It's all just another way for the rich city council people to get more money out of us poor folk!

JoyM what I was trying to comment on was that people build urban subdivisions in the rual areas then decide that they want all of the conviences of the city (ie sidewalks). Take for example out by Avalon rd. The new subdivision is in the CITY zone, but all of the area around it is RURAL. Do we sidewalk the edge of the farmers field just to provide those residents with sidewalks to the rest of the city? or take away the peoples right who lived there first in the "country" and make them place sidewalks on their front lawns? not being sarcastic just asking?

"The city needs to meet with its current and future residents, civil engineers, and environmental consulting groups as well as local social service organizations to come up with a plan that fits everyone, not just the people who will incur financial gain from the projects." And at those meetings I will object to sidewalks... There are 2 opinions here

All infrastructure, roads, bridges, curb, gutter, sidewalk, sewer, etc. should be installed, maintained and paid for with general city funds in all of the city. I realize this would not make some people happy who had to pay for their sidewalk, but I think it should be implemented with some type of credit for those who already paid. It would take some initial work but then we wouldn't be in this situation year after year.

twerp13: Urban means city. Rural means country.

I also believe that not all areas need a sidewalk. There are some cases where they are not needed, at least not on both sides of the street. I grew up in the country in a small subdivision near Harmony school and we did not need sidewalks to connect us to the city. We either got rides or walked or rode our bike on the side of the road. The city should not make homeowners have to pay for a seldom used sidewalk just because you want to be connected to the city better. If you build your home in a urban setting then that is what you get, don't expect it to be like the city.After all that is why most people move into the country/urban areas to begin with.

What I want to know is why the city makes you not only pay for the side walk, taxes you on the property and makes you upkeep it, plus tells you that although you own the terrace and must have upkeep on that as well you are,but are told you are not allowed to put up a rummage sale sign on your own property(terrace). Not to mention that when the citly comes in and expands your street and makes that terrace you own and pay taxes on narrower,which then makes the snow plow drivers pile HUGE amounts onto the side walk. These snow banks are almost impossible to shovel, especially for seniors or disabled but yet the city will come around and fine the property owner for not removing the snow/ice. How is that fair? IF they pile it up onto the walk they should have to remove it.

Not having sidewalks in urban areas tells its residents "we don't want you here without your car". Homes are designed with the garage facing the road to tell people "an automobile lives here". Having urban neighborhoods in rural areas without connecting sidewalk routes tells people that "cars are more important than people".
This town is expanding , while trying to attract high-end jobs and businesses, but fails to realize with that comes low-end service jobs. Many of these people rely on self- or public- transportation. Without sidewalks, they can't get to work safely.
I live at the edge of a new subdivision on the north end of Janesville. My children have to walk in the road(Harmony Townhall Road) to get to Janesville. They have to walk on Hwy 26 to get to Milton. My children are capable of walking, but not safely within our neighborhood.
WHO says I have to give them a ride? GM? Oil companies? Am I really a bad parent for not being a taxi driver for my children?
The city has plans to extend Janesville right into Milton; possibly annexing the city. THERE ARE NO PLANS FOR CONNECTING SIDEWALKS OR GREENSPACES IN THESE AREAS!! I was under the impression these items were part of the plan.
The city needs to meet with its current and future residents, civil engineers, and environmental consulting groups as well as local social service organizations to come up with a plan that fits everyone, not just the people who will incur financial gain from the projects.

I'm new at the sidewalk debate, so I don't know the issues. As such, this is how I understand it:
Why can't the city give me a fair price for the land they take from me, and improve it at the city's expense? Sidewalks are a public improvement, and don't benefit the owner of the land they're going on, and become an added burden. In another situation, if the city wanted to improve some land to make an industrial park it would purchase the land, and improve it. Not take the land from the owner, force the owner to install streets, water, and sewer, then make the owner responsible for the improvments. If the sidewalk wasn't required when the house was built, and the city now wants a sidewalk there, the city can compensate me for the land, and put it in. I'll do my civic duty, and shovel it in the winter.

There's a fee if you do it your self. If you dig through the rationale, last time there was a sidewalk push, the city lost money because they were overcharging for adminstrative fees (why I am not sure - I think this was about $8 per foot), so they have to recoup this somewhere. If the city wants to do the contract, they need to guarantee the work.

Walker, I read in a previous column that the city currently charges a $180 liscensing fee if you put in the sidewalk yourself, to try and encourage people to use the contractors who have jacked up their prices. Does anyone know what the price was per sq foot 1-2 years ago???

Haha I'm confused as too what the point is... It seems that even where there are sodewalks people still ride their bikes in the middle of the street, run infront of me when I'm in a hurry, walk their dog at night in the middle of the road...but then I have to stop and remember: this is Janesville Wisconsin...ha

What does "Messer says the city council may consider fees to promote the equity of cost for all sidewalk projects in the city" this mean exactly? People who already have sidewalks helping to foot the bill for those who do not? Or placing the sidewalk on one side of the street but both sides pay for it?

"Messer says the city council may consider fees to promote the equity of cost for all sidewalk projects in the city." Wait! The demand for sidewalks has been driven up, hence the contractors are able to charge very high prices ($6 per sq ft)... and now the city wants to charge expensive fees to make sure everyone is paying a premium for concrete work, regardless of who's doing it? I can certainly understand the desire for uniform and quality sidewalks in our city, but this 'program' is going to take $8.2million out of our neighbor's pockets, at an average cost of $2,040 per 85' for 62 miles of sidewalks (over 4,000 homes). Is there a more cost effective manner to go about this? And how much of this project is funded by the city? Sadly, I'm unable to attend tonight's meeting.