I will say this - nearly all trails in our area that are 'cut throughs', as in wedged between two immediately facing private properties, are fenced in.
The difference here is twofold; the trail property is extremely narrow with no buffer space either side of the sidewalk, and the adjoining properties are commercial and would normally (and did previously) have open passage between them. Both those factors are good arguments for forgoing the fence, which the city seems to have not given proper consideration.
Of course, the entire lack of an access point in the first place comes from lack of municipal consideration of the local needs here, so I guess the irony is compounded.
The difference here is twofold; the trail property is extremely narrow with no buffer space either side of the sidewalk, and the adjoining properties are commercial and would normally (and did previously) have open passage between them. Both those factors are good arguments for forgoing the fence, which the city seems to have not given proper consideration.
Of course, the entire lack of an access point in the first place comes from lack of municipal consideration of the local needs here, so I guess the irony is compounded.