HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-28 Melody Garland
TO: CityClerk@meridiancity.org
RE: Submission of comments for public meeting Monday February 1 2021 3:30pm regarding
adoption of an ordinance limiting the operation of ATVs and UTVs on Meridian streets.
My name is Melody Garland, I reside at 879 W Bear Track Ct Meridian ID 83642.
I have an adult disabled child who has a large electric mobility scooter; 62” length/36”
width/56” height. It has a dual person bench seat. It resembles the look of a “golf cart”.
Idaho’s Medicaid program approved and funded the scooter. The scooter is intended to
provide my child the means to have outdoor recreation opportunity like other non-disabled
persons have. The specifics of my child’s disabilities dictated the need for this specific type of
“scooter”. The scooter is my child’s “bike” and the way they can “walk their dog”. It is
ALWAYS operated in a safe and responsible manner within our neighborhood and over to the
park where my child can watch recreational games and view wildlife. Neighbors smile and
wave when they see the scooter pass by, It provides my child with inclusion in the community
they otherwise wouldn’t have. The scooter has been used by the visiting parents of our
neighbor who both have mobility deficits that exclude them from participating in outdoor
recreation. Using our scooter enabled them to “ride bikes” with their grandchildren. Use of
“electric vehicles” as a means for outdoor recreation provides a greater quality of life for
everyone who otherwise couldn’t have outdoor recreation.
I believe that your proposed Ordinance has some serious issues. Electromobility is here in a big
way. E Bikes, Electric scooters, hoverboards etc. are used prolifically on neighborhood
streets/sidewalks by adults and children. An electric transportation revolution is on the
horizon, no doubt city infrastructure will require altering/modification at some point. Use of
varying types of electric transportation to pick up groceries or kids from school is occurring in
Meridian and surrounding cities, it is a prolific practice in many other places, reduction of air
pollution output is a positive.
By what authority will a “vehicle” be deemed “specifically designed to carry a disabled
person”? Limiting golf cart use only to those residing in chosen neighborhoods is
discriminatory to some and giving privilege to others. What about the person who lives on the
south side of Cherry lane who has been driving their golf cart to Lakeview Golf course for years
but now they will be required to haul it over on a trailer they might not be able to afford or
have room/ability to store on their property; won’t an influx of trailers cause parking issues
in/around golf courses?
I imagine the concept of the proposed ordinance came about not because of the majority of
people who operate such “vehicles” in a safe and responsible manner, but because of a small
minority of those who exhibit unsafe/inappropriate/reckless driving practices. I agree that the
safety/wellbeing of Meridian citizens should not be put in jeopardy by those who don’t adhere
to basic transportation rules/guidelines such as giving pedestrians the right of way, obeying
speed limits, traffic signs/signals, not interfering with traffic/pedestrian patterns, blocking
driveways/access points and refrain from cell phone distraction and intoxication; these
rules/guidelines should be in place for ALL transportation types and the people who use them
including bicycles/cyclists. The term “Bicycle lane” implies exclusive use of a 2 wheeled “bike”.
Many cyclists own/use 3 wheeled bikes (trikes) and 4 wheeled bikes (quads) out of preference
or necessity. Shouldn’t these special “Bicycle lanes” allow trikes, quads, EBikes and scooters? If
the City implements an Ordinance shouldn’t such ordinance be well defined with no room for
confusion or differing interpretation?
My child’s mobility scooter may appear to some to be a “golf cart”, I fear an altercation being
incited over this. The city has several ordinances commonly known not to be enforced
resulting in dissent, resentment and altercations played out on social media and on location
(Example: Dogs allowed on leash only/clean up after your dog City Ordinance 6-2-8). Do we
really need this proposed ordinance that punishes many for the crimes of the few,
unnecessarily taking away recreational enjoyment from law abiding tax payers/considerate
neighbors? The irresponsible reckless individuals that caused this ordinance to be drafted will
continue their problem behavior; off leash dogs continue to roam, dog defecation litters our
parks, sidewalks and neighbor’s lawns.
I ask you to please reconsider your “Golf Cart” ordinance.