I don't know that town's situation but I don't think we should be reflexively against it.

It might be appropriate for them and the community. We don't need sidewalks connecting farms, and maybe if the neighborhood wasn't built with walkability / accessiblity in mind, people who need walkability / accessiblity don't live there and it'd be burdensome and wasteful to make it more accessible than anyone demands it to be.

It doesn't seem that unreasonable -- people don't like to be told what to do and a small town might have more pressing issues than sidewalks which, if we're being honest about typical suburbia, that almost no one uses. I think even the staunchest conservatives would argue that a robust network of sidewalks would be nice to have -- I think the issue is making it mandatory.

I think it's weird to make sidewalks your hill to die on but without context it seems like it could be a reasonable policy decision.

It's an inner suburb where the population center is like a lower density urban neighborhood.

IMO, it's a way to fight the in-demand construction for today, which is medium density apartments, and more kids looking for access to the schools.

From another direction, how does "mandatory sidewalks" make medium density apartments more viable in that locale? Is it by putting the onus/cost on the city/taxes to develop the sidewalks, thereby acting as a subsidy for the apartment developer?

I don't follow this terribly closely, as its not my town. My understanding is that there's an overall focus on walkable infrastructure that is accessible to services and transit on foot. Some folks are unhappy with that.

There's a lot of dynamics at play. People who own property don't like the mandates because they potentially impact the value of the subdivided value (the builder makes the sidewalks, the municipality maintains them), many people don't want more people & school enrollment because that drives taxes, and old people are afraid of people who ride the bus for various reasons.

It doesn't seem that unreasonable... until you're in a situation like the people in the story.

And their position isn't unreasonable until you're billed $10k for sidewalk repair.

Most of us are arguing that it should be the city's responsibility to take care of the sidewalks, but beyond that, I don't see it any different than maintaining any other part of your house.

I was agreeing -- just adding that some people are getting slammed with bills for a mandate that was put in place after they purchased their property.

small government and self-reliance are pretty standard republican platform item. criticize that if you like - I know I sure do - but it's hardly inconsistent or surprising.

Cutting public infrastructure like sidewalks prevents self-reliance — it’s saying that anyone who isn’t able-bodied and affluent enough to afford a car doesn’t belong in the community. If, instead, you provide things like accessibility, public transit, etc. millions of people can actually contribute to society rather than being dependent on charity.