This is a huge issue in Duluth right now. Glad to see it get some press.

The street I live on is going through a similar situation. The state and city have decided to re-do the street, and held a couple of meetings to 'decide' what to do. Their plan is to widen the road, add boulevards, a sidewalk, and a bike path to Anderson Road.

It would be one thing if they merely wanted to take away parts of people's yards (current easement space, to be fair - but still, a 15-foot strip that has been part of each yard since the houses were built). The delightful thing is the city would like to charge us all $50-60 a foot for the privilege. 

Only 6 years ago, the same street saw a sewer upgrade that put each resident on the hook for several thousand dollars for the sewer line plus $8,000 for a 'grinder pump.' A competent municipality would have put in a lift station, not required urban dwellings to install grinder pumps. Anyway, we're all still paying for that.

After 3 or 4 meetings, in which very many residents voiced concern over the plans repeatedly, the city decided to go through with its original plan, as if nothing had ever happened.

One helpful resident organized a petition and researched the situation. According to the findings he circulated, there was a court case in southern Minnesota a while back where it was determined that a government cannot charge a fee for improvements in excess of the increase of value it brings to the property. Is a sidewalk and bike path in front of my house, which decreases the size of my yard by 10+ feet and increases the traffic level, already very high, in front of my house really going to increase the property value? Possibly the opposite. People already exceed the speed limit constantly. It's a long straight residential street used as a thoroughfare. The last thing we need is more traffic.

To sum up this lengthy post, the city has completely ignored the wishes of the citizens. More than one city worker who showed up at the meetings made me feel like I was not important. The improvements they are doing are not even practical for our street, which is unlikely to have significant pedestrian or bike traffic. We're all giving up our yards, which is much more significant for some houses than others - one woman is going to be like 15 feet from the street.  And, the worst is that they want us all to pay another $5-20 thousand in assessments for this.

I wish the cost of street upgrades were shared by the whole city instead of the property owners unfortunate enough to live on that particular street. The whole point of these kinds of upgrades is to benefit everyone who drives, rides and walks around the city.

I would LOVE a sidewalk on my street but was told it would never happen - Arlington Avenue could be a good place to walk and easily get places, but when even police drive around on the shoulder, I'm not risking life and limb to do so.

"Mainly, the issue is the city is entirely ignoring the desires of the people who live in it."  

Just because a desire isn't satisfied doesn't mean it was ignored.  Lots of people expressed many opinions on this and a decision had to be made.

I would like to offer the following analogy and other random thoughts: I don't like the streetlights on my street, and I hate having to pay the "streetlight fee" the city has imposed. Does that mean I can complain that the city isn't listening to me if they won't turn off the streetlight in front of my house and stop charging me the fee?

Also, saying "we don't need sidewalks because nobody walks on our road" is an anecdotal argument that carries no weight.

Additionally most people have no idea where the road right-of-ways are, and where their property actually starts. Their lack of foresight to learn that, and failure to understand the consequences of that before buying a property are not valid arguments against the sidewalks either.

Then, is it not also possible that when all the 80-year-old NIFYs move out, a family with children who may want to walk to school, or a store, will move in and actually appreciate the sidewalks?

Remove those arguments and you have people that don't want to pay for something they "won't use." I agree that special assessments suck. I agree with Beverly that all city taxpayers should share that burden. 

So my question is, if the special assessments were removed from the immediate property owners, would there be as much opposition to the sidewalks?

If complete streets is about creating a safe network for all modes of transport, my thought is that an effective network of transportation shouldn't have a patchwork of different set-ups...it's like the old The Far Side comic where the Great Wall of China meets up with a smaller wall that doesn't line up at all, what's the point of sidewalks/bike lanes if they stop and start on different blocks?

Here are two great resources for those who want to know more about the Complete Street concept:
http://www.completestreets.org/
http://www.mncompletestreets.org/

I am sorry, but as someone who walks whenever at all possible (we are a one-car family, and I use walking errands as a way to get errands and huskie-dog walking chores done at once), more sidewalks are always an important improvement. And I totally agree that sidewalks right up against the street are evil suburban-style things that should be blown up and spit upon. *ptoo ptoo*

And though I grumble about street assessments, I accept my lot as a homeowner with streets *three sides, yes three. Our little dead-end street was paved against my will some years ago, and we got a sidewalk that dead ends at our house. Not sure why only our house got a sidewalk, but there you go. Also, Oxford Street is about to be fixed up and we'll be assessed on top of our previous assessment. Yippee. But I console myself by knowing that paving Oxford will mean that all the landscaper trailers that bang their way past our house will be less bangy when the road is all smooth-like. 

I do wish a street could vote to either opt out of street lights or get dark skies friendly lights.

Building off what someone said above, a sidewalk is a transportation system.  It's not there to walk back and forth in front of your house, or up and down a single block--it's there to get across the city.  As such, it's stupid to have sidewalks that aren't part of a contiguous, logical system.  Bike space on the streets is similar.  If we maintain a hostile streetscape for bikes, most people will refrain from biking.  

If we actually stick our necks out and make some investments in changing that, they just might pay off.  Witness the Lakewalk extension--an investment that has seen a lot of use.  A counterpoint would be Woodland Avenue, the major corridor in a part of town primed to generate heavy bike traffic--there, despite mouthing the words "complete streets," when push came to shove the powers that be ignored that.

Not accepting and instigating a Complete Streets policy would be a dinosaur move on the part of Duluth's city commission.

Well, based on my experience, the sod the city buys must be dirt cheap, since it's full of thistles and pigweed, and ends up dying off completely (the grass part anyway) within a year. We've had to kill the whole lot with black plastic and start over.

I don't use the street in front of my house so why do I have to pay for it?

"In fact, I don't think they're corrupt. If they were corrupt, you could have just bribed them to get your way. Since you didn't get your way they sound honest enough to me."

That's pretty clueless. What makes you think I have as much money as the contractors who run the town? Or am willing to engage in illegal infuence? Does this even pass for logic?

So, I love how my words are being attacked, and even myself personally - it seems like half the commenters referring to my posts barely even read what I said, much less attempted to understand the spirit behind my thoughts.

Much like this pathetic, dying city in the Arctic, this blog is utterly useless.

Super Matilda...

Just because you don't feel something is necessary does not mean it is not necessary. 

And if you are going to throw a blanket statement that all politicians are corrupt, arrogant, incompetent bureaucrats; then we are simply going to ignore your views on political issues because your mind is already made up and there is no point in discussing it with you.

Bon voyage, super matilda--you'll be missed.

I tend to think that physical separation of a bike lane from traffic can be as much of a liability as an asset, at least the ways I've seen it implemented in a situation like Glenwood.  Look at the Lakewalk in Lakeside.  I love it, but when I'm riding by myself rather than with the kids, I'm always torn about whether it's safer to ride in traffic or to have to sort out a series of bike path/side street intersections where the right-of-way is not entirely clear.