You may have heard folks reference "Complete Streets" before. In short, it's about creating roads and streets that are friendly to transportation options other than just cars and trucks. They are important in creating a more livable community and allowing people to live healthier by finding alternative ways to get around.
People in communities are more likely to walk and bike (as opposed to driving) if they are able to safely. They might bike to work in addition to just riding bike for recreation. The health benefit alone is appealing as a healthy community is less likely to increase health care costs for everyone.
George Hontos opposed the Complete Streets policy because he said it was redundant. Jeff Goerger opposed it because of the potential costs to a developer. I respectfully disagree with both points.
While certain aspects of Complete Streets may be redundant within other ordinances, policies, and the land development code, the very point of the policy is to consolidate the information into a single policy document that planners would use to evaluate projects. If there is redundancy, we should look to eliminate it and make it more concise. Simply because it's redundant, though, does not mean the policy should not be implemented.
The costs argument is valid, but is addressed by the policy itself. If implementing Complete Streets would be too costly, that would disqualify its application.
The fact of the matter is communities (and counties and states) across the country are implementing similar policies. The St. Cloud APO approved the same policy document by an overwhelming majority. And yet, in St. Cloud, the policy was held up by old-school thinking.
I wholeheartedly support progressive and innovative thinking we can use to improve our quality of life and to ensure we are a cutting-edge community. I've done so as a member of the planning commission and will do so on the city council.
No comments:
Post a Comment