Case Date:

9/30/2026

Looks abandoned with weeds growing up & around vehicles etc

Case Date:

9/26/2026

Car is parked illegally in yellow zone preventing right turn from 15th onto woodburn.

Case Date:

9/22/2026

Subject: Request for Residential On-Street ADA Parking Spaces due to Student Housing Overcrowding I am a 9-year resident of Maple Heights neighborhood in Bloomington requesting the designation of on-street ADA accessible parking spaces directly adjacent to my home. My husband is disabled and myself have upcoming spine surgery and possesses a valid state-issued ADA placard.A recent multi-building student development directly across the street has overwhelmed our public street parking. The high volume of student vehicles completely fills the street, creating a severe barrier for my husband and myself, who cannot walk long distances. This has created a safety hazard, as we are trapped in our home and unable to leave for medical needs out of fear that accessible parking will be completely cut off by student overflow. Because we operate two essential vehicles—including one required for my husband's medical transit—we are formally requesting that the Traffic Commission evaluate our property for a designated ADA space allotment to restore safe, accessible entry to our home. Thank you for your urgent assistance with this safety matter.

Case Date:

7/16/2026

220 W 14th St. This is a repeat of #212155. I need you to understand the methodology behind this photograph. I held my phone pointing directly ahead of me, with both of my feet squarely on the sidewalk (at the edge of the sidewalk). My phone was directly in front of my face. The branch directly in the center of the photo is exactly where my eyes would be if i had continued to walk forwards. Practically, this is a genuine problem because I really do walk along the edge of the sidewalk so that i can walk 2- or 3-abreast with my family. It's a safety problem because if I do not see the branch then it will hit my eye, as has already happened at this location! It's an inconvenience because it is a point where the sidewalk narrows from 5ft to effectively 4ft. Pedestrians are forced to reconfigure their groups at these narrowings. It costs us time and energy and makes conversing difficult. I'm not sure what enforcement authority you're acting under but it's a legal problem as well, for example BMC 12.24.040 requires a clear distance of 8ft above sidewalks. FWIW, I'm asking for 6ft. The transportation plan also weighs in on this, Table 5 Pedestrian Zone Design Parameters "Clear space for all pedestrian travel, should be clear of any and all fixed obstacles." I didn't think it was necessary to be so explicit but they were -- "any and all" definitely includes branches that extend 6 inches into your eye sockets. The specific undesirability of having fixed obstacles extending over the sidewalk exactly at eye height *for any distance* has been explicitly acknowledged and i can't believe i'm trying to point this out today. Anyways i really do appreciate that this has seen already more enforcement action than the whole city put together before about 2022 but if this is what compliance looks like then we have a problem.