Robbie Coblentz
Managing Editor, StarkvilleNow
Sidewalks are important. So are jobs.
That’s why the grandstanding by Golden Triangle Planning and Development District director Rudy Johnson and various members of the Starkville Transportation Committee does no one any good at all.
Johnson’s “I’ll take my toys elsewhere and play” mentality is juvenile and does him no credit. You would think someone in charge of helping procure funding from all levels to improve the quality of life for area residents would be a little more astute than to issue a public threat in the Starkville Daily News.
But members of the Starkville Transportation Committee have responded in the Daily News defending their ordinances and questioning why there is a senior citizen’s center in the industrial park.
Add in the swirling rumors of a recall petition for one or more of our Aldermen as a result of their advocacy of sidewalks for the GTPDD, and you have interesting political intrigue as we approach the kickoff of football season.
The person who has the most to gain from this is Starkville Mayor Parker Wiseman.
This is the mayor’s chance to step in the gap and balance the economic interest of trying to keep jobs here with an important quality of life issue.
Maybe the industrial park should be added into the exceptions list for the sidewalk ordinance. That’s a viable option that could prevent this type of situation and further refine a quality of life issue.
But the reality of the moment is that the mayor is about the only person who can attempt to calm this crisis with a compromise.
Those jobs need to stay in Starkville. And the head of the GTPDD needs to tone down the rhetoric.
Sidewalks are very important. We have decades of ignoring them to make up for.
Jobs are even more so. Sidewalk proponents must approach problems like this with common sense and an open mind to compromise for the greater good.
And it is the mayor’s job to lead the way.
I agree with you Robbie, but my problem with everyone’s “common sense” approach arguement is that Mr. Johnson has not made a resonable argument for why he does not need to build a sidewalk. From everything that I have seen he just does not want to build a sidewalk. Period. If he had a good (logical) reason, then maybe the BoA and Transportation Committee would look into an exemption.
If we exempt Mr. Johnson because he doesn’t want to do it, then that opens the door for every other developer who doesn’t want to build them (which is almost all of them). In my opinion the common sense approach is to follow our own rules. We have a law that says that sidewalks are required, so in this case, sidewalks are required. No matter who you are or who you work for. If we start adapting all of our laws to fit the needs of specific individuals, then we might as well throw them all out the window and let everyone fend for themselves. (I probably shouldn’t say that because that is what some people around here really want.)
I see that most of the arguments here are still about sidewalks. How come we’re not asking why there is a senior center planned to be build in the industrial park?
In Mr. Johnson’s words from the Dispatch: “How many sidewalks do you see around here?” Johnson asked. “None. How many people do you see walking around here? None. It’s an industrial park. Why would anybody want to put a sidewalk in an industrial park?”
How many sidewalks are around? how many people are walking around here? None. This is why we want the side walks so people can feel safe to walk outside. What is the value of a senior center if it does not provide the comfort and safety for the seniors to come and enjoy their time. Or are we thinking about a senior center where you drive up, go in, and never see the outside of the place?
“It’s an industrial park”, then why is there a senior center being built there. Really? is it an industrial park when there is a place to kids to dance and a place for seniors to enjoy their time?
The importance of this issue is stand our grounds for the progress and improvement of quality in our community. The sidewalks ordnance was but in place so we could avoid the mistakes we had in the past and to improve the quality of life in Starkville. There might not be anyone walking on Miley Rd today, but that’s not going to be the case tomorrow. Especially, if the senior center is built.
I’ve walked in industrial park multiple times. Or maybe that should say, I’ve run in industrial park multiple times. I’ve also biked in industrial park. I’ve seen other pedestrians walking/running/biking in industrial park while I was doing so, also.
Maybe this developer wasn’t looking very closely, or maybe he was just seeing what he wanted to.
I have been reading all of the concerns about the sidewalk ordinance with great interest. I know Jim Gafford and his committee put a great deal of time and research into the ordinance with the best of intentions in mind. While sidewalks to nowhere do not make sense and the argument that you have to start somewhere has merit there must be some common ground where everyone can meet.
I would propose that if an organization wanted to petition the board of aldermen for a variance, and it was granted, that the cost of the granted variance would be 30% of the value of the proposed sidewalk. In the case of the GTPDD it would be $7,500 on a sidewalk valued at $25,000. This money would go into a pool to repair existing sidewalks in the city or to construct new sidewalks in areas that would be more readily accessible. The transportation committee could develop a priority list of needs that these funds would be earmarked for.
In this scenario, the GTPDD saves $17,500, you don’t have sidewalks leading nowhere, and the city has an opportunity to enhance the current infrastructure without using additional city resources. By doing this, the transportation committee could take the existing sidewalks and bike lanes and grow them in a fashion that ties the city together. Attention could be focused on lines of transportation to schools, parks, and health care facilities right away. This money could also be used as matching dollars for grants to stretch those resources even further.
Scott,
The Transportation Committee did look into such options. A “payment in lieu” was in our original draft of the sidewalk ordinance. However, the city attorney (previous) stated that would be considered an impact fee and against the MS Constitution. I wish we could have kept it – I really do. However, it was not an option.
Is it possible to give GTPDD a grace period, say 5 years, before they have to build the sidewalks?