Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutemail with letter Spivey on complete streetsMalone, Walter From: Bozynski, Tony Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 5:15 PM To: Honeywell, Jon; Malone, Walter Subject: FW: Complete Streets Attachments: scanuser23@wlj.com_20141014_153802.pdf Jon and Walter, Just got Bill Spivey's letter about the "Complete Streets" ordinance today. I have not read the entire letter at this time. Can we try to meet after you have had a chance to review the letter? Tony -----Original Message ----- From: Bill Spivey [mailtojspivey@wlj.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 2:46 PM To: Bozynski, Tony Subject: FW: Complete Streets Tony: I've enclosed a letter from me to you on the topic of "Complete Streets". I apologize for dragging this out so long. All I can tell you is that I had to allow others to review my letter and it took me a while to collect their comments. Basically, my points can be boiled down into a couple of thoughts: first, any time you have a comprehensive policy statement such as this, there ought to be consideration given of all of the implications of the policy on any and all other affected areas of concern. I don't mean to suggest that I've identified them all; only that I believe that broader consideration should be given to a number of other ordinances or provisions of the City Code. Second, I don't think that nearly enough consideration has been given to who bears the costs of implementing and accomplishing this set of policies. I'm happy to visit with you, but I don't expect to have anything further to say on this subject. Sincerely, P.S. I mailed the original to you -----Original Message ----- From: scanuser23@wlj.com [mailto:scanuser23@wli.com] On Behalf Of scanuser23@ Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 2:38 PM To: Bill Spivey Subject: Complete Streets Reply to: scanuser232wli.com <scanuser23@wlj.com> Device Name: Not Set Device Model: MX -M904 Location: Not Set File Format: PDF MMR(G4) Resolution: 300dpi x 300dpi Attached file is scanned image in PDF format. Use Acrobat(R)Reader(R) or Adobe(R)Reader(R) of Adobe Systems Incorporated to view the document. Adobe(R)Reader(R) can be downloaded from the following URL: Adobe, the Adobe logo, Acrobat, the Adobe PDF logo, and Reader are registered trademarks or trademarks of Adobe Systems Incorporated in the United States and other countries. http://www.adobe.coml John William Spivey III 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2300 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 October 14, 2014 Mr. Tony Bozynski Director of Neighborhoods & Planning City of Little Rock 723 W. Markham Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 RE: Complete Streets Dear Tony: Allow me to first thank you for your patience as I have endeavored to gather and collect information relevant to the proposed "Complete Streets" ordinances and related changes to the Master Street Plan which are products of the yearlong work of the Complete Streets Task Force. As you know, my first knowledge, and the first knowledge that a number of other stakeholders in our community had of the Task Force's work, came when the proposed ordinances were presented to the Planning Commission for approval last June. My own surprise that the ordinances had been discussed and prepared over the course of the preceding year was genuine. I remain both puzzled and concerned that a major policy initiative such as this could have progressed as it did without the knowledge of a number of important property owners, developers, real estate interests and others in our community. However, it is evident from my study of the ordinances and the contents of the ordinances that the purposes of the "Complete Streets" policies are both well intended and directed toward the goal of insuring that a variety of modes of transportation may be accommodated on the public rights-of-way in the City of Little Rock. As such, it is difficult to find fault with the lofty goals associated with the Complete Streets movement. Nevertheless, after reviewing the various materials you were kind enough to share with me, discussing the proposed policies with property owners, developers, engineers and others, I have concluded that consideration of a broader range of adjustments to existing city ordinances and policies is desirable, if not essential, to the practical implementation of the Complete Streets policies. Before enumerating a number of concerns, I want to state that I had hoped to arrive at a consensus among other interested parties, however, I cannot fairly represent to 1232224•vl October 14, 2014 Page 2 you that these comments are anyone's but my own. I do believe that a number of the concerns I want to share with you are shared by others but it is not appropriate for me to speak on behalf of those who were not involved in the work of the Task Force, Thus, the comments set forth herein are my own as a property owner and as an attorney who from time -to -time represents property owners in the City of Little Rock, and no one else's. Without further delay, please allow me to offer the following points, suggestions and, perhaps, recommendations for your consideration: 1. Master Street Plan Considerations: The principles and precepts upon which the Complete Streets policies are based include a number of important objectives all of which seek to insure equal access to the city street system by all modes of transportation. While these policies are proclaimed in the proposed ordinances as goals and objectives to be achieved, they are largely lacking in any recognition of the practical challenges of achieving these goals. Who will pay for additional right-of-way necessary to comply with the Complete Streets policies? Who will maintain additional street improvements made in the name of accomplishing "Complete Streets" objectives? At present the City does not maintain sidewalks, curbs or gutters located in the public right-of-way and maintains adjacent street lights only under certain circumstances. Is an implicit goal of the Complete Street policies to shift additional financial burdens from the City onto adjacent property owners? Surely a "complete" Complete Streets policy should identify and address these concerns rather than have such responsibilities "evolve" as the City confronts specific situations. 2. Boundary Street Ordinance Considerations. In a similar vein, because the City relies heavily upon the "Boundary Streets" ordinance and its policies to obtain necessary right-of-way and infrastructure improvements in connection with the City's street system, it is again puzzling why there is no mention of the Boundary Streets ordinance anywhere in the proposed Complete Streets ordinances. The articulation of the Complete Streets philosophy fails to address in any practical way the long term implications for the application of the boundary streets policies and the allocation of financial burdens implicit therein. In fact, the fact that the Complete Streets ordinances are silent as to the boundary streets ordinance would strong suggest that an objective of the City is to shift the burden of complying with the Complete Streets policies to adjacent property owners and developers whenever they seek to improve their adjacent properties. In my view it is far better to explicitly identify and articulate these responsibilities in the ordinances themselves and the City's Code than to leave these decisions to the vagaries of the bureaucratic process. 1232224-v 1 October 14, 2014 Page 3 3. Bicycle Plan Amendments. Although I was not involved in the work of the Task Force, it is evident that representatives of the City's bicycle community were actively involved and I applaud their participation. The recognition of and provision for adequate bicycle paths in the future is certainly consistent with the Complete Streets policy. However, here, as in other areas, there is little, if any, recognition of the inherent costs of including such improvements in the City's street infrastructure system. If bike paths benefit the entire city, it would seem to follow that all costs associated with the construction, expansion or maintenance should be borne by the City. Wherever, as contemplated by the City's bike plan and amendments, bike paths are to be separated from the public right-of-way will the City pay for the acquisition of such additional right-of-way, or will this additional cost find its way into the improvements to be provided by a property owner through the rezoning or site plan approval process? I recognize that some effort is made to exempt adjacent property owners from the obligation to construct Class I bike paths, however, more attention should be devoted to clarifying this language so as to prevent the shifting over time of additional financial burdens onto adjacent property owners. As I said at the outset of my letter to you today, these opinions and observations are my own. To the extent I have failed to apprehend or comprehend the language of the proposed ordinances, I can only say that if these concerns were discussed as a part of the Task Force discussions, a more explicit statement of responsibility for bearing the implicit financial burdens of accomplishing the Complete Streets objectives should be made in these ordinances and in other parts of the City's municipal code. I have no doubt that everyone who participated in this process did so in good faith and that many hours were devoted to the development of the content of the proposed ordinances. From my study of these proposals, I have concluded that without a more definitive statement of financial responsibilities, an ever increasing portion of the cost of achieving the Complete Streets policies may be shifted from the public to the private sector through the planning and rezoning processes of the City. This is not a criticism, but an observation. If the citizens of Little Rock agree that these costs should be borne by private property owners in the community, it is only fair that those policies be explicitly set forth as a component of any Complete Streets policies adopted by the City of Little Rock. Thank you for your patience and consideration of these concerns. Cordially, John William Spivey III 1232224•vl