Local dentist fights TMAPC sidewalk enforcement

[PonderInc]

The "sidewalk to nowhere" argument really chaps my a**.  Worse is when somebody decides to update the landscaping in their yard, tear out EXISTING sidewalks, and then PLANT TREES where the sidewalk used to be.  (I've seen this more than a few times in Maple Ridge...a neighborhood old enough to have existing sidewalks.)  First one person does it, then another...and pretty soon..."Well, I shouldn't have to build a sidewalk to nowhere..."

Speaking of sidewalks and the Utica development... Just the other day, I was driving on Utica just south of 22nd Place.  A little old lady was walking south on Utica ON THE STREET, carrying her shopping bags.  She was obviously not comfortable with the "eco-challenge" pedestrian option of "off-roading" it in the grass.  She needed some smooth pavement...and the only place she could find it was in the street.  Seeing this made me feel ashamed for our city.  But proud that the TMAPC has started standing their ground on the issue.

I am continually amazed that, after all these years, Utica and other major arterial streets don't have sidewalks.  It's ridiculous that people have to risk their lives just to walk someplace nearby. ...or stumble over dirt and grass (in lieu of sidewalks).

[TUalum0982]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

The "sidewalk to nowhere" argument really chaps my a**.  Worse is when somebody decides to update the landscaping in their yard, tear out EXISTING sidewalks, and then PLANT TREES where the sidewalk used to be.  (I've seen this more than a few times in Maple Ridge...a neighborhood old enough to have existing sidewalks.)  First one person does it, then another...and pretty soon..."Well, I shouldn't have to build a sidewalk to nowhere..."

Speaking of sidewalks and the Utica development... Just the other day, I was driving on Utica just south of 22nd Place.  A little old lady was walking south on Utica ON THE STREET, carrying her shopping bags.  She was obviously not comfortable with the "eco-challenge" pedestrian option of "off-roading" it in the grass.  She needed some smooth pavement...and the only place she could find it was in the street.  Seeing this made me feel ashamed for our city.  But proud that the TMAPC has started standing their ground on the issue.

I am continually amazed that, after all these years, Utica and other major arterial streets don't have sidewalks.  It's ridiculous that people have to risk their lives just to walk someplace nearby. ...or stumble over dirt and grass (in lieu of sidewalks).

your example is totally different then the dentists situation.  Its one thing to rip out existing sidewalk to plant trees, its another to have a 1 mile stretch of road without a sidewalk and try to force an establishment to waste money on a sidewalk that leads to nothing. Have you driven by there lately? there is a good 40-60ft of dense trees, and creekbed.  So lets say she does go ahead and get the sidewalk put in...whats next? wait 3-8 more years for them to widen 81st between sheridan and memorial and more then likely tear up the existing sidewalk to widen the street?  This has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever heard of in Tulsa.  If the forest of trees didnt exist, then I can maybe understand why they would force her to have it.  

The person above is right, it has to start somewhere, but why not just wait till start to widen 81st and then incorporate sidewalks on both sides between sheridan and memorial.  That would be more logical IMO.

[Kenosha]

The ordinance states that sidewalks are required.  What makes this person so special that it doesn't apply to her?

She's in the medical profession, and she doesn't understand the value of a sidewalk?  I have no sympathy for her.

The sidewalk will, one day, connect to something.  Put some braces on a kid, fork over the 1700 bones, and build the sidewalk.  It is asinine, and any argument against it is also asinine.

[RecycleMichael]

Channel eight takes the side of the dentist...

http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/1007/468445.html

City Requires Dentist To Build 'Sidewalk To Nowhere'  

Wed October 31, 2007

A little-known law is forcing a Tulsa business owner to build a sidewalk to nowhere.  
         

Dr. Kathryn Beller is a local dentist who is opening a new clinic on 81st Street. The 81-foot long sidewalk would be built in front of Dr. Beller's new office. The City says the whole purpose of the law is to make the city more walkable. The only problem is, if you walk one direction, you head into a creek bed. Go the other way, you end up nowhere. If you take a walk down 81st Street, you won't find a sidewalk on either side of the road. But, that hasn't stopped the city from requiring Beller to build one. But she refused. The sidewalk would end up near a creek bed -- a hazard for pedestrians, a liability for her. The other direction's not much better.

"You walk your 81 feet."
"What happens when you get up there?"
"You turn around and come back."

The law designed to make Tulsa more walkable won't get you very far. "The city just started enforcing the law and only new businesses have to comply," Beller says.

Dwain Midget is the Mayor's representative on the Tulsa Planning Board. He admits the City has been lax in the past, but now is serious about making Tulsa walkable. "We have to start somewhere and sidewalks connect with each other," he says. But, City Councilor Bill Christensen says while he's all for sidewalks, this one is a dead end. "There are exceptions to every rule," he says. "And this is a good example of it with a sidewalk to nowhere."

Dr. Beller says it's not about money. But, if she has to pay, so should everyone else. "I don't think it's just about a sidewalk," she says. "It's about what city government is doing." When Dr. Beller refused to build the sidewalk, the City offered to let her pay 28-hundred dollars into a 'sidewalk fund' for future sidewalk improvements. But, we found out the sidewalk fund doesn't exist. In fact, Councilor Christiansen says it's not even allowed unless it is voted on by city councilors.

And, even if Dr. Beller builds the sidewalk, it could soon be ripped by the City. 81st Street could be widened as part of a future bond issue. Then, Beller's sidewalk would be ripped out and new sidewalks built along the entire street.

The most laughable part of the story is when the dentist says, "It's not about the money."

Whenever someone says that...it is about the money. She built a new office on 81st street...probably cost her hundreds of thousands for the land and who knows how much for the building. She doesn't want to pay $1,700 for a sidewalk?

[rwarn17588]

Whatta jerk. Pony up the dough so that someone can actually *walk* next to our streets, you cheapskate.

[PonderInc]

Every developed area in Tulsa was, at one time, wilderness: grassland, forests, creeks.

Imagine going back in time and hearing an argument against building sidewalks on Brookside, because "the sidewalk would dead end at Crow Creek!"

[YoungTulsan]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by jackbristow

quote:Originally posted by tulsa1603

Originally posted by brunoflipper

this is bull****, sidewalks to nowhere eventually get connected to somewhere... but you have to put them in up front or they'll never exist...
she sounds wacked. tell her to do another crown and shut the hell up.


She sounds like a real hag.  Just build the stupid thing, it's not like $1700 is a big amount in the context of building a commerical building!

You guys are real good about spouting off about things you obviously know nothing about.  The article itself plainly states that the sidewalk doesn't make sense in this location.

Here's a look at it from Google maps:
Edit: I can't get all the link to be underlined for the complete link, so you'll have to copy and paste...
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&time=&date=&ttype=&q=7711+E.+81st+St+Tulsa,+OK,+United+States+of+America&sll=36.046206,-95.901278&sspn=0.002073,0.003616&ie=UTF8&ll=36.046228,-95.890989&spn=0.004147,0.007231&t=k&z=17&om=1

See for yourself and tell me why a sidewalk is needed in front of her building...unless they are putting in sidewals all the way down the street and connecting into the neighborhood the building is next to, it is pointless.

You seem awfully well knowledge about who knows what. You can almost see my house in that picture. If the city plans sidewalks in that area and the regulations are for sidewalks in that area, you build one. It seemed to state pretty clearly that they are planning on widening 81st and adding sidewalks and that is why it is required. It doesn't matter what the neighbors are doing or have done in the past.

While I agree with the notion of her needing to build the sidewalk to be in compliance...  I would actually be more hesitant to put a sidewalk in if 81st is about to be widened.  They would probably just tear it out during construction for utilities or some other thing that no one properly planned out to begin with.  I see it almost every time there is construction, they go and tear out perfectly good and new things because there is no master plan or coordination to construction.

[RecycleMichael]

Who said that the road in fron of her business is about to be widened?

I don't know of any identified funding for that.

I think that was just the dentist saying that as another excuse to not build a sidewalk.

[ARGUS]

Here's a thought: How about decent city wide comprehensive sidewalk MASTER PLANS and DETAILS. There are so so many stupid STUPID sidewalks in this fine city that it makes me wanna PUKE! But in order to do that we would need DECENT educated code enforcement officers. TULSA SIDEWALKS kinda SUCK. Glad I am not in a wheelchair or blind!
Tulsa really needs a curb and sidewalk and pedistrian ramp detail makeover!!!!!!!!
Tulsa please enforce building codes...please.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Who said that the road in fron of her business is about to be widened?

I don't know of any identified funding for that.

I think that was just the dentist saying that as another excuse to not build a sidewalk.

It is not planned or funded by identified by TMAPC as an eventuality to which she could funds into an account for, in leiu of building now.

[TheArtist]

If the city tears up the sidewalk, wont they have to pay to have it replaced? If so, then the fact that it will be torn up at some unknown time in the future is irrelivant imo.

If they are going to start enforcing the law they need to do it in such a way that everyone who builds is not going to come at the city with excuses as to why they shouldnt have to build theirs. But this hassle is the perfect example of what happens when you have been lax about enforcing laws that are on the books, then suddenly decide to start again.

[sgrizzle]

The city tore up streets, curbs and sidewalks in my neighborhood replacing some underground water lines. They replaced everything but the curbs, they just mushed little piles of asphalt in the gap.

[TUalum0982]

quote:Originally posted by PonderInc

Every developed area in Tulsa was, at one time, wilderness: grassland, forests, creeks.

Imagine going back in time and hearing an argument against building sidewalks on Brookside, because "the sidewalk would dead end at Crow Creek!"

maybe you havent been by the area in awhile but I completely agree with the dentist.  To the east of her establishment is a good 100yds of dense trees, creek, etc.  To the west is nothing but grass in front of a church and condos.  This sidewalk would benefit who? ABSOLUTELY NO ONE!  

If I wanted to walk from 81st and sheridan east to memorial I would walk on 99.8% grass and .2% sidewalk, that is absurd. And take a huge chance of getting hit by a car since people on 81st in that area drive like maniacs in and out of the neighborhoods.  Totally pointless and waste of money IMO.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by TUalum0982


maybe you havent been by the area in awhile but I completely agree with the dentist.  To the east of her establishment is a good 100yds of dense trees, creek, etc.  To the west is nothing but grass in front of a church and condos.  This sidewalk would benefit who? ABSOLUTELY NO ONE!  

If I wanted to walk from 81st and sheridan east to memorial I would walk on 99.8% grass and .2% sidewalk, that is absurd. And take a huge chance of getting hit by a car since people on 81st in that area drive like maniacs in and out of the neighborhoods.  Totally pointless and waste of money IMO.

Funny thing about areas with 100% sidewalks, they started with 2%.

[TUalum0982]

quote:Originally posted by sgrizzle

quote:Originally posted by TUalum0982


maybe you havent been by the area in awhile but I completely agree with the dentist.  To the east of her establishment is a good 100yds of dense trees, creek, etc.  To the west is nothing but grass in front of a church and condos.  This sidewalk would benefit who? ABSOLUTELY NO ONE!  

If I wanted to walk from 81st and sheridan east to memorial I would walk on 99.8% grass and .2% sidewalk, that is absurd. And take a huge chance of getting hit by a car since people on 81st in that area drive like maniacs in and out of the neighborhoods.  Totally pointless and waste of money IMO.

Funny thing about areas with 100% sidewalks, they started with 2%.

funny thing about a sidewalk that leads to over 100yds of dense trees.  I can assure you that the above sidewalks you are referring to did not have a football field worth of trees and a 2 lane road which is dangerous to walk on in the first place.