By KENT KAMMERER

Fledgling mayor Greg Nickels has made "new" sidewalks for Seattle, a campaign issue. It's an interesting choice of priorities for a city with staggering amounts of deferred maintenance and awash in recession caused tax shortfalls.

Short of funds, and facing the prospect of a severely unbalanced budget, the City has struggled to tighten its belt.

The public policy question for our city and new mayor, is - when funds are short, do we build new stuff or maintain what we have?

The history: When Seattle last made large annexations the old-timers say the City promised proper streets and sidewalks if citizens would sign on the dotted line to tie the bond with a city eager to expand its tax base. Now, searching its records, the City bureaucrats can find no such written promise, though admit a few politicians may have had a loose tongue and made verbal promises they had no intention to keep.

The dilemma: The question of whether the City should foot the entire bill for new streets and sidewalks looms again because a number of residents think proper sidewalks are essential to their neighborhoods. The more interesting question is why Nickels would make Seattle sidewalks such a high priority when faced with so much deferred maintenance? Maybe some of his campaign supporters offered to help elect him if he would come through on sidewalks.

It is true that large parts of the City, both north and south, are without sidewalks. Many without paved streets or curbs. Sidewalk advocates argue that "real" cities have sidewalks and that they enhance the property value. They suggest that people who have paved streets and sidewalks maintain their property at a higher level. There is little question that they provide a safer place for people to walk and kids to play.

So what's the big deal? It turns out there are other issues to consider. Over 90 percent of the people who have sidewalks might be surprised to learn that it is "they" who paid for them - not the City!

Maybe recently, or maybe long ago, builders were, and are, required to build sidewalks and their cost was folded into the sale of the property. There are also areas in the city where citizens who wanted sidewalks used the LID (local improvement district) process, to have them built.

In this system, the City supplied the engineering and project management, but the property owners incurred much of the cost. State law required that 60 percent of the property owners agree.

Not all agree on sidewalks: Sidewalk advocates have assumed that everyone wants paved sidewalks, but those who gathered signature approval for LIDs discovered significant numbers of people who don't believe paved sidewalks will enhance either their property value or their public safety. They claim they can walk their neighborhood without benefit of pavement. The reasons they give in opposition to sidewalks are as interesting and compelling as those who favor them.

Those opposed to sidewalks complain that besides the high cost, that they bought their house because they liked the feel of the neighborhood the way it is, because its streets appeared more like the country lane than the big city.

Others argue that curbs, sidewalks and driveway cuts activate parking enforcement regulations to their neighborhood. Some parking regulations can't be enforced because they relate to a finished street with curbs.

Others argue they have large trees or have landscaped their property to have that country look and they hate to lose their landscaping investment.

Some just don't care. Some argue that exclusive gated communities like Broadmoor or the Highlands are not all equipped with sidewalks by intent and that there is no negative effect on the quality of the neighborhood. Advocates argue that it increases property values and public safety, but those in opposition claim site comparable real estate sales suggest that sidewalks can't be proved to establish higher property values.

Both sides clearly have valid arguments.

Issue of fairness: The more interesting question is what happens if some people on a block want sidewalks and their neighbors don't? Those that framed the state constitution perceived that the LID system offered due process and fairness because it required an accurate signature count to determine the majority public position. It's an inherently fair and democratic process. It seems a no-brainer.

People who formed LIDs to pay for their own sidewalks and all those people whose houses came with sidewalks, have already paid once. They might become very irate if Nickels plan to build new sidewalks will require them to pay twice: once for their own sidewalks and again for people who think the City should pick up the entire tab for sidewalks in front of their own house. It is a policy question, which should stir vigorous debate.