The Greenwood City Center is pictured downtown in June 2022.
Daily Journal File Photo
A proposed ordinance would once again make it illegal to park on portions of driveways that form parts of public sidewalks in Greenwood.
However, the proposed repeal is causing controversy among some city council members who feel it is going too far.
The Greenwood City Council is considering repealing a part of the municipal code which made it technically legal to park on portions of driveways that form parts of public sidewalks, paths and trails. The repeal was introduced last month and is on track for a final vote to take place later at the council’s April 15 meeting.
City officials have received complaints about vehicles parking over the sidewalks and trails for years, but the complaints have been growing in number over the last few years, Deputy Mayor Terry McLaughlin told the city council on March 18. The exact number of complaints the city has received is unclear as they do not have written data for this, McLaughlin said Wednesday.
“I would drive the subdivisions in the city car (and) I would be stopped and asked about why vehicles can park over sidewalks,” he said. “Residents would complain that they have to walk out into the street to get around them. I have received telephone calls from residents as well on this same matter.”
Some complaints have involved seniors who have complained about having to walk on the street due to parked vehicles, with other complaints involving seniors with motorized wheelchairs having to go out into the street to get around a car that’s blocking the sidewalk, McLaughlin said.
The issue is more than just complaints too, as it impedes the flow of pedestrian traffic, he said.
This issue is particularly prevalent in older neighborhoods, along with some neighborhoods that were allowed to have shorter setbacks or driveways, McLaughlin said. Some older neighborhoods were designed to have one vehicle in their driveways while modern households have more, he said.
Last month, council member Erin Betron questioned what the solution would be for households that have multiple drivers with vehicles. If there are several drivers in a home, some could park on the street, McLaughlin said.
Whether the ordinance would be enforceable was a question of council member David Hopper. McLaughlin believed it would be because, with the ordinance in effect, the city cannot currently prohibit someone from parking over a sidewalk, he said.
A few council members voiced concerns about the changes at their meeting on Monday, where it was given a first reading. This includes Betron, who questioned the broadness of the ordinance.
“I think this would be really hard to enforce,” Betron said. “Thinking in a broader sense, there’s so many reasons why people would use those full parts of their driveway.”
Houses and yards are getting bigger while driveways are getting smaller, she said. People who have RVS and boats in their driveways during the summer and people who have multiple drivers, will want to use their full driveways. If people park on both sides of the roads in neighborhoods instead, it would create a traffic obstruction and also make it unsafe for kids going back and forth out and in between cars, Betron said.
“I just don’t understand how this is a good idea,” she said.
Council member Steve Moan sees the merit of the repeal but was also concerned about the effects it could create by making more people park on the street. More street parking could limit the field of vision for people backing out of driveways, he said.
Like Betron, he also highlighted safety concerns for children and thinks the wording of the repeal uses a “pretty broad brush,” he said.
“I don’t think that I’m adamantly opposed to this idea because it does impede the progress of folks who are potentially disabled or in wheelchairs or to have to go out and around that car, but I think the percentage of driveway you lose if you drive down … Curry Road (as an example). They will lose upwards of 12, 14 feet of their driveway,” he said.
It would be huge to tell residents that the city is only going to allow people to put two cars in their driveway, which is what the ordinance would be saying, Moan said.
Council member Linda Gibson said she has seen younger children learning to ride their bikes on sidewalks because the streets are too narrow throughout her district. If children are unable to ride their bikes on sidewalks, they are being put at some risk, she said.
Mike Campbell, the council’s president, added to this point, saying he sees people biking, walking and jogging in the streets in neighborhoods. He would like to see them on the sidewalks more, but if they are blocked, it makes it more difficult, he said.
He understands both sides of the issue, he said. However, with any ordinance the city council passes, it will be advantageous for some people and not others, Campbell said.
“Everything we do is typically a broad brush,” he said.
Moan understands this perspective, but he said he lives on a street that doesn’t have sidewalks. His daughter had to learn how to ride a bike without the sidewalks, and as a child, he played games in the street because that was all there was, he said.
Moan and Betron ultimately voted against the ordinance on first reading Monday. It passed 6-2 with one member absent.
After the meeting, Betron also posted on her official page about the ordinance, encouraging residents to give feedback to council members. If the ordinance passes, she said people could fined for having vehicles cross into the path of sidewalks in most of Greenwood.
“Is it really safer to park all those extra cars on neighborhood streets or does that make it harder to see people crossing the street, cars trying to make it through, and harder for school busses [sic]?” Betron said in the Facebook post Wednesday.
