Thursday, March 10, 2005

New column: Ask Clint... What about those Third World streets?

Email your questions to .

Question: Why doesn't someone write re: the Third World horrible streets that exist NW of Maple such as Fairfax, Puritan, etc.?

Dave

Dear Dave,

We've written before about the city's policy on improving so-called "unimproved" streets like these. Having spearheaded an effort to improve Greenwood, and watched many other improvements move through the system, I can speak pretty knowledgeably on the topic.

In a nutshell, however, these streets will stay in the Third World until one of two things happens:

1. A petition drive is successful, which I will explain in a moment, or,
2. The city's policy for making street improvements is changed, which I will also explain.

Let me explain the city's policy, and then tell you what you'll need to do to see an improvement.

The city considers such streets unimproved because they never were really paved properly. For the most part, they started out as gravel, with mimimal structure or drainage, and over the years were repeatedly cape-sealed, which involves putting down tar and laying more gravel on top. A few years ago, even this practice was abandoned, and so now you have some pretty bad streets that are breaking apart at the edges, and have huge crowns in the middle, and awful drainage. In many cases, the crowns are higher than the sidewalks (which normally would be above the level of the street), and in some cases, the crowns are higher than the first floors of new homes, which are being squeezed by height limitations, although that's a whole 'nuther story.

Anyway, the city doesn't want to pay the costs of improvements, and since so many residents have already paid for their streets to be improved, many in city government think it would be unfair to change the practice of making property owners pay. So I guess we may be stuck with that policy.

Where it gets really dumb, aside from the question of who pays, is how the city now insists that streets get improved. Rather than rationally surveying the city to determine which streets need improvement, and then simply mandating the improvements (and assessing residents), the city requires residents to mount petition drives. This requires a great deal of effort, and in at least one case (Harmon), a resident worked for six years to accomplish the goal. Two petitions were thrown out over those years before the latest commission accepted a third petition. In my case, for Greenwood, I was lucky. I managed to get the signatures of 70-some percent of property owners on my short stretch within just a couple of weeks.

Once signatures are collected, they are presented to the city, which holds a public hearing to determine "necessity." Necessity, of course, isn't necessarily defined as whether or not the street needs work. Instead, it tends to be defined by how many residents signed the petition, and whether or not people show up at the hearing to speak in favor or against the improvement. In this town, the squeaky wheel gets the grease, and you can have a majority in favor of something, but fail to show up at the hearing. When the minority shows up and screams against it, down it might go.

Anyway, once "necessity" is determined by the commission, the city figures out exactly how much it's going to cost. The city pays 15%, and property owners pay the rest. Generally, the property owners' share is around $100 per linear foot for curbs, gutters, new sewers and asphalt. Corner lots get a break and, yes, when city property is involved, the city pays 100% for that portion.

Once costs are determined, another public hearing is held to approve the assessment, and then the improvement is scheduled (usually a year or more down the road). At some point, you'll get a bill, and you can either pay it in full, or stretch it out over 10 years at a nominal interest rate. I am told that under certain hardship cases, the state will pay the entire bill, and then put a lien on the property. In extreme cases like that, the lien will be satisfied when the property eventually changes hands.

Once the street is improved, you get leaf pickup, and all further maintenance of the street is up to the city, at no cost to property owners.

There are all sorts of problems that exist with this system. I've pointed out the idea that "necessity" isn't determined by necessity. Another issue is design: how wide the street should be, and what the curb should look like. The city still doesn't have any standards, and so folks on Willits got their concrete rolled curbs dyed gray, and folks on Hazelwood got their curbs cut small and square. Some streets are 30 feet wide, others 26, and still others 20. It's a terrible hodge-podge.

In addition, there has been some angst about sections of streets and neighborhoods being done, rather than the whole street. I petitioned to have Greenwood between Willits and Harmon done, figuring that it would be easier to obtain the necessary signatures. One commissioner voted against the measure because he thought all of Greenwood should be done. My response: You want it done, you go collect the darn signatures!

I think the city ought to change the policy, and either simply declare necessity, without petitions, or help the petition process along by pro-actively seeking input from affected residents. I don't think I would change the method of financing the improvements, however, because it would be very expensive, possibly unfair to those who have already paid, and a very hot political potato.

Anyway, I hope this answers your question. If you want to mount a petition, get in touch with City Engineer Dennis Dembiec at 248-644-1800. But be prepared to have him write the petition to your specifications with regard to desired street width and curb style.

Good luck!