-
JD about 1 year ago
Odd Policy
I live on a dead end in the upper west side, where there are no sidewalks in front of the houses at all. The little foot traffic we get is safe and comfortable in the street, and everyone is willing to greet walkers from the front yards...which are barely compliant with city code (requires 20' from public passage to the house). We're renovating the house, and the added square footage is more than 500 sq ft, triggering the requirement to put a concrete (impervious cover) sidewalk along the front of our property. This rule is intended to make SC more pedestrian friendly, and Public Works finds no reason to allow us to participate in a program where we would pay for a sidewalk elsewhere - where the need may be greater than ours (also, 100% of our neighbors are opposed to the sidewalk, and have signed a petition saying so). We have just such a place where Bayona climbs a steep hill, around a blind curve, leaving pedestrians vulnerable, in the street, as traffic comes down the hill. We found this odd for two reasons: a) if the policy is intended to eventually place sidewalks all over SC, why are houses adding less than 500 sq ft exempted (as this makes the intent of the policy impossible to achieve), and b) why is Public Works so quick to find a way around the law that protects our home's privacy (20' minimum from public access) to honor the law that places the 5' sidewalk within 17' of the house? Does this mean that SC prefers sidewalks - even when on dead ends, in opposition to the neighborhoods wishes and only for 'bigger' projects - to its citizens' privacy? Feels punitive to me...anyone have an insight that can help us feel better about the deaf ears at Public Works?
Comments (0)
-
There are no Comments for this post.