Transit Updates for Greater Grand Rapids

[Gorath]

Mlive: 2 possible streetcar routes in Grand Rapids: Which is best?

 

[Jippy]

Mlive: 2 possible streetcar routes in Grand Rapids: Which is best?

 

My long desire has been for a streetcar route that roughly follows 2, hangs west on Wealthy (with a reconstructed bridge over/under 131), crosses the Grand River on a bridge adjacent the RR bridge, heads north next to GVSU, veers west (maybe at Bridge) to connect to Seward and heads north on Seward, and then goes back east at Leonard.  Choice 2 would facilitate this eventual build-out.

[GR8scott]

It does seem rather expensive upfront but I look at it as planning ahead, and maybe someday it could turn into something like Denver, Salt Lake or San Diego's light rail where its on the streets in the downtown area and has dedicated tracks outside. This would be the "hard part" on the front end and better to do something like this now before theres even more investment and build up downtown when its more expensive and hassle to implement. 

[GRDadof3]

Mlive: 2 possible streetcar routes in Grand Rapids: Which is best?

 

 

 

Route 2, and have it go on Louis (with traffic closed to service drives like I suggested in the Louis/Monroe hotel thread) and then on Ionia. Commerce for all intents and purposes is built out. Ionia is not. Much more development opportunity on Ionia.

 

ala Portland streetcar as it runs though the PSU campus:

 

 

[joeDowntown]

I hope they focus on the 2nd route. Personally I think it makes the most sense, hits several pockets of density and has land available for the development envisioned. And Ionia is the picture perfect street for a street car.

 

Joe

[GRDadof3]

If I had to use a barometer for how this whole Streetcar process will go down, I'd point to the Cincinnatti streetcar. Proposed in 2007 and now under construction, it went through quite a few battles to finally get built.

 

Their line will be about 3.9 miles so probably divide this in half, but an economic study they conducted concluded:

 

According to the study the city would gain between 1,200 and 3,400 additional residences, raise an additional $34,000,000 in property taxes, and yield $17,000,000 in retail activity per year from new residents.^[7] Within a quarter mile of the line there are 97 acres (39 ha) of surface parking lots along the downtown and Over-the-Rhine line.^[7] The potential yield of the parking lots for redevelopment is 3,787 housing units or 7,412,900 sq ft (688,680 m²) of commercial/office/hotel space.^[7] The study says lots would create between $54 million and $193 million additional redevelopment per year, with a conservative estimate of $112 million per year.^[7] A total property value premium of $379,000,000 plus $1,480,000,000 of redevelopment over 10 years (conservative estimate) would equal a total of $1,911,000,000 of benefits for the city.^[7] The study concludes that the benefit-cost ratio of the downtown and Over-the-Rhine line would be 15.2 to 1, which means for every dollar Cincinnati spends it will receive $15.20 in return.^[7] The University of Cincinnati "checked the math" of the study and found that the "projections of the benefits of ridership and economic development" are "credible."^[11]

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cincinnati_Streetcar

 

The first leg funding is paid for by:

 

The money to fund the $102 million Downtown/Over-the-Rhine line would be attained from a variety of sources.^[1] Of those, $25 million would come from capital bonds; $25 million from tax increment financing from downtown property taxes; $31 million from private contributors, partners and sponsors; $11 million from proceeds from the sale of the Blue Ash Airport; and $10 million from state grants.^[1]

 

Interestingly, many of the Republican who were strongly against the streetcar have switched their opinions now that they see it under construction, and they even touted the streetcar in their bid to get the next GOP convention:

 

http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/blog/2014/02/in-bid-for-gop-convention-cincinnati.html

 

Major infrastructure projects excite people, and get investors to pull out their checkbooks. Running more DASH type buses do not.

 

I'm all for the streetcar (excited about it actually), as long as they don't tap into a property tax millage on city residents.

 

BTW, Cinci Streetcar facebook page with photo updates on construction progress:

 

https://www.facebook.com/cincystreetcar

 

This one is one of my favorites. Maybe it would be cool to run it down Commerce closer to Division. Although this picture could easily be replaced with one on Ionia.

 

[jonathan.jam]

I agree with the general consensus that Route 2 would be better as a starter line.

 

Now, for something somewhat outlandish, how about something like this for GR: http://www.monometro.com/ ? I'll admit, I haven't actually researched it very much, and I don't think it would end up being a good fit for the city....but it is kind of interesting. Here's a link on a memorandum about it. Apparently it costs only 60% of a typical tram (LRT) line...

[metrogrkid]

Mlive: 2 possible streetcar routes in Grand Rapids: Which is best?

 

 

In regard to the streetrail (SRT) alignment options presented by ITP at this time, the overall solution for the greater Downtown has inadvertantly been dropped right in front of us - albeit in two phases. 

 

PHASE ONE:  Engage Option 2 / it combines extending the walk radius of all the new residents in Monroe Center and those coming to Arena South and Southgate (especially around Downtown Market) while still providing the development instigation benefits for its stations that will anchor the powerful development footprints of Monroe North that were targeted by the original 2008 Great Transit-Grand Tomorrows (GT2) streetrail study.

 

PHASE TWO:  Engage an amalgam of Option 3 and the Market Avenue component of Option 1 / such a scenario both links Central Downtown to Westbank City (bounded by Bridge Street NW, Seward Avenue NW, West Fulton, Grand River) while it links GVSU-Pew Campus to system and provides development instigation benefits for the SRT stations that will anchor Westbank City's POWERFUL clean slate development opportunities at the Dash West lots and the Downtown YMCA lot (enacted with underground replacement parking ala Arena South or development-wrapped parking structures if westbank flooding history is technologically insurmountable), for the Bridge Street corridor between Bridgewater Place and Seward and along the critical riverfront between Fulton and Wealthy.

 

Mayor Logie is right to be slightly hopeful about this being the time to act . . . .

Edited March 7, 2014 by metrogrkid

[wingbert]

Bus, train or trolley, this isn't bad news from nbcnews.com.

 

Americans Riding Public Transit in Record Numbers

[x99]

In all of the discussion about other topics, I don't think I've seen a lot of discussion regarding the proposed income tax extension to keep the streets in decent repair. 

 

This has to be one of the most poorly marketed and defined local government initiatives anyone has ever come up with.  They littered the ballot proposal and salesmanship with greenie psychobabble, which virtually ensured a groundswell of opposition.  Instead of calling it a simple "street maintenance program" they tried to market it as some "vital streets" nonsense.  What does that mean?  A vital street is apparently "accessible, attractive, environmentally responsible and safe; serving all people of our community.”  Well.  Isn't that nice.

 

The sad thing is, I don't think this thing was really intended to be all that much other than a giant road maintenance fund.  The "task force" report is at http://grcity.us/enterprise-services/officeofenergyandsustainability/Sustainable%20Streets/2-12-13%20SSTF%20Presentation%20-%20FINAL.pdf?Mobile=1&Source=/enterprise-services/officeofenergyandsustainability/_layouts/mobile/view.aspx?List%3D6da275d5-ef5f-4122-a12c-8943ba8b7c2b%26View%3D37eb4509-9c0b-418b-beb8-2316858a3896%26CurrentPage%3D1 and from this it seems fairly clear that putting in more bike lanes and flower planters is a fairly minor part of the plan.  Possibly.  The problem is, I'm not sure.  Nor is anyone else.  And there is no way I will vote for something that promises more ridiculous bike lanes and "road diets" at the expense of repaving and fixing where my car goes.

 

Nowhere is it clearly stated how the money will be actually be spent, and nowhere are "Vital Streets" defined better than mish mash that only a bureaucrat could love.  The most frightening tidbit is in the February 11, "Vital Streets and Investment Guidelines" report the City cranked out: "Vital Streets will be the default design approach for street, sidewalk and right-of-way repair, improvement and reconstruction and shall be used unless clear engineering difficulties prevent its use."  Say what?  Oh, wait.  They try to make it more clear:  "Vital Streets and rights-of-way are accessible, attractive, environmentally responsible and safe;serving all people of our community. Vital Streets embrace the entire right-of-way through design that provides safe access for all users, manages stormwater in place through low impact development practices, enhances urban tree canopy and quality of life in neighborhoods and economic vitality in business districts."

 

No wonder the opposition is out in full force.  All anyone in this town wants right now is blacktop and concrete.  For the first few years, at least, it's likely that's most of what would be seen as the task force called for substantial amounts of funds on simple repairs.  After that, though, there is a tremendous amount of cash--almost all of it--being devoted to "reconstruction" of streets.  Under the language of the ballot proposal, the opportunity for waste and promotion of more pointless traffic-jamming pet projects is virtually limitless.  One of my favorite examples?  A sample picture on the working group report showing new infill buildings being built as a part of "vital streets" to make the street more attractive.  Oh, dear.

 

I hope this goes down in flames, or that it stays off the ballot for now thanks to the pending lawsuit because the City forgot to submit it in time.  Even if it doesn't happen now, it will be back.  When it is, I would humbly suggest the City revise as follows:

 

1)  Commit no less than 80% of funds to roadway repair, including any federally required crosswalk improvement when reconstruction of an intersection requires such.

2)  Commit approximately 20% of funds to enhancing the aesthetic design of street lamps, traffic calming, tree planting, and other right-of-way improvements.

3)  Drop the sidewalk proposal and leave in the place the Repair on Sale or Complaint program.  It has worked fine for 100 years. 

4)  If they manage to get 95% of the streets in "Good" condition using the above protocol, then they can reallocate up to 15% of the roadway money to flower planters and other secondary needs, while reserving any excess roadway funds in an interest-bearing capital account dedicated for future use according to the percentages stated herein.

 

Then you've got something almost every voter in this town will be quite happy with.  Why they didn't come up with something like in the first place is anyone's guess.  Not enough room to funnel money to pet projects?

Edited March 13, 2014 by x99

[GRDadof3]

In all of the discussion about other topics, I don't think I've seen a lot of discussion regarding the proposed income tax extension to keep the streets in decent repair. 

 

This has to be one of the most poorly marketed and defined local government initiatives anyone has ever come up with.  They littered the ballot proposal and salesmanship with greenie psychobabble, which virtually ensured a groundswell of opposition.  Instead of calling it a simple "street maintenance program" they tried to market it as some "vital streets" nonsense.  What does that mean?  A vital street is apparently "accessible, attractive, environmentally responsible and safe; serving all people of our community.”  Well.  Isn't that nice.

 

The sad thing is, I don't think this thing was really intended to be all that much other than a giant road maintenance fund.  The "task force" report is at http://grcity.us/enterprise-services/officeofenergyandsustainability/Sustainable%20Streets/2-12-13%20SSTF%20Presentation%20-%20FINAL.pdf?Mobile=1&Source=/enterprise-services/officeofenergyandsustainability/_layouts/mobile/view.aspx?List%3D6da275d5-ef5f-4122-a12c-8943ba8b7c2b%26View%3D37eb4509-9c0b-418b-beb8-2316858a3896%26CurrentPage%3D1 and from this it seems fairly clear that putting in more bike lanes and flower planters is a fairly minor part of the plan.  Possibly.  The problem is, I'm not sure.  Nor is anyone else.  And there is no way I will vote for something that promises more ridiculous bike lanes and "road diets" at the expense of repaving and fixing where my car goes.

 

Nowhere is it clearly stated how the money will be actually be spent, and nowhere are "Vital Streets" defined better than mish mash that only a bureaucrat could love.  The most frightening tidbit is in the February 11, "Vital Streets and Investment Guidelines" report the City cranked out: "Vital Streets will be the default design approach for street, sidewalk and right-of-way repair, improvement and reconstruction and shall be used unless clear engineering difficulties prevent its use."  Say what?  Oh, wait.  They try to make it more clear:  "Vital Streets and rights-of-way are accessible, attractive, environmentally responsible and safe;serving all people of our community. Vital Streets embrace the entire right-of-way through design that provides safe access for all users, manages stormwater in place through low impact development practices, enhances urban tree canopy and quality of life in neighborhoods and economic vitality in business districts."

 

No wonder the opposition is out in full force.  All anyone in this town wants right now is blacktop and concrete.  For the first few years, at least, it's likely that's most of what would be seen as the task force called for substantial amounts of funds on simple repairs.  After that, though, there is a tremendous amount of cash--almost all of it--being devoted to "reconstruction" of streets.  Under the language of the ballot proposal, the opportunity for waste and promotion of more pointless traffic-jamming pet projects is virtually limitless.  One of my favorite examples?  A sample picture on the working group report showing new infill buildings being built as a part of "vital streets" to make the street more attractive.  Oh, dear.

 

I hope this goes down in flames, or that it stays off the ballot for now thanks to the pending lawsuit because the City forgot to submit it in time.  Even if it doesn't happen now, it will be back.  When it is, I would humbly suggest the City revise as follows:

 

1)  Commit no less than 80% of funds to roadway repair, including any federally required crosswalk improvement when reconstruction of an intersection requires such.

2)  Commit approximately 20% of funds to enhancing the aesthetic design of street lamps, traffic calming, tree planting, and other right-of-way improvements.

3)  Drop the sidewalk proposal and leave in the place the Repair on Sale or Complaint program.  It has worked fine for 100 years. 

4)  If they manage to get 95% of the streets in "Good" condition using the above protocol, then they can reallocate up to 15% of the roadway money to flower planters and other secondary needs, while reserving any excess roadway funds in an interest-bearing capital account dedicated for future use according to the percentages stated herein.

 

Then you've got something almost every voter in this town will be quite happy with.  Why they didn't come up with something like in the first place is anyone's guess.  Not enough room to funnel money to pet projects?

 

 

They came up with a nice Prezi though. (rolls eyes).

 

I asked them to put the whole proposal in bullet points and was told they couldn't. Seriously, everything can be put in bullet points.

[tamias6]

Hmmmm wow...just from my personal experince driving allot the streets in GR. They don't need repaired. They need to be completly riped out and rebuilt. So in that case I'd say rebuild them and do it right while the opportunity is there. Just a thought.

[organsnyder]

Hmmmm wow...just from my personal experince driving allot the streets in GR. They don't need repaired. They need to be completly riped out and rebuilt. So in that case I'd say rebuild them and do it right while the opportunity is there. Just a thought.

I'm sure that they wouldn't simply be putting a new coat of asphalt on Burton by Breton Village - they'll do the proper repairs, though it wouldn't all happen at once. They've said that for the first year or so, the worst streets wouldn't see significant attention. Instead, they'd first focus on repairing the marginal streets. After those streets are in good shape, they'll start repairing/replacing the streets that are too far gone to save. While the immediate results aren't as visible, it would certainly be more cost-effective in the long-run.

 

I sure hope that there aren't any millage requests (of any sort - school, transit, anything) in that first couple of years. I can already hear the whiners complaining that their favorite stretch of road hasn't yet been fixed, without bothering to try to understand how preventative maintenance works.

 

They certainly have bungled the PR on this. I'm not sure why they feel the need to promote the complete streets component, as it's part of the city charter already. The vocal environmentalist urbanists can have been assured of this privately, as they're very well-connected with city leaders (or even a single post to the Salon group would have sufficed). Instead, the green components give MLive reporters easy clickbait headlines. Add to that the botched paperwork in the clerk's office, and it's possible that they've managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

One thing I'm really glad about: The parks millage has already passed. If the streets tax had gone first, the parks millage would have gone down hard.

[GRDadof3]

It's essentially this:

 

) Renewal of a portion of the city income tax that is set to expire soon, for another 15 years. So in essence, no additional city income tax.

) Raise enough money from that income tax to return 70% of all of Grand Rapids streets and sidewalks to "good" condition in 15 years. That involves a mixture of complete rebuilds and repairs. How nice does that sound? I would estimate 70% of GR's roads have all but "returned to the earth" at this point.

) Remove the burden of sidewalk repair, replacement and maintenance (snow plowing particularly) from taxpayers and have it done by the city. Again, how nice does that sound? No more sidewalk bureaucratic red tape when you want to sell your home or rental property. No more non-traversable sidewalks in the winter.

) Appoint a citizen led advisory committee to oversee all of this.

 

If they spelled it out like that, I think enough people would support it to get it passed. Yes, there will always be the Eric Larson groups, but voters are tired of the streets falling apart. And so are people who come into the city for jobs or to conduct business.

[organsnyder]

Thankfully, I think that most of the Eric Larson-types aren't actually GR citizens. I think it will pass - but it's going to be a lot closer than it should have been.

[arcturus]

Regretfully it will probably pass.  Gerrymandering the vote date to a time when few will turn out means a 51% yes vote with 15% voter participation spells just 8% of registered voters will dictate the tax dollars of the remaining 92%.  It's inexcusable this vote is happening at the time it is. 

[walker]

It's essentially this:

 

. . . ) Remove the burden of sidewalk repair, replacement and maintenance (snow plowing particularly) from taxpayers and have it done by the city. Again, how nice does that sound? No more sidewalk bureaucratic red tape when you want to sell your home or rental property. No more non-traversable sidewalks in the winter.

 

 

I walk a lot, miles a day when I can.  I picked my user name because when I made my first post here I’d just returned from a long walk and couldn’t think of anything better.  If you are suggesting Grand Rapids gets into the sidewalk plowing business, you’ve stumbled upon one of my pet peeves lately.  The two cities that currently plow their sidewalks: Wyoming, and East Grand Rapids, do a really crappy job.  The plows, besides plowing up lawns, leave a couple of inches of what turns into icy slush on the sidewalk making it hard and dangerous to walk.  Currently in Grand Rapids the vast majority of property owners do a good job of keeping their sidewalks reasonably clear.  Walking any distance in winter in Grand Rapids is doable, walking in East Grand Rapids and Wyoming is a struggle.  I'm all for fixing the potholes but leave the sidewalks alone.       

[GR_Urbanist]

I walk a lot, miles a day when I can.  I picked my user name because when I made my first post here I’d just returned from a long walk and couldn’t think of anything better.  If you are suggesting Grand Rapids gets into the sidewalk plowing business, you’ve stumbled upon one of my pet peeves lately.  The two cities that currently plow their sidewalks: Wyoming, and East Grand Rapids, do a really crappy job.  The plows, besides plowing up lawns, leave a couple of inches of what turns into icy slush on the sidewalk making it hard and dangerous to walk.  Currently in Grand Rapids the vast majority of property owners do a good job of keeping their sidewalks reasonably clear.  Walking any distance in winter in Grand Rapids is doable, walking in East Grand Rapids and Wyoming is a struggle.  I'm all for fixing the potholes but leave the sidewalks alone.       

 

I guess I'm a little curious how can we realistically look at the hundreds of miles of sidewalks in GR, and after seeing how the city struggled with the roads, honestly hope that they would be able to plow and clear every square inch of sidewalk in this town. That's every sidewalk from Plainfeild to south of 28th street. From Standale to Forest Hills. From the miles of sidewalks on 28th street to every short hidden road in Heritage Hill. Dont even get started on the ultra steep roads off of Grandville Ave on the SW side. And you simply cannot skip a street.

 

That's just simply impossible. It would take thousands of machines and hundreds of people, working 24/7 to even put a dent in it. And if they managed to do it, then they will have to be back in as little as 24 hours if it snowed again.

[walker]

I guess I'm a little curious how can we realistically look at the hundreds of miles of sidewalks in GR, and after seeing how the city struggled with the roads, honestly hope that they would be able to plow and clear every square inch of sidewalk in this town. That's every sidewalk from Plainfeild to south of 28th street. From Standale to Forest Hills. From the miles of sidewalks on 28th street to every short hidden road in Heritage Hill. Dont even get started on the ultra steep roads off of Grandville Ave on the SW side. And you simply cannot skip a street.

 

That's just simply impossible. It would take thousands of machines and hundreds of people, working 24/7 to even put a dent in it. And if they managed to do it, then they will have to be back in as little as 24 hours if it snowed again.

 

I agree completely.  I hope you don't think I was advocating it.  That was GRDad.  I was just saying the burbs that try to do it now, do a bad job.  

[wmrharris]

Regretfully it will probably pass.  Gerrymandering the vote date to a time when few will turn out means a 51% yes vote with 15% voter participation spells just 8% of registered voters will dictate the tax dollars of the remaining 92%.  It's inexcusable this vote is happening at the time it is. 

 

Sob. There is no gerrymandering here (that's a geographic term) only the question of turnout. if you're opposed, turn out the vote. And if you can't find 8 percent in opposition, then I have a hard time seeing what the complaint is.

[arcturus]

Sob. There is no gerrymandering here (that's a geographic term) only the question of turnout. if you're opposed, turn out the vote. And if you can't find 8 percent in opposition, then I have a hard time seeing what the complaint is.

 

Figure of speech of course but I'll spell it out ... cherry picking geographic areas for political gain vs cherry picking election dates for similar gains.  Magic recipe: create a 'special' election in May costing $80,000 picked solely for low voter turnout (see May 2010 5 yr city income tax) notwithstanding an August election which happens to have additional tax increase proposals.  Next, flood certain precincts with left leaning pro tax advocates, proclaiming it was the 'people's' vote in an off-year calendar with 3 separate elections to additionally water down turnout. 

 

It's the perfect storm for passage.  If it doesn't there's always December 25th for another special.

Edited March 16, 2014 by arcturus

[GRDadof3]

Figure of speech of course but I'll spell it out ... cherry picking geographic areas for political gain vs cherry picking election dates for similar gains.  Magic recipe: create a 'special' election in May costing $80,000 picked solely for low voter turnout (see May 2010 5 yr city income tax) notwithstanding an August election which happens to have additional tax increase proposals.  Next, flood certain precincts with left leaning pro tax advocates, proclaiming it was the 'people's' vote in an off-year calendar with 3 separate elections to additionally water down turnout. 

 

It's the perfect storm for passage.  If it doesn't there's always December 25th for another special.

 

"Pro-tax advocates?" Who would that be? Do you mean "pro-fix-the-mess-our-legislature-has-done-to-us" voters?

 

If GR residents are doing such a grand job keeping their sidewalks clear, why does the city issue press releases every week during the winter imploring people to clear their walks? Threatening to ticket people. Why does GRPS close on days when the walks are predominantly uncleared? Why has East Hills taken it upon themselves to have volunteers clear a bunch of the sidewalks?

 

Maybe that portion of the budget is not needed then, but I find it hard to believe.

[jas49503]

Figure of speech of course but I'll spell it out ... cherry picking geographic areas for political gain vs cherry picking election dates for similar gains.  Magic recipe: create a 'special' election in May costing $80,000 picked solely for low voter turnout (see May 2010 5 yr city income tax) notwithstanding an August election which happens to have additional tax increase proposals.  Next, flood certain precincts with left leaning pro tax advocates, proclaiming it was the 'people's' vote in an off-year calendar with 3 separate elections to additionally water down turnout. 

 

It's the perfect storm for passage.  If it doesn't there's always December 25th for another special.

 

the timing off the elections is insignificant. the odd dates affect both sides of the debate equally.  It sounds like you've been hanging out with John E.

 

I am neutral with regards to having the sidewalks plowed. I used to live in a town where the city did it.  what you ended up with was adequately plowed sidewalks but done in a very timely manner vs. what we have now where some people do a great job and others nothing at all.  it would probably be best if the city cracked down on sidewalk clearing slackers but I don't see that happening. 

 

I doubt that the city would use salt so winters like this one would end up with a heavy build up of packed snow and ice which is what we had in Rochester, NY where I lived previously.

[GR_Urbanist]

"Pro-tax advocates?" Who would that be? Do you mean "pro-fix-the-mess-our-legislature-has-done-to-us" voters?

 

If GR residents are doing such a grand job keeping their sidewalks clear, why does the city issue press releases every week during the winter imploring people to clear their walks? Threatening to ticket people. Why does GRPS close on days when the walks are predominantly uncleared? Why has East Hills taken it upon themselves to have volunteers clear a bunch of the sidewalks?

 

Maybe that portion of the budget is not needed then, but I find it hard to believe.

 

I think it should be illegal to hold votes for taxes/millages on such odd dates. It isnt a big secret why the city did this. They wanted a quick vote on a date that they hope would generate a low turn-out. It's sleazy, and has turned me off completely to the vote No side even though the roads are a mess. I wont participate in rewarding this type of thing. Hold it in the November of congressional and presidential election years and stop playing games. Stuff like this will lead to noting but bitterness and major distrust between people and city hall. Lately it seems like they have done a pretty good job of alienating people almost every week.

 

 

 

As far as the sidewalks? Well I've lived in GR my whole life (over 30 years) and it's just a part of the environment that sidewalks are not going to be all perfect. Having walked to school from 1987-1997, I've seen it all and didnt die when I had to walk through some snow. That is why we have boots. You just dont assume that every inch of sidewalk will look like it's the middle of June.   

 

Yes, Some will be scrapped to the cement, some wont. I just think this year being so bad has brought out people that have made a federal case out of it far beyond reasonability. The city has never made a big deal out of it because most of us are used to the conditions of Winter, but when they get the same people screaming at them to fine everyone, they have to at least make a plea. Thankfully they didnt go overboard like some of those folks wanted.

[wmrharris]

Figure of speech of course but I'll spell it out ... cherry picking geographic areas for political gain vs cherry picking election dates for similar gains.  Magic recipe: create a 'special' election in May costing $80,000 picked solely for low voter turnout (see May 2010 5 yr city income tax) notwithstanding an August election which happens to have additional tax increase proposals.  Next, flood certain precincts with left leaning pro tax advocates, proclaiming it was the 'people's' vote in an off-year calendar with 3 separate elections to additionally water down turnout. 

 

It's the perfect storm for passage.  If it doesn't there's always December 25th for another special.

I still miss the point. Your complaint is about low turnout presumably not being sufficiently representative in character. Actually the results are fairly straight-forward: the west side (Ward 1) and the wealthy precincts on the fringe of the City oppose; Ward 2 modestly supports, Ward 3 strongly supports. This pattern of support is long-standing in the city, and it scales. Nay votes in 2012 (9 % voting): Ward 1, 59%; Ward 2, 47%; Ward 3, 42%. In 2010 (15% voting): Ward 1, 56%; Ward 2, 47%; Ward 3, 47%.

 

Votes on both sides do tend to cluster. For instance Ottawa Hills is strongly on the pro side, and Ward 1-21 (the far northwest corner) is sharply negative.

 

Every election has a certain amount of sort to it. Civic elections like this attract one kind of voter, a state election a bit different (typically older, more conservative), a national electorate younger with more minority votes. Yes, the tax conservative may prefer one to the other, but that is all that it is, a preference, and frankly, a political one at that.

 

In every election, the rule is the same: if you want to win, do the work.

Does the proposal really include plowing the sidewalks?

 

I re-read the FAQ from the City, I can't find anything about the plowing part. What is clearly being funded is the repair of the sidewalks -- the way the roots from the parking-strip maple are popping up the sidewalk out front. Just taking that off the table would be a big help for a lot of home owners. Plowing? that would be a huge ongoing expense, and not one that could be covered by a time limited tax increase.