Sidewalks-who needs ‘em?
September 24th, 2007 by 
Alica
Most of the streets in Brandon have sidewalks, except developments created before 1978. The Brandon Park old addition, the Terraces (1st through 7th streets), Old Brandon and the Fleetwood addition don’t have sidewalks, to name a few.
Do you think these areas of town should put in sidewalks? The cost of installation would be assessed back to the homeowners of those streets. People who live on corners would have to pay twice as much as their neighbors.
On the other hand, some of those streets are very close to Brandon Elementary, where kids walk to school. And when they do, they have to walk in the streets.
What are your feelings about sidewalks?
Posted in Uncategorized | 
September 25th, 2007 at 10:53 am
NO, those neighborhoods don’t need sidewalks. And certainly, if the cost will be assed to the owners, who purchased these places WITHOUT sidewalks, then they should the ones to decide, no one else.
September 25th, 2007 at 11:55 am
I think sidewalks are a good idea for every neighborhood. I certainly understand the cost factor, however, but do believe the cost could be assessed to the homeowner over a number of years.
September 25th, 2007 at 12:16 pm
I live on E Redwood Blvd and we desperately need sidewalks. Cars fly down that street so fast that it is dangerous to have kids walking on the street to get to one place or another. Yes they could walk on driveways or cross lawns but not if you have an unstable neighbor that calls the police if you walk on her property and throws things at neighborhood kids!
September 25th, 2007 at 1:09 pm
I live in a part of town that does not have sidewalks. People just walk on the side of the street — Aspen Blvd is a perfect example, the city — instead of putting in sidewalks, painted a line on the street, to designate the area a walking path. Some of the sidewalks in town are 2 feet wide, doesn’t do any good - can’t walk 2 people abreast on them. The narrow sidewalks are a waste of money. When I walk in the areas with the sidewalk, we still walk in the street because of the lack of room on the sidewalk.
September 25th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
I live in Richland Park. There are sidewalks there, but as you say, anonymous, they are narrow. My husband and I can walk side by side, but not if a tree or bush or mailbox is in the way. It would be nice if they were a little wider.
Would I be willing to pay to have that done on my street? I’m not sure. Depends on how much it would cost, and how long the payments were spread out.
September 25th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
I’d like to know an approximate cost - by foot of sidewalk, etc. That certainly has a major bearing on how loud the arguements get. I suspect most (but not all) people would like them if they were free.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:43 pm
The cost would depend on how wide the city would require. The approximate cost would be around $3.50 to $4.00 per square foot of sidewalk. This would amount to $17.50 to $20.00 for a regular 5′ wide sidewalk.
September 25th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
I’m sorry that would be $17.50 to $20.00 per lineal foot for sidewalk.
September 25th, 2007 at 6:56 pm
I agree with Wes. If the home was purchased without them they should be left alone. Add a lane like on Aspen. Brandon is a small enough town that it can survive without them on those streets. But I do think that there should be a lane on those streets without sidewalks, the streets are wide enough for it.
September 25th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Something else that needs to be addressed, the older parts of town with out sidewalks still have overhead power lines. It makes more sense to bury the power lines before you start talking about installing sidewalks.
September 26th, 2007 at 2:40 am
I don’t see the relationship between sidewalks and powerlines. Are your children climibing on the power lines?
The expense difference alone is magnitudes greater to bury power lines.
September 28th, 2007 at 5:33 am
I know some people who have lived on some corner lots in the Terraces for 30+ years. They are elderly and retired and forcing them to put sidewalks on their property and pay for them could be a hardship for them based on their retirement income.
September 28th, 2007 at 6:52 am
If the city wants them they should pay for them. Don’t they install them in the city right of way anyway? People bought these homes without them. Brandon sounds more and more like Canton everyday. They just had this battle too.
September 28th, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Sidewalks? Forget it. Let kids play in the streets. Let people walk in the streets. If a person gets hit by a car, too bad. That’s Darwin at work.
I refuse to be out $20 PER FOOT! just so someone can avoid getting hit by a car.
People who bought these homes are so tight for cash, they don’t need the additional expense of a sidewalk just for some foolish safety reason.
The reality is, that like a lot of other commenters, I don’t care about other people when its going to cost me any money,
September 29th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
I’m afraid money is always a factor. $20 a foot makes the total bill over $1000 - possibly a lot over. Painting a line will restrict parking on one side of the street - that may be an issue also. It works well for Aspen, but most of those houses have driveways that lead to other streets.
I’d pay for my sidewalk, but I have other things I’d rather spend the money on - like a snowblower to keep the sidewalk clear in winter. I can’t see making people pay for a sidewalk they don’t need or want. Maybe the town could make the process more palatable by providing financing or town employees to do the work. Maybe the sidewalks can be required when the house is sold.
Difficult choices. I think the final choice should be up to the person that has to foot the bill, not the town where a lot of the people already have sidewalks and would not have to pay anything.
October 1st, 2007 at 10:31 am
Would they be put right next to the curb? Not with the mailboxes there. There would have to be a boulevard between the street and the sidewalk to accommodate the mailboxes and snow removal. Many of the houses in those areas were built without sidewalks in the plan and the houses are situated on their lots with minimal side or front yards. If a sidewalk is put in, with the boulevard, the sidewalks would be within a few feet of people’s houses. Also, there is a lot of landscaping that has been done in the areas that sidewalks would have to be placed. These homeowner bought their homes without the sidewalk and have landscaped accordingly.
October 9th, 2007 at 7:31 am
I’m guessing that everyone who complains about not wanting to pay for sidewalks still wants their property values to increase. It seems unrealistic to think that your property would be the investment that you expect without occasionally (say every 30 years?!) putting in a little money. I do think that the cost will be prohibitive for some people and I think the city could create a grant program that could be applied for that could offset the cost. Perhaps some local businesses could invest in that program so that the cost wouldn’t rely totally on the city. I think it should be a partnership between the city and the homeowners but I do think it needs to be done. It’s safer and since the primary area in need is by all of the schools it only makes sense. But there is a way to do it where everyone benefits. As long as homeowners understand that it improves their investment too - it’s not just a cost.
October 18th, 2007 at 3:59 pm
you know this would be hard decision for me. I guess I don’t know the length of my front yard off the top of my head but at $20 a l. foot. I can’t afford that right now. but I would rather my kids have a sidewalk to ride their bikes on. Now at the same time I have to think about the 60 year old that lives next door to me, on a corner lot, a large corner lot. so if they could afford it, whos gunna clean it off for her come winter.
heck who’s gunna clean mine? LOL! I think it would have to be really thought about.
October 21st, 2007 at 7:42 am
I agree with #16, as I live in an older part of town where the houses are much closer to the street than areas that included sidewalks in the initial planning and development. There are MANY obstacles that would require attention before sidewalks would even be feasible. There are the fire hydrants, street light posts, many large old trees that would all be in the way for the sidewalk. I’m guessing it would be very expensive for these things to be moved so that they do not interfere with a sidewalk. Also, I notice that there are houses that do not have paved driveways down the street from me, how would this affect a sidewalk being put in through there? (I’m not sure that is a major issue, just curious about that also) #18 also has a valid point…who is going to be there to help the elderly people that live in these areas keep their sidewalk clean in the winter if installed? Some may have family/friends in town too but I’d guess that there are also some who do not have that luxury. Just some thoughts…
November 1st, 2007 at 12:43 pm
The big trees that is a good point. If I have to pay for the side walk, im ok with that, but what is the cost to have a huge tree or trees removed to have the sidewalk put in. This could be a very expensive improvement. are we thinking about all the things that may have to be changed to put the sidewalk in?