HomeMy WebLinkAboutletter from Spivey to Bozynski on amendmentsJohn 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.
?Towever, it is evident from my st,udy of the ordinances ar,d 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-v1
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
ohf---ai 1 iIi_'.i;e3S ?�r r�gl'�t '�f ixti zy un? i -i rFi uC �:: 1T pro a'';'Ci`i ,.ata ice; c"onaloctioii file
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-v1
October 14, 2014
Page 3
3. Sigycle 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 t1he pul-dic right. �w P t' r for e a is + of
- , -o... a, -ai , ,F�e .it, pa:- tb.._ cza,. iio�.
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
TAT"':";':ate o L r th � rl A riles 'n`" -.-.,d n* ., n { (�H" X y 7, v. ,
"- _ i.. S i,I,f� 3`G'?d; L ;1 1: Tln� u1"r:'ZO..ii=i , •i��.E?c>u-Ua :? �,1':.G .�ti,� .�it.:�� : l� .x
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,
z
John William Spivey III
1232224-v 1