A heated debate over sidewalks in a Highland Park subdivision going back to 2017 was seemingly settled during Tuesday’s City Council meeting, with a 5-2 vote deciding not to move forward with installing sidewalks in the historic Highlands neighborhood.
The meeting went long into the evening, with council members emphasizing unity to a crowded room of residents, but some were not as ready to move on as others.
The controversy grew from the need to cut down a number of trees along the road to allow enough space to install the proposed sidewalk. Even a revised plan would have required the removal of nearly 40 trees on both sides of the street.
However some residents felt it was an acceptable sacrifice given the risks to pedestrians and young children on the road.
Before the vote, council members called for unity despite the controversy among neighbors. Mayor Nancy Rotering apologized to the residents that the issue had become so divisive and taken so long. It touched on numerous priorities of the city, Rotering said, from public safety to sustainability, making it especially difficult.
“It should never have dragged out this long, and I truly apologize from the bottom of my heart for what we put the neighborhood through,” she said.
“There are no losers in this conversation,” Rotering continued. “We agree there’s so much common ground in this room. Everybody cares about children, about public safety, about trees. But at the end of the day, this is about our community.”
While Rotering professed her general support for sidewalks, she couldn’t justify the special attention University Avenue had been given over other nearby streets. She felt it wouldn’t be “fiscally responsible” to move ahead with the project, but voiced support for creating a master sidewalk plan for the city.
Other council members highlighted the drastic character change cutting down the trees would have on the character of the subdivision, with several expressing support for the mayor’s master sidewalk plan concept.
Council members Anthony Blumberg and Kim Stone were the two dissenting votes during Tuesday’s meeting. But despite the disagreement, Blumberg also emphasized unity.
“I don’t agree with everything that’s been said, but I respect and appreciate everything that’s been said and know it’s been said in good faith,” Blumberg said. “I don’t want to belabor it. I’m more persuaded by discussions concerning safety issues.”
Council Member Annette Lidawer hoped the decision would bring some finality to the controversy.
“To keep bringing this up is to continue to divide this community,” Lidawer said. “I don’t want to see that because I want you to heal in a safe and beautiful manner. Divisiveness doesn’t suit anyone. It’s below us.”
Residents share their view
Allison Nemirow, a Highlands resident who spoke during the meeting, said she was “disappointed” with the result.
“It’s a simple thing,” she said. “Tonight, the council voted in favor of some trees over children’s lives. I thought better of them.”
Several in attendance wore “Save Our Trees” shirts, which Nemirow criticized during her comments to the board.
“My heart hurts,” she said. “I’m sorry I didn’t bring my ‘Save Our Children’ shirt. I’m begging one last time for you to prioritize public safety.”
Nemirow’s daughter, eighth-grader Rebekah, also spoke during the meeting. The girl is named after her grandmother, who was struck and killed by a car 11 days before Rebekah was born. Rebekah Nemirow also expressed her disappointment with the council.
“We voted for people who said they’d be getting sidewalks,” she said. “Now, I might have to witness more people in my life die.”
Mark Portman was one of the attendees wearing a “Save Our Trees” shirt, and he and his wife Marla have been advocates against the sidewalk installation. The couple had previously commissioned a forestry study for the potential sidewalk to show its negative impact on the trees, and after an initial sidewalk proposal in 2017 circulated a counter-petition that showed a significant decrease in support of installation.
He said the “ridiculous suggestion” that those against the sidewalks, “don’t care about their children or grandchildren” was “preposterous.” Several residents with children also noted their opposition to the sidewalks.
During an hour of comments to the council, residents gave various reasons for and against installing sidewalks.
Some noted that efforts for other traffic-calming measures, such as speed bumps or stop signs, had fallen through, and cars parking on both sides of the road made the street even narrower and riskier for pedestrians.
Other residents said trees have stormwater management benefits, and the trees themselves may help calm down traffic. Cutting down the trees could negatively impact house values, and the money needed to install the sidewalks could be used elsewhere.
After the vote, Rotering said the city would look into enforcing one-side street parking along University Avenue. Rotering, who “got started” with efforts to install a stop sign in her own neighborhood, said they could also look into putting up stop signs along the street to slow traffic.
“There are stop signs on parallel streets, so maybe that’s something we need to look at,” she said.
Years of debate
The debate around sidewalks on University Avenue has been around in some form since 2017, when residents were first notified that the city was considering installing sidewalks based on a resident initiative. At the time, the policy required 75% support from others living on the affected streets, which it reportedly met.
In January 2020, the city notified University Avenue residents it would not pursue the sidewalk installation due to a lack of support.
However, in September 2020, the City Council approved a new guideline for local sidewalk installations to reduce the required residential support from 75% to 51% of affected residents, establish a survey template for residents and detail city follow-up steps, among other changes.
Three years later, the city revisited the sidewalk plans, after receiving inquiries about potential sidewalks during the resurfacing of University Avenue, according to a city memo. The 112 affected residents received a letter requesting feedback about potential sidewalks on University Avenue and Old Trail Road. The city noted in the letter that a lack of response may be interpreted as support for the new sidewalks.
The city’s rationale for revisiting the sidewalk proposal was because the plan aligned with the city’s MoveHP plan, which encourages non-motorized transportation through street and sidewalk improvements.
