In a move that’s left many residents scratching their heads, the Southgate City Council decided not to move forward with a proposed amendment allowing golf carts on city streets under certain conditions. Despite a growing interest in golf cart use as a safe, economical, and environmentally friendly option for neighborhood transportation, council members failed to support the motion, effectively keeping the existing ordinance in place.
Missed Opportunity or Necessary Precaution?
The council began exploring the possibility of permitting golf carts on city streets this past spring, requesting City Attorney Mary Ann Stewart draft an amendment to set clear guidelines. Stewart’s proposal outlined specific restrictions and penalties to keep the usage safe and orderly, basing her recommendations on similar ordinances in nearby cities like Fort Thomas and Dayton, where golf cart use is already legal.
However, during Wednesday’s council meeting, while a motion to accept the amendment was presented, it was met with silence—no council member seconded the motion, allowing it to fall flat. Some residents feel this decision shows a lack of understanding from city officials, who may be out of touch with a shifting trend in transportation. “Golf carts aren’t just a fad; they’re a practical and affordable option for short trips,” noted a resident who attended the meeting. “Other cities are already making this transition, and we’re being left behind.”
The Difference Between Standard Golf Carts and LSVs
One point that seemed overlooked in the debate was the distinction between standard golf carts and Low-Speed Vehicles (LSVs). Unlike traditional golf carts, LSVs have features that make them street-legal, such as headlights, seatbelts, mirrors, and turn signals. LSVs can reach speeds of up to 25 mph and comply with additional safety standards, which allows them to operate on roads with speed limits typically up to 35 mph.
Many amendment proponents believe the council could have approved a selective policy allowing LSVs, which meet federal safety standards, rather than completely dismissing the idea. This distinction was part of Stewart’s initial draft, which outlined specific parameters for where and how golf carts—especially LSVs—could be used safely. Residents in favor argue that had the council considered these differences, a balanced solution could have been provided that satisfied both sides.
Nearby Cities Embrace Golf Cart Usage
Southgate’s decision contrasts several nearby cities that have embraced golf cart-friendly policies. Fort Thomas and Dayton, for example, have recognized the benefits of allowing golf carts on their streets with carefully crafted ordinances that provide rules and safety measures for drivers. These cities have shown that with proper regulation, golf cart usage can coexist with standard road traffic, improving access for residents and supporting local businesses.
Looking Forward: What’s Next for Golf Cart Advocates?
While Southgate’s current ordinance remains in effect, residents who support golf cart usage on city streets may continue to push for change. Advocates argue that allowing golf carts could reduce car traffic, lower emissions, and offer an affordable, community-focused option for local travel.
For now, Southgate cannot explore this option, even as other cities in Northern Kentucky adopt a more modern, adaptable approach to transportation.