Paying to Improve Streets

[patric]

When you consider that between 2003 and 2006 the cost to light our streets doubled, we might learn something from this experience:


A proposal would let residents pay for new lighting in their neighborhoods.
By Steve Brandt, Star Tribune

The brightness tells Inez Melton when she's back in her neighborhood at night. It comes from the six low-level ornamental lights on each block. • "It's so much nicer than driving in a dark, dark neighborhood," she said.

Melton, 81, was a star performer in the petition drive to put ornamental lighting around the Field and Regina neighborhoods.

"I don't know how many pairs of shoes I wore out," recalled Melton.

Now a city staff proposal would extend ornamental lighting citywide on residential streets over a 30-year period -- for a price.

A fee estimated at $9.50 to $13.50 per month per property owner would pay for installation of the lights and their maintenance.

Although a fee would replace what has been a sometimes cumbersome and divisive process of petitioning for lights, some think it's a luxury that residents aren't ready to pay for.

Sandra Colvin Roy, who chairs the council committee dealing with public works, is one of them. She'd rather see the city invest in its flagging basic street maintenance program.

"People could live in Minneapolis for 29 years and pay this fee and not get lights on their block," Roy said.

She noted that the city has streamlined the process by which neighborhoods can petition for lights, although they must still secure signatures of approval from 65 percent of residential property owners. Some neighborhood disagreements over light assessments played out in front of Colvin Roy's committee, or in court.

In Lyndale neighborhood, for example, a lengthy petition drive that stretched over several years foundered because "half of our folks who signed a petition moved," said former neighborhood staffer Linda Alton.

Now the city requires that petitions state more clearly the cost of the lights, which can be assessed over 20 years, and that petition drives be completed in a year.

But that streamlined process has been on hold because the council imposed a moratorium on adding lights pending a review of city policies. Council President Barb Johnson said she was concerned that the city's neediest neighborhoods couldn't afford the roughly $2,000 assessed against a typical residential lot.

Now there's a broad set of staff recommendations covering lighting across the city, including downtown and neighborhood commercial streets. The recommendations not only cover costs but also lighting styles.

For example, Minneapolis now uses acorn or lantern-style fixtures mounted at 12 or 15 feet that draw a lot of criticism for spreading light inefficiently.

"Police going by can't see what's going on in the yards or even the doorsteps," Colvin Roy said.
(What, glare from acorn lights??!!  --ed)

The staff proposal would raise residential lighting to 15 or 20 feet, with more of the light directed downward.

The push for ornamental lighting in Minneapolis dates to the 1990s, when Neighborhood Revitalization Program money typically subsidized a quarter of the cost.

St. Paul has traditionally used ornamental lighting on major streets, and has them on about 60 percent of residential streets. It assesses owners for them when streets are redone and expects to finish residential installation around 2018.

Some already paying for lights are upset that they might have to pay a fee to install lights elsewhere once their assessments are paid off.

"It's horrible, really unfair," said Donna Hoiosen, who walked petitions with Melton. "We've already paid for our lights and we're not going to pay for someone else's."

Like Hoiosen, Karen Forbes is one of the few residents who have shown up at a round of community meetings to discuss the lighting proposal. She's long desired them on her block of Columbus Avenue since a nearby Central neighborhood area successfully petitioned for them in 1997.

Forbes sees them as a deterrent against prostitution and the crack house across the street. "I think it would make a lot of difference," she said.

Still, it's a tradeoff of cost and benefit for her. "There's a part of me that says fine, put the lights up," she said of the proposed fee. "But that's kind of a large chunk of change."

Steve Brandt • 612-673-4438
Steve Brandt • sbrandt@startribune.com
http://www.startribune.com/462/story/1448568.html