Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Pedestrian Safety topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Residents urge sidewalks, defined crossings after neighbor’s mobility concerns

Oxford City Council · March 3, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Residents at 115 Old Farm Road asked council for a minimally invasive sidewalk segment and a defined curb crossing to help visually impaired pedestrians, while neighbors voiced worries about construction costs and tree removal burdens on a few properties.

During public comment, TJ Mallaloy of 115 Old Farm Road described mobility challenges on streets without sidewalks and asked council to prioritize completing short sidewalk segments and adding a defined curb crossing near the country club to aid visually impaired pedestrians.

"Our biggest obstacle is not having a defined curve to cross that country club," Mallaloy said, referencing a mobility‑instructor proposal he had submitted to council. He and his wife, Allison, framed the request as an accessibility and universal‑design issue that benefits children, older residents and people with disabilities.

Alan Banley, speaking on behalf of Marcus Job, urged caution about asking a small number of homeowners to shoulder high costs for sidewalk construction and tree removal. Banley cited example cost figures provided by neighbors — roughly $4,500 for a sidewalk segment and an additional $12,000 to remove trees in one estimate — and suggested the city consider spreading the cost or offering assistance for individual cases.

Speakers asked council to consider lower‑impact alternatives if possible, such as clearly signed crossings, curb extensions, no‑parking zones for certain stretches and mobility training supports. Council members thanked residents for the proposals and noted the need to balance neighborhood impacts, construction costs and broader pedestrian safety goals.

No formal vote followed public comment; council members indicated they would continue deliberations as part of future street‑improvement planning and related agenda work sessions.