Neighbors protest Bay Avenue sidewalk project

Plans for a sidewalk down Apalachicola’s Bay Avenue, connecting Battery Park to Lafayette Park, have met a stone wall of resistance from neighbors, who appear likely to doom the project.

About two dozen residents, nearly all opposed to the idea, met Monday night with officials from Florida Department of Transportation District 3 to voice their displeasure.

The public town hall meeting, part of the agenda for the city’s Community Pride Partnership, was set up in the wake of the Aug. 11 city commission meeting when the idea first met with resistance.

Led by Tom Daly, and including County Judge Van Russell, residents from in and around Bay Avenue first told city commissioners three weeks ago they were unaware such a sidewalk plan was in the works, and wanted no part of it.

“It would be a scar on Bay Avenue, that is truly a treasure,” said Daly. “It would be unconscionable to rip that up to put in a sidewalk people may or may not use. We’re talking about the most pristine, beautiful street in Apalachicola.”

The commissioners had hoped to use the Aug. 11 meeting to consider two bids for the design phase of the project, which is Phase 2 of a long-range plan by the Community’s Traffic Safety Committee to connect the city. The first phase, from Scipio Creek to Battery Park, has been completed, and future phases include placing sidewalks along Martin Luther King Blvd. and Avenue M.

Jim Waddell, whose firm Inovia has bid on the project as part of a partnership with Baskerville-Donovan, said the firms’ plans would be to construct a five-foot-wide sidewalk that would be reminiscent of the 1895 promenade that once graced the elegant street.

“It might be possible to recapture some of the historic significance,” said Waddell, suggesting that the concrete could have a stamped pattern that replicated the original five-foot-wide timbers, and that landmarks could be erected along the route that called attention to the avenue’s historic homes.

“We’ve invested a lot of time in this project,” said Mayor Van Johnson.

The neighbors, however, argued forcefully that the plan was a bad idea, “a solution without a problem,” as Daly put it.

“Design process means it’s a done deal,” said Daly. That’s my problem with it. I don’t want us to be a slave to grants just because it’s there.”

Russell said he had privacy concerns troubled him. “This is not 1895. This is 2010 and privacy has become a precious commodity.”

Voncile Macleod, who has lived in the area for 60 years, was adamant the project was a bad idea. “We don’t want it. Nobody wants it on Bay Avenue,” she said. “Why didn’t you let people vote on it? There’s so many other streets that need projects.”

Johnson, who said neighbors’ opposition came as a surprise to him, said city officials have long been dedicated to making Apalachicola a walkable city. “I share your passion,” he told the neighbors, expressing hope that the plan could be modified to overcome objections.

By unanimous consent, the commissioners moved to delay approval of any plan design until the Community’s Traffic Safety Committee had a chance to weigh in on it. On August 9, the city’s Planning and Zoning Committee voted to object to the plan.

“Let’s hear from the other side and the people who recommended it,” said the mayor, who took strong objection to claims by neighbors that there had been no effort to make the plans known to the public.

“Maybe we failed in our efforts, but it’s not because we didn’t try,” he said.

By Monday’s meeting with DOT officials, though, it became clear that any support on the Traffic Safety Committee had evaporated.

Ralph Yoder, an intergovernmental liaison with DOT’s District 3, spoke on behalf of three transportation officials from the district, who also included Jonathan Harris, a safety coordinator, and Stanley Rudd, who had worked with the Traffic Safety Team. Both had helped secure the federal highway safety funds earmarked for the project, which now either must be spent before June 30, 2011 or turned down.

Yoder said the project had originated with the traffic safety committee, to address “safety issues and the needs of the community,” and had been secured in an “expedited manner.”

He said the intent of the plan is “to provide a place of refuge for pedestrians,” and asked the audience to consider whether turning down the project, intended to address a safety concern, could become a legal problem in the event an accident happens.

Yoder asked whether the audience would support a “pedestrian refuge” with the necessary design changes to accommodate their concerns.

There were few takers.

“The bottom line is we don’t have a safety problem,” said Daly. ”We just seem to be in a hurry to spend money.”

Tension built during the meeting as to whether the traffic safety committee had intentionally kept the plan from the public, but Dixie Partington, a longtime member of the committee, and Sally Williamson, a member of Planning and Zoning, called for understanding.

“Nobody wants to pull anything over anybody. The bottom line is that none of the residents were ever informed. Nobody knew about this,” said Partington.

‘This is a well-intentioned project,” said Williamson. “It may not have taken the right route to get there. I hate to see neighbors pitted against the traffic safety committee.”

City Commissioner Frank Cook said the project had originated many years ago, and that officials kept it alive with the logic that “it must have been the right thing to do because it had been around so long.”

By meeting’s end, DOT officials had reassured residents that turning down the sidewalk money would not jeopardize future funding, but that this year’s money could not be directly applied to an alternative project.

“Ultimately, this is a community issue,” said Yoder. “It’s not the DOT’s priority to become heavy-handed in this. We want to be a good partner. It can not work one way. Part of that partnership is communication.”

Final say on whether to move forward with the project is in the hands of the city commission, which is expected to vote up or down on it at the Tuesday, Sept. 7 meeting.