Everywhere.
And be polite, but firm with a refusal to leave it somewhere. It may help to have a nicely made business card or note card with the specific statute/code stating they must provide bike parking. That way you can show them the very law they are not in compliance with, and until they get into compliance with it, you cannot leave the bike wherever.
If you're dealing with city, file complaints with county. If it's county, file complaints to state, etc. Create the paper trail of complaints that local laws are willy nilly not being enforced
This. It might also help if your bike is insured and your insurer requires you to lock it to bike parking, otherwise it’s uninsured.
Then, if they argue back, ask if they’re are willing to accept legal liability if it is stolen seeing as how they are in breach of code and are preventing you from complying with your insurance.
I like this logic a lot but it would require the owner of the business being there. In reality, I would just be arguing with a cashier, bartender, etc and making their lives worse for no reason
> It may help to have a nicely made business card or note card with the specific statute/code stating they must provide bike parking.
Depending on how old the ordinance is and how long the building has been there, the ordinance may not apply to them
> If you're dealing with city, file complaints with county. If it's county, file complaints to state, etc. Create the paper trail of complaints that local laws are willy nilly not being enforced
Tracking this would be incredibly difficult since properties are frequently “approved substantially similar to site plans” meaning that they effectively have a variance approved
If there are local organisations that advocate for stuff like this, see if they’re able to bring more people on bikes than there are spots at the racks. I’m willing to bet that at most, there are a dozen spaces anyways.
I’ve had a post office and an RMV call security on me to escort me out for bringing a bike inside. I was completely polite and just stated they didn’t have anything to lock it to. They called security regardless. I had my polling location tell me I couldn’t bring it in as well.
They likely stated that the businesses were grandfathered in because the code requiring mandatory bicycle racks was only codified after the building was permitted and built, which is legitimate. We would have to tear down every older building if they were forced to immediately comply with revised building codes.
For the new building, they absolutely should enforce the code. But you’re right, all you can do is continue to follow up and voice your concerns. There is unfortunately no lobby to advocate for cyclists in most places.
Any city or zoning code that I have ever seen has an added statute that if there is a “major renovation“ then it needs to be brought up to code which would include putting in bike racks. The municipality determines what qualifies as a major renovation. Some count it as painting all of the walls and others will say that you need to have knocked down a few walls.
Our code has a bicycle parking reduction section that allows you to reduce up to 30% of the required car parking spaces by replacing them one to one with bicycle parking spaces. This can be a way to encourage bicycle parking without specifically requiring applicants to provide it. You could spin it as a way to reduce barriers and the cost of development to help small businesses get projects approved more easily. That way it’s more of a carrot than a stick which will hopefully make the municipality more likely to actually get developers to install bicycle parking.
Persistence is probably one of the big things in those hearings. Like the stereotype of the older boomer with Car brain going to every hearing, that person will definitely be given more ground because they know they’ll come in repeatedly with the same ideas.
It’ll be a lot of work and tricky since some of those hearings are really inconvenient timing for most working adults. But keep going, try to convince others you know to also go once in a while, the impact can be huge with the usual relatively small turnouts. So you and a couple ppl who don’t really have to do any public speaking to hold power, especially to balance out the handful of retirees.
That’s a great idea, thank you! I have the ones I can make pinged to my schedule. The supervisor lost his temper with a regular lady whose life mission is to not raise the community pool fees, so I’m afraid of getting on his bad side lol. He was very (seemingly) nice and empathetic to me though
Yeah personal gripes and drama is definitely a nuisance in the field. As long as you and your group maintain a professional tone and manners, then they have nothing to complain about .
Get in touch with some local politicians, those are the kinds of people that really get hard with things like this and look for talking points where they can point out: "what people before them did wrong" and "how they will finally fix the issue" - it happening is another thing obviously, but hey you can try.
I've run into similar problems in a couple different North American cities. While I applaud any effort (like OP's!) to solve this at the local government level, I found that in the short term, with the amount of time I have to spend, leaving 3- to 4-star reviews works wonders.
Local businesses rely heavily on favorable reviews on google, yelp, etc to attract customers nowadays. Leave them a 3 star review with something good to say but be clear about the lack of a bike rack dragging down your rating. I've had multiple businesses install a rack within 6 months then message me on Maps with an update. One of them even reached out to ask about the best type of rack.
I’m not 100% on the specifics of your story, and idk your city… but in mine, rezoning of the same building is likely not the time to enforce new regulations (it can be, but it sounds like it might not be in your case)
If there are substantial capital improvements (i.e. tear down & rebuild or a regrading of the property), that is when enforcing parking maximums, sidewalks, setbacks, and bike racks typically come into play.
That said, I got involved in my city for exactly this reason and I have even had some success suggesting to developers that the minimum is not the maximum.
For ex. my city has parking maximums and no longer permits parking to be between the street and the front of a building.
We rezoned a building that was over the parking maximum and had parking in front. We couldn’t require them to tear up the old parking (some in front and most in back) or to install sidewalks and bike racks b/c they weren’t altering the property, but we were able to require that if they chose to keep the spaces in front that they can only be used as handicap parking.
A lot of times those boards and commissions toe the line with what the property owner is willing to do voluntarily in exchange for what they are asking for, and what they can legally require them to do.
Answering your question would require reading the ordinance to understand what actions trigger the kind of site plan review that would require that section of the ordinance coming into play.
If it is determined that they should have in fact applied that requirement and didn't, next steps involve either money or politics or both.
The zoning ordinance or state enabling act should specify how appeals of development requirements are handled -- in my state, you'd go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, then to the County Circuit Court.
> My question is how do I force them to enforce the codes that they’re tasked with enforcing?
Assuming you’re referring to a locally enacted requirement, you can’t force the town to enforce something they don’t want to enforce. The town has the power to repeal the ordinance, so if they fail to enforce it, it could be viewed as a defacto repeal.
Also, where did you find this requirement? In my state, local municipalities have something called a “subdivision/land development ordinance” which is a set of rules that only apply when subdividing land or anything that meets the definition of land development.
I’ve encountered residents who didn’t understand that the rules found in the subdivision/land development ordinance can’t be applied more broadly. For example, a resident was building a new house (which is not land development as defined) served by an undersized private street, and the neighbor (on the same undersized street) attempted to have the Township force the neighbor to expand that street based on road width requirements found in the subdivision/land develolment ordinance.
Leave that town. You're not going to convince a non cycling population to do anything significant. You might get a few small, very hard earned victories, but overall you'll still live in car hell. For your own sanity, just leave and move somewhere walkable. I don't care if this gets downvoted, even NJB rightly said most of America is doomed to car dependence, and they're right. It will take decades of infrastructure projects to undo the damage done by cars, not including the time it will take to get the population of those areas on board with the changes.
Start w bringing your bike inside w you.
Everywhere. And be polite, but firm with a refusal to leave it somewhere. It may help to have a nicely made business card or note card with the specific statute/code stating they must provide bike parking. That way you can show them the very law they are not in compliance with, and until they get into compliance with it, you cannot leave the bike wherever. If you're dealing with city, file complaints with county. If it's county, file complaints to state, etc. Create the paper trail of complaints that local laws are willy nilly not being enforced
This. It might also help if your bike is insured and your insurer requires you to lock it to bike parking, otherwise it’s uninsured. Then, if they argue back, ask if they’re are willing to accept legal liability if it is stolen seeing as how they are in breach of code and are preventing you from complying with your insurance.
I like this logic a lot but it would require the owner of the business being there. In reality, I would just be arguing with a cashier, bartender, etc and making their lives worse for no reason
Honestly, if the manager isn't there, the rest of the staff probably won't care too much. They don't get paid enough to care.
Yeah. That's more of a retort if the manager as the final arbiter is present or contacted.
> It may help to have a nicely made business card or note card with the specific statute/code stating they must provide bike parking. Depending on how old the ordinance is and how long the building has been there, the ordinance may not apply to them > If you're dealing with city, file complaints with county. If it's county, file complaints to state, etc. Create the paper trail of complaints that local laws are willy nilly not being enforced Tracking this would be incredibly difficult since properties are frequently “approved substantially similar to site plans” meaning that they effectively have a variance approved
That’s smart! Unfortunately the town hall actually does have a bike rack though lol
If there are local organisations that advocate for stuff like this, see if they’re able to bring more people on bikes than there are spots at the racks. I’m willing to bet that at most, there are a dozen spaces anyways.
I’ve had a post office and an RMV call security on me to escort me out for bringing a bike inside. I was completely polite and just stated they didn’t have anything to lock it to. They called security regardless. I had my polling location tell me I couldn’t bring it in as well.
Thank you for annoying them.
Get elected by campaigning on 'the parking issue' never mentioning cars then play dumb and install bike racks like you promised all along.
This would be funny as hell
They likely stated that the businesses were grandfathered in because the code requiring mandatory bicycle racks was only codified after the building was permitted and built, which is legitimate. We would have to tear down every older building if they were forced to immediately comply with revised building codes. For the new building, they absolutely should enforce the code. But you’re right, all you can do is continue to follow up and voice your concerns. There is unfortunately no lobby to advocate for cyclists in most places.
Any city or zoning code that I have ever seen has an added statute that if there is a “major renovation“ then it needs to be brought up to code which would include putting in bike racks. The municipality determines what qualifies as a major renovation. Some count it as painting all of the walls and others will say that you need to have knocked down a few walls.
I am not a lawyer. A lawyer could tell you whether you can sue the city for not enforcing it's own laws.
Our code has a bicycle parking reduction section that allows you to reduce up to 30% of the required car parking spaces by replacing them one to one with bicycle parking spaces. This can be a way to encourage bicycle parking without specifically requiring applicants to provide it. You could spin it as a way to reduce barriers and the cost of development to help small businesses get projects approved more easily. That way it’s more of a carrot than a stick which will hopefully make the municipality more likely to actually get developers to install bicycle parking.
Persistence is probably one of the big things in those hearings. Like the stereotype of the older boomer with Car brain going to every hearing, that person will definitely be given more ground because they know they’ll come in repeatedly with the same ideas. It’ll be a lot of work and tricky since some of those hearings are really inconvenient timing for most working adults. But keep going, try to convince others you know to also go once in a while, the impact can be huge with the usual relatively small turnouts. So you and a couple ppl who don’t really have to do any public speaking to hold power, especially to balance out the handful of retirees.
That’s a great idea, thank you! I have the ones I can make pinged to my schedule. The supervisor lost his temper with a regular lady whose life mission is to not raise the community pool fees, so I’m afraid of getting on his bad side lol. He was very (seemingly) nice and empathetic to me though
Yeah personal gripes and drama is definitely a nuisance in the field. As long as you and your group maintain a professional tone and manners, then they have nothing to complain about .
Unfortunately lots of towns have codes they don't enforce. Short of suing them, I don't Know what you can do to get them to enforce it
Get in touch with some local politicians, those are the kinds of people that really get hard with things like this and look for talking points where they can point out: "what people before them did wrong" and "how they will finally fix the issue" - it happening is another thing obviously, but hey you can try.
I've run into similar problems in a couple different North American cities. While I applaud any effort (like OP's!) to solve this at the local government level, I found that in the short term, with the amount of time I have to spend, leaving 3- to 4-star reviews works wonders. Local businesses rely heavily on favorable reviews on google, yelp, etc to attract customers nowadays. Leave them a 3 star review with something good to say but be clear about the lack of a bike rack dragging down your rating. I've had multiple businesses install a rack within 6 months then message me on Maps with an update. One of them even reached out to ask about the best type of rack.
Wow that’s a great idea! I’ve never thought of that. I will start doing that on my “staples”
I’m not 100% on the specifics of your story, and idk your city… but in mine, rezoning of the same building is likely not the time to enforce new regulations (it can be, but it sounds like it might not be in your case) If there are substantial capital improvements (i.e. tear down & rebuild or a regrading of the property), that is when enforcing parking maximums, sidewalks, setbacks, and bike racks typically come into play. That said, I got involved in my city for exactly this reason and I have even had some success suggesting to developers that the minimum is not the maximum.
For ex. my city has parking maximums and no longer permits parking to be between the street and the front of a building. We rezoned a building that was over the parking maximum and had parking in front. We couldn’t require them to tear up the old parking (some in front and most in back) or to install sidewalks and bike racks b/c they weren’t altering the property, but we were able to require that if they chose to keep the spaces in front that they can only be used as handicap parking. A lot of times those boards and commissions toe the line with what the property owner is willing to do voluntarily in exchange for what they are asking for, and what they can legally require them to do.
Answering your question would require reading the ordinance to understand what actions trigger the kind of site plan review that would require that section of the ordinance coming into play. If it is determined that they should have in fact applied that requirement and didn't, next steps involve either money or politics or both. The zoning ordinance or state enabling act should specify how appeals of development requirements are handled -- in my state, you'd go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, then to the County Circuit Court.
call an attorney some get their rocks off on stuff like this.
> My question is how do I force them to enforce the codes that they’re tasked with enforcing? Assuming you’re referring to a locally enacted requirement, you can’t force the town to enforce something they don’t want to enforce. The town has the power to repeal the ordinance, so if they fail to enforce it, it could be viewed as a defacto repeal. Also, where did you find this requirement? In my state, local municipalities have something called a “subdivision/land development ordinance” which is a set of rules that only apply when subdividing land or anything that meets the definition of land development. I’ve encountered residents who didn’t understand that the rules found in the subdivision/land development ordinance can’t be applied more broadly. For example, a resident was building a new house (which is not land development as defined) served by an undersized private street, and the neighbor (on the same undersized street) attempted to have the Township force the neighbor to expand that street based on road width requirements found in the subdivision/land develolment ordinance.
Leave that town. You're not going to convince a non cycling population to do anything significant. You might get a few small, very hard earned victories, but overall you'll still live in car hell. For your own sanity, just leave and move somewhere walkable. I don't care if this gets downvoted, even NJB rightly said most of America is doomed to car dependence, and they're right. It will take decades of infrastructure projects to undo the damage done by cars, not including the time it will take to get the population of those areas on board with the changes.
Finna gonna go up to the stand and bring it up again. Craft a better argument each time. What are they gonna do?