New Janesville City Council members don’t support sidewalks
Reader poll
Podcast Episode
Photo 
Deborah A. Dongarra-Adams
Photo
Sam Liebert
Photo
Janesville - Proposed 2012 sidewalks
JANESVILLE — What a difference an election makes.
The Janesville City Council’s newest members on Monday made the future of a seven-year sidewalk plan approved by past councils uncertain. The council decided to delay a vote to implement Round 2 of the sidewalk plan until the full, seven-member council is seated in two weeks.
Councilman Yuri Rashkin was absent Monday.
Some in the audience were not happy, believing the council postponed the decision when fewer residents would be attending. Others said they would be in chambers in two weeks, regardless.
Two council newcomers, Deb Dongarra-Adams and Sam Liebert, both said they would have voted against the plan Monday.
Councilman Tom McDonald made the motion to postpone the vote for two weeks, “knowing this will not pass tonight.”
The vote would have failed only if Councilwoman Kathy Voskuil had voted against it. She has supported the plan in the past but did not indicate Monday how she would have voted.
Sidewalks are controversial in Janesville because some residents are required to have them and others are not.
In 2006, the council required all new subdivisions to have sidewalks on both sides of the streets in hopes of avoiding future problems.
In 2008, it approved a plan to close the gaps in the city’s sidewalk system in a seven-year span. Council members said they believed sidewalks were needed for safety, were good for neighborhoods and were a matter of equity.
Implementation of the plan was delayed until this year, however, because of the bad economy.
As usual, residents filled council chambers Monday to protest proposed sidewalks. About 200 property owners are affected by 5.1 miles of new sidewalk.
About 20 residents who spoke Monday doubted the sidewalks were needed for safety and questioned the logic of the proposed segments. They said they did not want to lose landscaping and complained about the maintenance and the cost in a poor economy.
“Normally, I support sidewalks,” Liebert said, adding he lives in the Look West area where everyone has sidewalks. But he also remembers walking in the streets in the Wuthering Hills area when he was young with no safety problems.
He said he would vote against the plan because of the economy, suggesting a moratorium until it improves.
Councilman Russ Steeber said he has realized during his years on the council that there is never a good time to ask people to build sidewalks.
He said the sidewalk program has already begun, with the first sidewalks built this summer. People just like those in chambers Monday were in the audience protesting that, he said.
“They gave exactly the same reasons,” he said. “That council looked at it and said, ‘We need to start moving in a positive direction.’
“That took a lot of intestinal fortitude. It took a lot of nerve to basically stand back and say, ‘We need to do the right thing for the city as a whole.”
Councilman George Brunner said residents have contacted him in support of sidewalks and spoke of equity.
“What about the property owners that have to install them and keep them clear, and what about the overall benefit for the pedestrian plan?” he asked. “If you start taking it out piecemeal, then you’re breaking up the system.”
“If the city doesn’t continue with the plan, can the guy around the corner take his out?” Brunner asked. “Why not? Where’s the equity of it?”
Dongarra-Adams said she feels strongly about the issue, having recently paid off a five-year assessment bill for a new sidewalk.
She said she doesn’t believe the new sidewalk is well-used and made little sense. She said she gets stressed out about having to clear the snow and wonders why planners picked her side of the street and not the other side.
“I don’t know how they came up with this plan for sidewalks years ago,” she said, adding she wasn’t sure common sense was involved.
“I personally feel there needs to be a harder look at it,” she said, adding to the audience, “I hear your pain, and I will be voting against this plan.”
Storyline
What happened: The Janesville City Council in 2008 approved a seven-year plan to close gaps in the city’s sidewalk system. It delayed implementing the plan until this year because of the poor economy.
This year, the city built 4.7 miles, affecting about 120 property owners—mostly in commercial areas. The owners are assessed the cost of the sidewalk and can either hire the city or private contractors to build the sidewalk. The city charged $27.70 per foot this year.
What’s new: The council on Monday delayed approving Round 2 of the plan that in 2012 would build 5.1 miles of sidewalk, affecting about 200 property owners—mostly residents. Council chambers were filled with unhappy residents, and about 20 people spoke.
What’s next: The council will consider the issue at its next meeting Monday, Oct. 10.
Oct 23, 2011 at 6:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
The city mandates a sidewalk, which the property owner nearest is forced to take all responsibility & liability for, even though the property owner does not necessarily benefit from its existence. In fact, some potential property owners may view sidewalks as an undesirable deterrent to owning property. If the reason is to provide a path for public foot commute, then it should be treated just as the public streets are for vehicle traffic. Public tax dollars should be used, not fines, to clear where volunteers do not do the work. If the citizens do not want tax dollars used in this way, then pressure should be given to not add, or even eliminate, sidewalks. There is no difference between city streets/ road right-of-way and rural Sate/County/Town roads in my opinion. Any road right-of-way (an area dedicated for public highway) should ultimately be maintained by the general public, not a select group of property owners.
A more detailed comparison would be rural road ditch maintenance (brush, mowing, trees). I would gladly challenge any invoice or fine for the maintenance. In fact, I am concerned about my ability to work in the road right-of-way without permission from the municipality & the liability that I assume, as anyone should, even though I do it.
Again, I say if the purpose of sidewalks is to benefit the general public, then the general pubic (as a whole) should pay for it. If the general public's cost can be reduced by the maintenance assistance of a nearby property owner, then it should be welcomed, not required.
For those that would like to argue that sidewalks are not in the road right-of-way, I say to you that I do not want a mandated sidewalk on my property (yes I do also own property in the City of Janesville with sidewalks along it and I do not feel the asset is greater than the burden).
Oct 1, 2011 at 8:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
It's time for a referendum to settle this debate once and for all! If the vote is for no sidewalks then property owners with sidewalks will not have to be responsible for maintaining their walks. Fair is fair.
Sep 30, 2011 at 9:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
sidewalks do not increase the value of a property. to the contrary, they only add to the homeowners risk. What risk? The risk of being sued by somebody who slips, trips, or stubs their toe on "your" section of sidewalk. Nowhere on any city assesment or on any appraisal have I ever seen an increase in value because of the presence of sidewalks.
Sidewalks are a purely PUBLIC convenience. ANYBODY can walk on the sidewalk since all sidewalks are on city property. If the city sees fit to put a sidewalk on any particular street then so be it. However, the money to cover sidewalks should come out of the general city fund. If the city wants to charge the initial developer the cost of the sidewalk that is up to the city. To continually charge the homeowner for maintenance of a PUBLIC convenience is ridiculous. No matter what bad decisions previous generations of city council have made the future decisions should conform to common sense.
City property + public access = general funding
Sep 29, 2011 at 12:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
sidewalks are great! they help dog walkers let their pets get farther onto your property before they relieve themselves. Makes it quite a bit easier to "not notice" so they don't have to pick it up....
Sep 29, 2011 at 8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
bucky12345: Finally some common sense! Sounds like good "rules" to follow for sidewalk placement.
Sep 29, 2011 at 7:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
How about some common sense no sidewalks on streets that are 1 to 3 blocks long and or dead end streets 1 to 3 blocks long.Sidewalks within 10 blocks of a school on both sides of all threw streets.At least people would know ahead of time why they must have side walks and what areas do not require them. Also require compliance within 3 years, so that owners would have time to save before paying for a sidewalk.If I'm not mistaken we don't need sidewalks to get to pine tree plaza or other businesses if you do not drive we have a bus system that everyone should be able to afford that stops at all shopping areas. Sidewalks everywhere is just not the right answer.
Sep 28, 2011 at 9:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
I find it very ironic that one of the major issues listed for not having sidewalks is having to shovel them in the winter. Isn't having people walk in the road when it is snow covered the most dangerous time to NOT have sidewalks?
Sep 28, 2011 at 8:36 p.m.
Suggest removal
Is the city getting some kind of kick-back for the sidewalks? Who is the contractor putting these sidewalks in? Is someone getting some sort of a rebate?
Sep 28, 2011 at 4:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
good way to get voted off in my book...this is just stupid...sidewalks protect children and elderly so they can walk...what is the problem...they put it in front of my house and I love it..its just the way it is...its nice to talk to the folks that walk by. or the kids who ride thier bikes, or walk their dogs...so I had to pay for it NO BIGGIE, so I have to plow it...AGAIN...it makes a nieborhood just that...I bet its all the crabby people who never leave thier houses or whine cause a kids ball landed in thier yard...just ridiculous
Sep 28, 2011 at 3:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
BBB did you actually read the article? Deb said she just got done paying a 5 year assesment on her sidewalk.
Sep 28, 2011 at 12:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
Fair is fair, I hope everyone is on the list for sidewalks.
Sep 28, 2011 at 12:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
Do either of the coucil members who are not in favor of sidewalks have sidewalks on their property?
Sep 28, 2011 at 11:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
:( "I don't like shoveling, how stressful!" :(
You own a home quit crying about the results of owning a home. That being said, the city forcing folks to shell out thousands of dollars in times of great need doesn't seem like a good time for this. IMO schools need the revenue right now a little more than we need 5.1 miles of new sidewalk.
There are excellent points to be made on both sides, safety issues are a concern as certain laws (inattentive driving, texting while driving) are hard to enforce until something happens.
The reality is that everyone in this community has it tough right now and it is not an easy time to push this through mainly because the homeowners have no choice.
My main point here is more to the whining about clearing the snow. Anyone who owns a property who whines about shoveling, BUT A SNOWBLOWER! This IMO is more of a general economic vs need question, not whether or not the homeowners can get their walks cleared, what a flippin joke!
Sep 28, 2011 at 9:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
I recall the headline when the 7 year plan was passed. It was something like 'sidewalk issue is settled once and for all'. Yes, I laughed too.
Saying that Janesville's sidewalk issue is settled is the same as when your boss tells you that the XYZ corp. is buying the company but nothing will change.
Neither is to be believed.
Sep 28, 2011 at 8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
Deb and Sam, you've got my votes for as long as you're willing to serve on City Council.
Sep 28, 2011 at 6:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Heck, let the kids walk out in the streets. It builds reflexes dodging the cars that zoom by. Those alert, multitasking drivers can watch one more little thing while they are smoking, text messaging, eating and speeding because they are late somewhere again. Think of it as Darwins survival of the fittest. The quickest little kids with the best reflexes will be the ones to make it safely to their destinations. If one happens to get run over by walking out there in the street, well it is a lot of money to put in and take care of sidewalks. Think of the poor homeowner.
Sep 28, 2011 at 12:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
There is a simple and fair answer. Just require the sidewalks to be installed when the subject properties change ownership. That way the costs can be rolled into the overall sales contracts and financing arrangements.
Sep 28, 2011 at 12:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Good for you, Deb and Sam!!! Maybe I won't abandon all hope for Janesville quite yet!
Sep 27, 2011 at 11:06 p.m.
Suggest removal
So much for safety, we need sidewalks in our town. Get a spine and do what is right.
Sep 27, 2011 at 9:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
VOTE NO!
Sep 27, 2011 at 9:42 p.m.
Suggest removal
I'm kind of against new side walks. But the blind guy apparently didn't have a chance to show up at this meeting. He'll probably be there for the next one. He's got a strong sell.
Speaking of a blind guy, has anyone else seen the one who smokes making his way around the downtown area with a cane lately? You'd think he has enough trouble.
Sep 27, 2011 at 9:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
“I don’t know how they came up with this plan for sidewalks years ago,” she said, adding she wasn’t sure common sense was involved. Good for Dongarra-Adams, I knew voting for her was a good idea! I have a sidewalk and she is absolutely 100% right, it is a pain in the backside in the winter. For some people who do not currently have sidewalks, that may have come into the decision when buying their current homes and now to be told, hey guess what, you're going to have to pay to have a sidewalk put in, just one more thing a lot of residents at this time can not afford. Steeber stated that there really is never a good time to ask people to have sidewalks installed, yes Russ, but could there be a worse time than right now? Maybe there's hope for the city of Janesville residents now that we actually have a couple voices in Dongarra-Adams and Liebert on the council that will use common sense and not just say yes to every frivolous idea (And yes sidewalks on every street is frivolous at this time)to come in front of them like past councils have seemed to do. Now lets hear how they feel about changing downtown traffic on Milwaukee St. The first line of this story is so true, what a difference an election makes. Maybe next election we can make some more positive changes as well.
Sep 27, 2011 at 7:32 p.m.
Suggest removal
Good. I hope they kill this sidewalk plan before it gets to my neighborhood!!!!! Please VOTE NO!
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.