Diverse Opinions Expressed at City Council Hearing

The Saint Paul City Council held a public hearing last night on the proposed changes to skyway rules and regulations (as mentioned in my previous post). Several areas of disagreement became evident as stakeholders, including myself, spoke before the Council.

The most contentious issue was the proposed change in skyway closing hours from the current 2AM to midnight. Numerous individuals, including some in wheelchairs, advocated for keeping the 2AM closing time so patrons of bars, restaurants and entertainment venues could use the skyways after midnight. I stated that most attendees at Skyway Governance Advisory Committee meetings prefer the 2AM closing time, although many feel midnight would also be ok. None, however, want the skyways to close earlier than midnight.

Others, mainly building owners or their representatives, argued for a closing time as early as 8PM, saying that times have changed and building security guards can no longer be expected to maintain safety late at night with limited police presence. Longtime building manager Pat Wolf mentioned that there once was a dedicated Skyway Beat police patrol, something I have wished for as I've considered security issues over the past few years. It was also suggested that some segments of the skyway should have more limited hours than others.

My preference is for the Council to hold off on the hours change until improvements in security are given a chance to work. However, the midnight closing appears to be an important bargaining chip for building owners, so we may need to accept the earlier closing time to get security upgrades owners are expected to fund such as better video surveillance and cooperative patrols. Whatever the Council decides, it can always be changed in the future.

Another matter of contention was the proposed removal of the prohibition against "sitting" in the skyway system. The intent of this change was to clarify that some sitting is permitted (in seats provided by buildings, for example), but building owners feel the change would encourage loiterers to sit anywhere they wish with impunity. While buildings can make their own no-sitting rules, they would not apply to the easements through their buildings, which could confuse those inclined to sit wherever they feel like sitting. 

I agree that the proposal should be modified to allow sitting only in designated areas and for a limited length of time. Skyways are for getting from one place to another, not for sitting on the floor or for long periods.

My takeaway from the hearing is that there are differing perspectives and ideas when it comes to skyway issues, and all of the people who spoke made good points. This will require compromise in order to succeed, and I think the proposed changes, with an amendment regarding the sitting issue, is a good compromise.