic status that they own a car, or worse, they might ride public transit. I mean seriously, who uses sidewalks anyway? “Those” people do, that’s for dang sure.

Common masks to the “Those” people argument are: “save the trees!”, “less stormwater!” and the ever popular “but…but…my property values will go down!”. Seen for what they are, and with the use of special BS-detecting hearing aids, these arguments are nothing more than a cover for a fear of the unknown.

By: Gayle Musgrave

Gayle Musgrave — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:46:46 +0000

It was a pleasant experience to share walking on Tates Creek Road last evening with others who are interested in improving accessibility for citizens walking, biking and riding public transportation along that major artery to and from downtown Lexington. It’s amazing what people were observing and discussing as they walked along. There were lots of yards that were poorly maintained with excessively long grass, weeds, and shrubbry overgrowth impeding passage on the grassy areas without walking into the street. Bus stops were difficult to access for anyone not in great physical condition. Trees were in such need of pruning that their limbs prevented us from walking upright unless we moved into the street. In some areas, there was graffiti on the fence and poorly maintained overgrowth littered with trash , including an American flag. Perhaps the construction of sidewalks will allow these homeowners to access their own property frontages so they can clean them up and maintain them properly. I walked the entire stretch from Tates Creek shopping center to The Church of the Latter Day Saints on the west side of the road and returned on the east side. The east side was better maintained and already has more sidewalk footage due to that provided near Centenary Church and other business on that side. However, at one point we encountered a deep hole approximately 10 inches in diameter by 12 inches deep that would not have been visible in the evening or if someone were not looking down. It could have caused a serious injury to a walker!. One of our walkers was on crutches,! What an amazing effort for her. The terrain is irregular, lumpy and very hard on the back, hips and legs of those of us who like to walk regularly on consistent pavement. Interestingly, in my neighborhood, if you allow plants to get too overgrown or infringe on the neighbors by looking unattracitve on impeding their property rights, you are cited with a letter telling you to correct the problem. Why have these property owners been allowed to neglect the areas? In addition, recent construction has ocurred at some of these homes that allowed for property owners to construct signs, lights, fences, gates and etc. on property that does not belong to them, but was designated for sidewalks. How did that happen? Did they get permits to do that? Were they told they might have to move those constructions when sidewalks were built? Did they hire lawyers to get exceptions for them?
One resident “heckled” those who were walking along peacefully by saying, “Where have you been for fifteen years.?” Since I walk and bike there and have for 30 + years, I know she was mistaken. Why have these people chosen to attack a project that gives access to all Lexingtonians to areas that have been cut off for years for many not willing to travel the grassy and weedy paths? Why do UK track team members have to run in the street along that area? This is public property being used for individual selfish purposes!

By: Travis

Travis — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 14:55:40 +0000

GREAT piece!! As someone who lives in the area and jogs that part of TCR frequently (along with several other folks I see most mornings), I was stunned and outraged when I read that one of the council members actually allowed himself to be quoted as saying he “never, and I mean never” sees anyone walking or jogging that path. I’m very curious where he thinks the worn out path running in the grass beside TCR came from.

JB, as Tom says, I understand the “Not in my backyard (or in this case front)” defense - it’s human nature. That being said, nearly every other neighborhood inside New Circle (particularly those along major routes) seem to deal just fine with “impervious” sidewalks. We’re talking about an area that’s only a few miles from the center of downtown and runs beside the state’s largest university - not a nature reserve that will be permanently scarred by the placement of a few feet of pavement.

By: Kyle

Kyle — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:53:00 +0000

It amused me slightly this morning to note that a significant fraction of houses with “No impervious sidewalks” signs in their yard also had huge, expansive, impervious driveways in their yards.

Perhaps, since they’re so interested in “Keeping Lexington green”, they’ll give up their cars, plant trees where their driveways are now, and start walking. (But not on sidewalks, of course, because they don’t want any.)

By: brian

brian — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:04:59 +0000

JB Murphy: BOO-HOO. Those residents can stand to have the “unexpected” burden of maintaining their sidewalks just like the rest of us who have sidewalks throughout our neighborhoods. Most of them probably don’t even maintain their own lawns, but would rather pay someone else to do it… and if they can afford that, then perhaps they can also afford to pay someone to come shovel, salt and edge them. Those poor, poor people!

By: J B Murphy

J B Murphy — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:23:55 +0000

TOM:

Sidewalks were not planned for Tates Creek Road when the subdivisions were planned. Constructing sidewalks now will place an unexpected burden on the property owners to maintain those walks and to keep them clean of snow and ice for a few, if any, walkers and some bike riders, at a cost of more than 1 million dollars in tax money. You and other editoral writers seem to think that as long as it is federal or state dollars, it is no cost to the City. The member of the Lansdowne Neighborhood Association did not get a chance to vote on the issue. The vote was by some of the directors of the Association without consulting with the membership, which action is contrary to vote on prior neighborhood issues. If the money is to be spent, spend it on more needed services.