Once a hot-button issue for area residents, the project that would enable to children to walk safely to school passes with little objection.
By Jonathan Friedman / Assistant Editor
A project that once had major vocal opposition was approved by the City Council at its meeting Monday night with relatively little conflict. The council voted 4-0 (Councilmember Andy Stern did not attend the meeting) to support the Point Dume Safe Routes to School Walkway Project, which involves the construction of pathways along certain Point Dume roads for children to use to walk to the local elementary school. Construction of the project will begin next month.
During the past several months, many people attended City Council and other community meetings complaining about the proposed project on several grounds, including claims the pathways would be constructed on private property, differing opinions on where the pathways should be built and accusations that the project would not do enough for pedestrian safety in Point Dume.
But most of the opponents did not attend Monday’s meeting. A few people spoke about encroachment issues and some said a portion of the pathway on Dume Drive should be built on the west side, rather than the east side, where it will be built.
“It would be really the most important thing to do the safest thing,” said Point Dume resident Ron Saul, who favored placing the pathway on the west side of Dume Drive. ” I’d even be willing to contribute if it was a funding problem… Kids walk on the west side anyway. You can’t force people to change their habits.”
But the city’s public works staff insists that building the path on the east side of Dume Drive is actually the better thing to do, calling it the safer and more direct route.
The Public Works and Public Safety commissions had asked the city staff to re-examine whether the pathway should be put on the west side of Dume Drive. According to the staff report to the council, written by Associate Civil Engineer Mondher Saïed, the staff did that and reached the conclusion that “Given the current limited funding that forecloses on placing walkways on both sides of Dume Drive, the placement of the walkway on the east side has marginal benefits over placing it on the west side only.”
Earlier this month, Dume Drive resident Richard Gibbs said he collected 30 signatures on a petition from other residents of his street asking that the pathway be moved to the west side. He did not turn the petition into the city, but he said he sent an e-mail to elected city officials and members of the public works staff with the language of the petition, and offered to show the petition upon request.
“I did not get a single response from anybody,” Gibbs said on Tuesday. “I’m disappointed that that’s the level of government we have. Clearly they don’t care what anybody on Dume Drive has to say, which is absurd.”
Deputy City Engineer Claudio Sanchez said on Tuesday that he received the e-mail, and it stated that he would later receive a copy of the signed petition. It was never sent, Sanchez said. He added that the issue of whether to move the pathway to the west side of Dume Drive had been examined, and therefore Gibbs’ issue was addressed, and Sanchez said he did not know what more he could do to satisfy Gibbs.
The five-foot-wide pathways will be made of decomposed granite bordered with wood ties. They will be constructed on the east side of Dume Drive from Heathercliff Road to Grayfox Street, the south side of Grayfox Street from Dume Drive to Fernhill Drive, the west side of Fernhill Drive from Grayfox Street to Wildlife Road and the west side of Wildlife Road from Fernhill Drive to Selfridge Drive.
The project is being funded mostly through a $380,000 grant. The city is spending a little more than $42,000 on the project, according to city staff.
Construction of the pathways should be completed by November, according to city staff.
All the council members at Monday’s meeting enthusiastically supported the project. Councilmember Sharon Barovsky had limited sympathy for some people who were being forced to remove planted items and other things they had on city land to make room for the pathways.
“These people that have built out into the easements and property they do not own, I’m sorry about that [being forced to remove the items], but a child’s life is more important,” Barovsky said.
Mayor Ken Kearsley, who has been arguably the council’s loudest supporter of the project, had harsh words for those opposed to it.
“This is idiotic politics,” said Kearsley about the opponents’ reasoning. “[They want it] ‘not in my backyard,’ [and are] worrying about themselves and not about the kids.”