Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

complete streets bill completely disappointing?

Expand Messages
  • David Streever
    The passage of the bill allows a municipality/the state to ignore all provisions, if, the accommodation of all users is not consistent with ... policy So if
    Message 1 of 4 , Jun 6, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      The passage of the bill allows a municipality/the state to ignore all
      provisions, if, "the accommodation of all users is not consistent with
      ... policy"

      So if the city says they don't intend to include all users (walkers,
      bikers, drivers) they get to ignore completely the provisions of the bill.

      What does everyone else think?
    • Hunter Smith
      That s true - it s not perfect but it provides the legislative body or the Commissioner of Transportation has make the finding that accommodation of all users
      Message 2 of 4 , Jun 6, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        That's true - it's not perfect but it provides the legislative body or the Commissioner of Transportation has make the finding that "accommodation of all users is not consistent with policy"

        The State commish will likely not do this easily since there are all sorts of policy documents saying that accommoation of users is part of the state's policy, although with the road people at Connecticut DOT, who knows?

        A vote by a municipal legislative body is not all that easy either - it means they have to go on the record saying that they don't support sidewalks.  Possible, especially if they spew something out about "preserving the small town feel" but still it makes it harder.


        The text of the entire bill is, I believe, here:  http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/AMD/S/2009SB-00735-R00SA-AMD.htm

        2009/6/6 David Streever <dls@...>


        The passage of the bill allows a municipality/the state to ignore all
        provisions, if, "the accommodation of all users is not consistent with
        ... policy"

        So if the city says they don't intend to include all users (walkers,
        bikers, drivers) they get to ignore completely the provisions of the bill.

        What does everyone else think?


      • Martin Mador
        Getting anything passed this session which requires the towns to do anything (ie, a mandate) was a minor miracle. Many, many bills died because the continuous
        Message 3 of 4 , Jun 6, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          Getting anything passed this session which requires the towns to do
          anything (ie, a mandate) was a minor miracle. Many, many bills died
          because the continuous filibustering kept many from coming to a vote.
          This bill was, in perspective, a major victory.
          Particularly gratifying is the phrase that expenditures are not required
          if "2) there is a demonstrated absence of need;". This means that we
          don't have to prove a need to get the money spent; the burden is on an
          opponent to prove that there is not a need. Disproving a negative is
          very tough.
          Marty Mador
          Sierra Legislative Chair

          Hunter Smith wrote:
          >
          >
          > That's true - it's not perfect but it provides the legislative body or
          > the Commissioner of Transportation has make the finding that
          > "accommodation of all users is not consistent with policy"
          >
          >
          > The State commish will likely not do this easily since there are all
          > sorts of policy documents saying that accommoation of users is part of
          > the state's policy, although with the road people at Connecticut DOT,
          > who knows?
          >
          > A vote by a municipal legislative body is not all that easy either -
          > it means they have to go on the record saying that they don't support
          > sidewalks. Possible, especially if they spew something out about
          > "preserving the small town feel" but still it makes it harder.
          >
          >
          > The text of the entire bill is, I believe, here:
          > http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/AMD/S/2009SB-00735-R00SA-AMD.htm
          > <http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/AMD/S/2009SB-00735-R00SA-AMD.htm>
          >
          > 2009/6/6 David Streever <dls@...
          > <mailto:dls@...>>
          >
          >
          >
          > The passage of the bill allows a municipality/the state to ignore all
          > provisions, if, "the accommodation of all users is not consistent
          > with
          > ... policy"
          >
          > So if the city says they don't intend to include all users (walkers,
          > bikers, drivers) they get to ignore completely the provisions of
          > the bill.
          >
          > What does everyone else think?
          >
        • David Streever
          Thanks for the positive spin Marty & Hunter--that s a more reassuring idea! I d been feeling a bit let down reading the provisions added in, but it definitely
          Message 4 of 4 , Jun 7, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            Thanks for the positive spin Marty & Hunter--that's a more reassuring idea!

            I'd been feeling a bit let down reading the provisions added in, but it
            definitely sounds better when I read your thoughts on it.

            Martin Mador wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > Getting anything passed this session which requires the towns to do
            > anything (ie, a mandate) was a minor miracle. Many, many bills died
            > because the continuous filibustering kept many from coming to a vote.
            > This bill was, in perspective, a major victory.
            > Particularly gratifying is the phrase that expenditures are not required
            > if "2) there is a demonstrated absence of need;". This means that we
            > don't have to prove a need to get the money spent; the burden is on an
            > opponent to prove that there is not a need. Disproving a negative is
            > very tough.
            > Marty Mador
            > Sierra Legislative Chair
            >
            > Hunter Smith wrote:
            > >
            > >
            > > That's true - it's not perfect but it provides the legislative body or
            > > the Commissioner of Transportation has make the finding that
            > > "accommodation of all users is not consistent with policy"
            > >
            > >
            > > The State commish will likely not do this easily since there are all
            > > sorts of policy documents saying that accommoation of users is part of
            > > the state's policy, although with the road people at Connecticut DOT,
            > > who knows?
            > >
            > > A vote by a municipal legislative body is not all that easy either -
            > > it means they have to go on the record saying that they don't support
            > > sidewalks. Possible, especially if they spew something out about
            > > "preserving the small town feel" but still it makes it harder.
            > >
            > >
            > > The text of the entire bill is, I believe, here:
            > > http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/AMD/S/2009SB-00735-R00SA-AMD.htm
            > <http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/AMD/S/2009SB-00735-R00SA-AMD.htm>
            > > <http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/AMD/S/2009SB-00735-R00SA-AMD.htm
            > <http://www.cga.ct.gov/2009/AMD/S/2009SB-00735-R00SA-AMD.htm>>
            > >
            > > 2009/6/6 David Streever <dls@...
            > <mailto:dls%40davidstreever.com>
            > > <mailto:dls@... <mailto:dls%40davidstreever.com>>>
            > >
            > >
            > >
            > > The passage of the bill allows a municipality/the state to ignore all
            > > provisions, if, "the accommodation of all users is not consistent
            > > with
            > > ... policy"
            > >
            > > So if the city says they don't intend to include all users (walkers,
            > > bikers, drivers) they get to ignore completely the provisions of
            > > the bill.
            > >
            > > What does everyone else think?
            > >
            >
            >
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.