Janesvillean- These trees are on the terrace. Big pink brick house Corner Garfield/milwaukee st. Yes going towards centerway.

frogger, you're talking about coming north on Garfield. The trees that are behind the sidewalk are not covered by the "visual triangle" requirement because of the stop sign at Milwaukee.

The city doesn't have enough manpower to run out and lay 9 miles of sidewalk per year. That's why it was reduced to between 5 and 9 miles. Laying sidewalk in established neighborhoods is even more labor intensive as workers must plan around moving or replacing existing trees and other landscaping. So all those who are hyperventilating about cost can relax. The City Council requested that everyone in a planned sidewalk area be alerted well in advance- 9-24 months so that they can plan for the expense. There is also a payment plan residents can use to pay for sidewalks in affordable increments.

For those who are thinking purely selfishly on this subject- you live in a c-o-m-m-u-n-i-t-y where services are available to you that you could never afford on your own. Sidewalks belong to bikers, walkers, toddlers,strollers, disabled persons and the elderly. Hold up your end of the city and stop complaining for pete's sake!

janesvillean- I think we are speaking of the SAME corner. I just have the street names mixed up.

Steve you are right lets keep spending and spending and spending we haven't driven enough people out of town yet lets spend some more.Lets add more bike paths, more sidewalks, more police, more parks, more ice arenas, more fire stations, more pools, and we need those fancy man hole covers with the city logo too.The first thing you should always do when you have less money coming in, is SPEND MORE.

Ezoner - I believe the sidewalks are very suitable for running. They are for everyone's use, not just your children's.

beeferer - Hahahahaha! Thanks for the Friday afternoon pick-me-up!
.
My thoughts are that one would hope that if sidewalks do go in, that walkers and runners would use them. It's very frustrating maneuvering a vehicle around them when there are sidewalks.

Oh, yes, frogger -- there are numerous trees in violation, but the city has pretty much only acted on complaints. The worst offender I can think of is the tree blocking the stop sign on Centerway as it crosses Garfield, which has NO stop until Milwaukee. Yet vehicles whip around the corner from Milwaukee. I'm surprised there hasn't been a serious accident.
.
As a cyclist there are also trees that are cut back only as far as the gutter edge. Cars never drive there but bikes have to avoid it and I worry about the traffic behind me when I do that.

Just a thought....about those vehicles parked over the sidewalk. A few weeks ago, I was walking around "my" truck and accidently ran into the extended trailer hitch. Aside from it hurting like a mother...I tore the covering over my shin bone and it leaked blood for a few days. A week later I went to the doctor to make sure that I didn't crack the bone or have an infection (hurt worse a week later than when I did it). Anyway, long story short....my health insurance contacted me wanting info so they could pass on the cost of the medical care to the vehicle insurance! So if someone runs into my parked car (even if it's legally parked), I am responsible for their stupidity and medical bills!!!!

I love to walk on sidewalks, but have to resort to the street when someone has their invisible fence right next to the sidewalk. I have had a dog run right up to me and go into attack mode. Very scary! Sidewalks should be installed when a curb and gutter go in, and if it gets wrecked during construction the builder or whoever is responsible for the damage should pay to fix it. There are many cities that have this policy, why not Janesville? If the builders would pay up front like they are supposed to now, maybe we wouldn't have such urban sprawl?!

As it is perfectly legal to lop off branches hanging in your yard from your neighbor's trees, shouldn't it also be legal to carry a tree trimmer with you when you are out jogging? That way you could get an upper and lower workout. (For those of you who don't share my dry sense of humor, get over it!)

I agree with Janesvillean. I run at night and more than once have come across people who are unable to pick up after their kids or trim their trees. It's a pride issue. Take care of your property.

Janesvillean- seems MANY trees should come down with the measurements you have given.
For exapmle coming from Court St- Garfield to Milwaukee St. You cannot see crap trying to cross Milwaukee St. Those tree trunks are HUGE and only getting bigger.

Honestly,

I am more comcerned with some of the more inattentive runners, with their IPOD's and MP3's. As my small child walks along the sidewalk or rides their tricycle. The runners should find a suitable location, like a track and then they wouldnt have the trees etc... to be concerned with.

rusty, you wrote 6", which is six inches. (Remember Spinal Tap?) In actuality, though, the requirement for trees and shrubbery clearances are seven feet (7') above the sidewalk and 15' above the street. Aged or hazardous limbs should also be removed, as well as any visual obstructions preventing signs or oncoming traffic to be seen (the corner triangle is 25' on each front with a 45 degree hypotenuse).
.
Anyway, I try to keep ours trimmed back just for grass-growing purposes, but also to keep a stop sign visible (we have a lot of "sliders"). As a pedestrian and a cyclist I encounter a lot of situations where trees and shrubbery are not maintained to ordinance. I hope everyone reading this goes out today and at least eyeballs the clearance heights they're responsible for. It's especially annoying to discover a branch in the dark!

I agree with you Steve about the benefit of sidewalks. Although it's a shame that the resident is required to pay for them, the bottom line is that they make the pedestrians safer. I have a 3-year-old and toddler, and I am not comfortable allowing them to ride their bike/trike on our own street due to the absence of a sidewalk. Being an active and fit person, this frustrates and saddens me. I have also run into many low hanging branches during my runs in town. Most of them are thin branches that would be so easy to cut down.

It is still a tax issue eventually/ city rakes in money from such. Tree trimers/ contractors/ inspectors/ assements/ permits/ estetic values, etc...
To care about others is one thing/ affirmative action is quite another.
Glad I am in a township that isn't governed by a forceful, totalitarian local government.
There are a many views on this subject in many cities around the state. Depending upon need and desire, the outcomes are differing.
I for one shovel enough in winter as is. I dont need a 4' by 100' addition to clear. Nor would I like to have bad-quality cement placed on my frontage to be repaired every few years to fund other programs.
Oh, while were at it? How about the niffty added cement to man-holes, on asphault streets? Plows love em in winter...they last forever. LOL They in one year are already messed up in many places, Cracker-Jack idea there also. Sometimes we should think out-side the preverbial box when considering such great displays of wisdom. Besides, that $$$ could have been used on an ice arena or a new park on some vacant lot. Just what Janesville needs in todays economic times.

Got a letter just 2 weeks ago for the same thing branches to low on the side walk and the street. At first I thought it was just another thing from the city first repairs 2 years in a row and then the tree issues not to mention one is dead due to the sidewalk repairs..but hey who am I complain about this city doing such a wonderful job. To bad they didn't enforce other ordinances such as junk vehicles and other junk littering some yards in this wonderful city of Parks..

Ordinance violations as the ones noted are handled by the city on a "by complaint" basis. It will help others - and yourself - if you let the city know about such violations as you see them.

book9, Why is your handicap so special that we all have to deal with yours and not others. We all live in this town together and if we can help someone get around easier, then it is worth it. I put my sidewalks in, now do yours. Or maybe you should try to read a book about not being selfish.

Steve, about your two observations. Branches are to be trimmed to be at least 6" above the walkway & cars are not to obstruct the walkway. Also, it would be a common courtesy to others to trim the branches or not block the walk. Trouble is that so many people are too (your choice of adjectives here) to follow those simple rules of courtesy to others.

Many people learn to live with a variety of handicaps. Does that mean we all have to pay the price? What makes one handicap subject to special consideration over another? Why should people have to accommodate others on their private property that they paid for? If someone is homeless, do we need to open our home to them?