[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SG-W:/ Pittsfield land use in headlines again



I agree, Andrew. The Road Commission has proposed numerous traffic calming measures, and designed the roads to be offset, with two traffic circles, and they have told the residents of Centennial Park/Farms that they have other traffic calming things they could do. So far, the residents have taken the all or nothing approach, but maybe in time, cooler heads will prevail. I guess folks must think I'm monstrous, but I found this to be an incredibly easy decision. The traffic pattern is not only BETTER than it would have been with the approved sub the new residents bought into, but they can pop right over to the school and its playfields. I think what they wanted sounds incredibly dangerous for them and for everyone else in the community. I just wouldn't expect any of the folks who came to the meeting the other night tovote for me next time around. I expect they'llvote for Terry Bertram and whoever else Louis Johnson puts up to run against us, unless they're ticked at them by then. Christina Lirones

>From: Andrew Mutch
>To: jmarine
>CC: smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net
>Subject: Re: SG-W:/ Pittsfield land use in headlines again
>Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:32:20 -0400
>
>Jeff,
>
>Thanks for your perspective on this. I hope I didn't leave the impression that
>residents' concerns are a NIMBY attitude to be dismissed. In some cases,
>residents do have legitimate concerns about traffic patterns and boards should
>always be open to hearing those concerns. However, there are times when those
>concerns, even when they are valid, have to be secondary to interests of public
>safety and welfare. That's where boards earn their keep by making decisions
>that can be unpopular and even potentially detrimental to an individual
>homeowner. Sometimes the interests of the community as a whole have to take
>precedence over the interest of an individual Plus, as you pointed out, nobody
>likes to hear that what you are doing is for their benefit, as much as anyone
>else, when they don't perceive it as a benefit at all.
>
>Even when the roads are connected, too many of these decisions are all or
>nothing arguments. I think a good approach would be to ask the homeowners to
>explore and discuss potential traffic calming measures short of closing the road
>that might alleviate their traffic concerns. They could work with the Township
>to come to a mutually agreeable solution that would allow the road to remain
>open but would reduce safety problems. You really need to be pro-active in this
>regard and use an approach that is inclusive unless you want to fight this
>battle over and over again for years to come. Nobody likes to feel like they
>"lost" and the board "isn't listening". An exploration of traffic calming
>measures could give residents an opportunity to be part of the process and allow
>them to feel like they have a stake in the process.
>
>Good luck!
>
>Andrew Mutch
>Novi
>
>jmarine wrote:
>
> > Andrew,
> >
> > You make a great point about the difficulty of making a decision on this
> > type of road. I have to admit that I made my vote in favor of this issue
> > because the roads were only a relatively small part of the larger package;
> > construction of the new Saline schools. According to our lawyer, if the
> > Board voted no on the package, it might possibly delay the construction of
> > the schools. Even trying to change any part of the entire issue, such as
> > revisiting the building of this connector road, could unduly impact the
> > timing for the construction process.
> >
> > I feel strongly that the residents concerns about safety within their own
> > subdivision were justified--especially if the students use this as a short
> > cut for school or extracurricular activities. On the other hand, you and
> > Tina make important points about the need for these connective roads. It is
> > very difficult to explain to the residents that we want to do this for their
> > own good in the face of strong opposition.
> >
> > I can only hope that the road is more benificial than the potential hazard
> > it might become. Otherwise, I take the Supervisor at his word that we can
> > revisit this issue in the future.
> >
> > Respectfully Yours,
> >
> > Jeffrey Marine
> >
>
>
>
>
>===============================================================
>smartgrowth-washtenaw: Internet List and Forum for issues relating to
>sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw
>County.
>
>Postings to: smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net For info, send
>email to majordomo@great-lakes.net with a one-line message body of "info
>smartgrowth-washtenaw"
>===============================================================


Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
=============================================================== smartgrowth-washtenaw: Internet List and Forum for issues relating to sprawl, smart growth, and preservation of the quality of life in Washtenaw County. Postings to: smartgrowth-washtenaw@great-lakes.net For info, send email to majordomo@great-lakes.net with a one-line message body of "info smartgrowth-washtenaw" ===============================================================