There are many instances where living in the 2020s is very different from when I grew up in the late 1900s, and one of them recently came to mind when I heard a discussion recently about the state of sidewalks in my hometown of Summit Hill.

I wasn’t at that meeting of the town council, so I can only summarize what I believe was accurately reported on: That is some people want to rewrite the town’s sidewalk ordinance while others, and one in particular, don’t like the thought that some property owners have opted for macadam (blacktop) instead of concrete in renovating their passageways.

The subject intrigued me to the extent I journeyed through the streets of town looking at sidewalks. What I found was a potpourri of ways people choose to care for their properties.

Of course, in cases where people have allowed their properties to deteriorate, those matters need to be looked at by our town leaders, most especially where rundown properties constitute “blight,” that all important word that begs for authoritative action.

As for sidewalks, here are just a few observations: there are numerous properties where macadam has been used for years for sidewalks, and, in some newer jobs, they appear to be very nice but, most especially, safe for passers-by; some properties, including businesses, have no sidewalks at all; and, the borough itself has no sidewalks around some of its own property, including the circumferences to Memorial Park (Hazard and Fell streets) and the Bill Black Memorial Park (Holland and Market streets).

I suspect the first thing property owners think about when considering to replace their sidewalks is cost. After all, it’s safe to say the cost of macadam vs. concrete is significant, not to mention what is likely to be high set-up expenses (excavating, curbing, etc.). As I thought about this, it became obvious to me the underlying reason for selecting the macadam option is affordability. So I ask, why would someone, including borough leaders, take offense to a property owner wanting to make his or her property safer for pedestrians and selecting macadam to do so?

Years ago, concrete obviously was the material of choice, not only for sidewalks but definitely for streets and roads. In fact, I’d be willing to bet many old-timers would tell you every street in town at one point in time was paved with concrete.

But times have changed. And don’t you think those making decisions on repaving streets and highways - including local, county and state leaders - opted through decades to use blacktop because of the cost? So why not blacktopped sidewalks?

I shook my head with amazement when it was reported a taxpayer told town council a recently blacktopped sidewalk in town “looks horrible.” Really? Isn’t that belittling of property owners who care enough to make their properties safe and presentable?

Anyone who would be honest about their spending habits, I’m sure you will agree, would concede he or she acts with consideration about where their dollars go. People don’t act impulsively. I’d venture to say, especially where finances are concerned, they put thought into their decisions. For example: we’re more likely to stop at a gas station where the cost of gas is $3.29 rather than $3.49. In general, we’re likely to buy one item over another because it’s less expensive.

Get the picture? People these days take the less costly route, especially when inflation hits us in the face, and costs have been jacked up in the post-COVID era.

As far as I know, property owners are responsible for the liabilities of their properties, not a municipality. To that end, I would prefer to see (and walk on) sidewalks that are neat and safe, regardless of their composition.

I’m told Summit Hill may be in for a new sidewalk ordinance in the future. If that happens, I’m hopeful its authors and supporters will not put cost-prohibitive material demands on residents; and that, most especially, if sidewalks are required on all properties, ALL means those owned by the borough too. Any ordinance language different from that, in my opinion, would be selective and discriminatory.