Temecula City Council Dragging Feet on Sidewalks
Good government is installing sidewalks for pedestrian safety – not in Temecula, but in Menifee and Lake Elsinore. http://www.pe.com/local-news/riverside-county/menifee/menifee-headlines/20130522-menifee-new-sidewalk-to-be-built-near-school.ece and http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/may/26/elsinore-sidewalk-lakeside-high-school/.
Temecula is just now embarking on the first-ever citywide evaluation of sidewalk connections. The City has had a bikeways and trails master plan in place since the original 1993 General Plan. Sidewalks have never before been on the City's radar – a huge oversight when it comes to public safety. The council recently approved $45,000 for a consultant to update the the bike and trail plans at the May 14 City Council meeting.
Sidewalks are barely an afterthought compared to bike lanes and trails. The sidewalk study is being done on the fly by city staff using GIS technology, but there is no serious funding for actual construction. The $45,000 bike/trail consultant fee is half of the $90,000 per year budgeted for sidewalk construction. Temecula's new City Manager, Aaron Adams says there is no funding source for sidewalks or the bikeways and trails plans, but that shortfall didn't stop Temecula from giving away $45,000 of our tax dollars to a San Diego consultant.
Safe sidewalks for city residents isn't a priority in Temecula like it is in Menifee, a relatively young city. Temecula's experienced city council is taking a leisurely approach to sidewalk connections that have been ignored for two decades. The City Council seems inclined to relax in the $70 million Civic Center shrine they have built to glorify themselves while residents are literally kicked to the streets for lack of sidewalks.
In the 2014-2018 budget plan, Temecula has allotted a disappointing total of $450,000 for neglected sidewalk construction over a period of five years. In those same five years, city leaders have budgeted a whopping $3.5 million for bike lanes and trail construction.
Money talks, but talk is cheap coming out of the mouths of politicians. city leaders are not serious about sidewalks – and that is a serious problem for pedestrian safety.
The Inland Empire is the 5th-most dangerous place in the nation for pedestrians according to a 2011 report. http://t4america.org/resources/dangerousbydesign2011/. I suggest clicking around the website that includes a map showing a startling number of pedestrian deaths in a 60-mile radius around Temecula during the years 2001-2009 http://t4america.org/resources/dangerousbydesign2011/map/#?latlng=33.4936391,-117.14836479999997.
These statistics are significant considering the comparatively low level of pedestrian traffic in Riverside County compared to higher density regions.
Irrefutably, studies find that paved sidewalks significantly improve pedestrian safety. Besides that, sidewalks are an absolute necessity for physically disabled individuals to access public transportation or travel to nearby shopping centers. When pedestrians are walking in bicycle lanes, bicyclists are forced out into traffic to get around them. Sidewalks have a synergistic effect on improving public safety.
Temecula leadership, to their credit, has had its head in the clouds building a children's museum, a community theater, an impressive public library and their grandiose City Hall. It is time for the City Council to come down to earth and get their feet on the ground to take care of the business of safe sidewalk corridors.
There are areas of Temecula where the ground beneath missing sidewalks is level and linkages can be connected comparatively inexpensively. Asphalt might be a less costly material for some sidewalk linkages or used along parcels where developers have not yet been conditioned to build concrete sidewalks. The City could also require chain-link fencing on undeveloped parcels be set back so pedestrians are not forced into the street, as in the photo with this blog taken on Rancho California Road. There are many ways pedestrian safety can be efficiently improved, including the usage of signage directing pedestrians to safe routes of access.
There are a host of solutions, but they require a City Council resolutions. It is the Temecula City Council that holds the purse strings and decides what the priorities are and where funds are directed. It is the right and the obligation of we, the people to instruct our representatives.
The Temecula City Council has isolated me and will not reply to my emails. They cannot ignore a group of constituents and it is going to take more than my voice to create a safer Temecula for pedestrians. Write your elected city representatives (they will probably answer your email), but better yet, show up at a City Council meeting, fill out a speaker slip and “instruct your government” to build sidewalks for the “common good” as provided in our State Constitution.
The Temecula City Council and some of their supporters appear to believe that I am out of line to question city leaders – but we elect representatives to office – not dictators. Call me crazy or worse, but I believe in the words of the 1849 California Constitution: All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for the protection, security, and benefit of the people; and they have the right to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good may require it.
California's Constitution was updated in the 1970's, but the right of the people “to instruct their government” is clear. Elected officials and local press present a false impression that they hold the power, but our Constitution clearly says otherwise.
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SEC. 3. (a) The people have the right to instruct their representatives, petition government for redress of grievances, and assemble freely to consult for the common good. (b) (1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people's business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny. (2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.
