What sort of city would toss its frail senior and disabled pedestrians under the bus?
Unfortunately, that’s the sort of city San Luis Obispo has become.
What follows is an account of a citizen’s raising safety and disability concerns with our city and how the city responded.
There’s no better illustration of our city’s uncaring for its most vulnerable adults than the story of the mid-block pedestrian crossing on Ramona Drive linking The Village, SLO’s largest senior residence, with neighborhood shopping across the street.
Mid-block pedestrian crossings are notoriously dangerous. Some three decades ago, SLO installed the safest mid-block Village crossing possible—a well-marked raised crossing with flashing lights. The raised crossing was a speed table that forced vehicles to slow at the point of crossing. Curb extensions (bulb-outs) on both ends shortened the space pedestrians were in traffic lanes. And since the crossing was at sidewalk level, not vehicular level, pedestrians were not only more visible to drivers but could cross without negotiating curbs or sloping curb ramps, which are fall hazards for seniors, and in rainy weather could avoid puddles and slippery gutter slosh—another fall hazard.
This was an action by a smart and caring city (financed in part by a Village resident’s donation) and served safely for decades, until a year ago when, as part of the Anholm bikeway, it was removed, with no prior public disclosure or discussion.
Today that safe crossing is history. The raised sidewalk-level crossing is gone, replaced by a vehicular-level crossing that makes pedestrians less visible to drivers. The bulb-out on the Village end is gone, replaced by a curb ramp that lowers the entire sidewalk into a concrete ditch at gutter level, so the sidewalk floods and fills with mud and debris even in small storms, making a treacherous mess for wobbly pedestrians and a nuisance for all. A wiggle in the traffic lanes diverts vehicles over the former bulb-out’s location, next to the curb, to within inches of a waiting pedestrian’s toes—vehicles including semis and buses, thus a senior’s slip and fall on the muddy pathway could literally land them “under the bus.”
Instead of the crossing being atop a vehicle-slowing speed table, as before, there are two new speed humps several hundred feet in either direction, the effect of which seems to be to encourage vehicles to speed up at the crossing, in haste to get to the next hump.
There is no longer an ADA-compliant crossing that avoids mud and puddles. I’ve watched folks with walkers figure out their own makeshift solutions. One fellow stepped off the curb some distance from the muddy ramp—that is, he stepped over the curb as he would have to do if there were no ramp at all. He also couldn’t activate the crossing lights because their push button was across the flooded and muddy section of sidewalk. A lady with a walker did similar maneuvers up and over a curb on the opposite side of Ramona to avoid puddles.
Although both sets of SLO City Council-approved Anholm bikeway plans showed the decades-old raised crossing remaining, about a year ago it became clear to me from observing early construction that wasn’t happening. So I asked questions at City Hall and confirmed the intent to remove the raised crossing.
Since this was contrary to council-approved plans, as well as an obvious affront to the Americans With Disabilities Act, a federal civil rights law, I decided to approach then City Manager Derek Johnson asking for the raised crossing be kept. So on June 26 of last year I sent Johnson and Public Works Director Matt Horn a 12-page illustrated letter detailing the merits of the raised crossing and the problems with the city’s planned changes.
“I am confident,” I wrote, “that after reading this letter thoughtfully, the city will realize removing the raised crossing is a mistaken move, and that keeping and enhancing it is not only the right thing to do for pedestrian safety and to preserve the robust existing level of ADA accommodations but also the only decent thing to do.”
Ironically, my letter arrived the day the raised crossing was removed.
I also requested a brief meeting with Johnson to plead for common decency toward our neighborhood’s large elderly and disabled population, and to state that I came in good will, not hostility. I thought this would lead to a quiet resolution rather than necessitate a public fuss. My records show a dozen attempts to set up that meeting. It never took place; Johnson couldn’t be bothered.
Last fall, however, my request was punted to then Assistant City Manager Whitney McDonald (now the city manager), who convened a meeting of myself, herself, Horn, and a city engineer. The meeting was cordial but worthless since it rehashed points already hashed out, which city staff had already made clear they wouldn’t budge on.
Throughout the winter I sent emails with photos of ADA problems created by bikeway “improvements” to McDonald and Horn, and asked for fixes. No response. In February 2024 I asked McDonald and Horn if the city had any intention of fixing the Village crossing. No response. In May I repeated that question: “Does the city intend to respond to these problems with fixes?” No response.
I contacted the City Council several times. No response. Recently, I laid out for the council a detailed account of this civic meanness and ADA violation, asking that they intervene. No response.
Silence, however, is a response. It signals that even when substantive problems are graphically brought to the city’s attention, the city doesn’t care. It’s not just the Village crossing where city indifference to proper implementation of ADA guidelines has failed, but a broad city-wide indifference and incomprehension as to why it is necessary, decent, and only fair to implement them. From all indications, despite its pro-ADA publicity statements, our city, from top down, just doesn’t care. Which puts it on the wrong side of human kindness, as well as of the law. Δ
Richard Schmidt writes to New Times from San Luis Obispo. Send a comment in response by emailing it to letters@newtimesslo.com.
This article appears in Dec 5-15, 2024.
Acknowledgment of Receipt
The city should issue a formal acknowledgment of the letter, noting that they have received the concerns and will review the points raised. This is often the first step in addressing public complaints.
Investigation or Review
The city might announce a review of the situation, possibly including site inspections to evaluate the claims. They may examine whether the construction and design changes comply with ADA guidelines and other safety standards.