Why is Jeff Gahan terrified of publicly supporting Speck? Leadership, anyone?

Time and again, we've forcefully called out City Hall for focusing its bizarrely scant public love of the Speck Plan (it's a "love" that dares not speak its name) solely on the study's recommendations to address future ORBP-created, pass-through traffic issues, while utterly refusing to publicly support the socially and economically transformational aspects of walkability outlined therein.

Make no mistake: City Hall is fully deserving of our censure -- and yours. It has been a persistently cowardly public performance on the part of Jeff Gahan, because as Bluegill notes, Gahan sings different tunes depending on the audience.

The mayor recently asked my wife what she thought about (the Speck proposals). Her answer: implement the Speck plan in its entirety as soon as possible. His response (not verbatim, but very close): I agree and a majority of people seem to be saying the same. We'll have some opposition, but I think we can get it done. That's what the mayor told her, just before walking into the public meeting and not taking a position. If he can say that to one person, he can say it to everyone.

Yes, he can. But he has not, and shows no signs whatever of leading on this issue.

As Jeff Speck has publicly stated on numerous occasions, New Albany has fine bones for enhanced walkability. What New Albany does not have, and what Jeff Gahan and his reality-challenged minions seem intent on ignoring as a matter of institutional preference, is an overt, stated commitment to equality for all users of streets and sidewalks.

Something like this: Mission Pedestrian and the Declaration of Pedestrian Rights.

Such lingering deficiencies become even more glaringly obvious at times like last week's Bored of Public Works meeting, where the customarily somnolent body of political appointees determined to address snow removal concerns: Sidewalk yellow snow and red herring removal. Unsurprisingly, the Bored denied responsibility, but was unable to point to any specific precedent in the city's code of ordinances.

In a comment appended to this post, reader W noticed this, too.

For an example of a progressive (and comprehensive) approach to sidewalks in Indiana, look at the sidewalk code of Evansville:

http://www.codepublishing.com/in/evansville/html/Evansville12/Evansville1205.html

You'll see Evansville has a comprehensive schedule of sidewalk maintenance. 35 entries in their city code about sidewalks.

Contrast that to the very thin mention of sidewalks in the ordinances in the the New Albany code:

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dll/Indiana/newalb/cityofnewalbanyindianacodeofordinances?f=templates$fn=default.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:newalbany_in

Look at section "TITLE IX: GENERAL REGULATIONS" and go to section "99. STREETS AND SIDEWALKS" - the only sidewalk regulations involve replacing sidewalks removed during construction. 

No stated plan of inspection, no stated plan to maintain or repair. No definition of sidewalk responsibilities.

The "Barrett Law" referred to in the Evansville code allows the shared cost of maintenance to be paid by the home owner over a reasonable period time - 10 years in Evansville's definition.

Louisville has a sidewalk repair program where the cost of sidewalk repair by the city is waived if the homeowner continues to live in the property for five years after repair. Otherwise the cost becomes a lien against the property paid at the time of sale.

Walkable New Albany... 

Reader M summarizes:

Having safer streets and a more walkable city is worth it regardless of traffic increasing due to tolls. In fact, if the traffic doesn't increase when the bridges open, we'll end up with all the benefits of two way streets and less traffic. Seems like a win either way.

Why is Jeff Gahan scared?