I am not quoting the Shel Silverstein masterpiece above. Rather, I am quoting an obvious truth about life in Garden City without a car.
People may think of me as a coward, but I have never enjoyed being the "daring" type by walking down an actual street or a curbfront; I have always preferred to use the sidewalks wherever I have been.
Here's another fact: Garden City was incorporated in 1933, seventy-four years ago. And yet my neighborhood, dating at least to the early 1950s, still has areas where sidewalks end where they're not supposed to.
I've lived in five different cities, all less than rural. You would expect inner suburbia to have sidewalks galore in developed areas. This is a mature neighborhood I live in, and yet there are stretches of two or three houses where no sidewalks exist. Then poof, there they are again. A pedestrian has no choice but to use that street or curbfront, lest they walk through someone's property.
It is inconvenient, and potentially hazardous, depending on how active the street is. The one I live on is fairly busy as an east-west route, with the municipal complex & police station at one end. Yet, two blocks from me, four houses on my side do not have a sidewalk.
What are these properties holding out for? Sidewalk placement will not single-handedly lower their property values. Or am I wrong? Cities are very powerful and have great say over how properties look. Owners just reside in the house, according to most cities' thinking. Can't they have a say in having sidewalks from end to end, to provide convenience for those who either choose to or (in my case) are forced to walk?
In a city that's seventy-four years old, in a neighborhood that isn't much younger - and so close to the municipal hub - stranger facts are rarely more evident than this one. Sidewalks are a way of life, and should not end inside of where the neighborhood limits are.
