– Don Munn (September 11, 2015, Facebook) – First, I would like to thank the originators of this for creating this space for all of us to work together to build a better community for us all to live in. I’m a newb here on the group, but have been in the hood since 1988, and on this road since 2008.
I’ve attempted to “catch up” on what has been expressed here, and find some thoughts that echo my own concerns, as well as posts that underscore why this project was undertaken to start with. It is my considered belief that implementing the project as passed recently is not in the best interest of the community, but that is not to say we should abandon the idea. From here,I will speak in bullet point to keep it from dribbling on for ever, and maybe we can address the bullets one at a time. (and I apologize in advance for the length of it all….)
0 – Anyone who thinks this is a minor upgrade or a little change to the street has not gone outside with a tape measure and paced it out. This will be a drastic change to our little corner of the world, and will categorically change the feel of the street and the neighborhood, not to mention property attributes, some much more than others.. To some that is a good thing, to others it is not, but at the end of the day we have to realize that we all have to live with the result of the changes. For reference, I stuck a pole in my yard where the sidewalk edge will be, I’ll try to remember to stick a sign on it so folks will know what it is…
1 – From the April meeting, the plan seemed to be, sign it now, and take your chances you will get what you want in the end. That was the only promise the officials would give, so I didn’t sign.
2- Some people did not have a clear understanding and signed it anyway, and now wish they didn’t. I don’t have numbers, but I have spoken to more than one and I suspect there are a good number of them out there.
3 – While this process is based on majority rule, just as other things in our country, that also entails minority consent, just because the majority got what they wanted, they should not ignore the minority concerns. From the comments expressed, it would appear that there are a small number of people who are highly motivated and in favor of this plan, and that most of the largest proponents do not even live on the street. If they can take that motivation and work to minimize the significant impact to those that do live on the street, then this can all work out. If the process goes the way we were told it would, during the design phase there is “give and take” on the actual project as it gets completed… it would be good if we presented a united front on what the community wanted placed here.
4 – There is a short window for middle ground, the outcome is unknown, but if it comes to harsh actions, this will likely reset back to the beginning. If the majority REALLY wants this, then it would be good to go gather the minority concerns, ALL of them, and address them in a meaningful manner, not just minimize them and pretend they don’t exist.
5 – I am not personally opposed to curbs and a sidewalk on this street, but I am very disappointed in the process as we have lived it here these last few months and do not support the current design as it stands. I suspect I am not alone…..
6 – I would really like to see us all step-up up a notch and work together to come up with answers, not just sling words and emotions around. I know that some feel very put out by the way things transpired, but lets try to put this aside and work a solution. These are our homes and we LIVE here…..
. . . . . .
Minority Concerns, By Don Munn, Friday, September 11, 2015 at 11:53pm
-Watershead issues. Additional impervious surface will exacerbate existing issues on Bushy Creek
-Encroachment issues. Full width set back and sidewalk takes the perimieter a full 14.5′ from the existing road edge on the West side of Lorimer. Main concern is this will have sidewalks in close proximity to some residences
-Driveway/elevation issues. The full width setback of 14.5 feet will create some very alkward driveway and yard alterations.
-Loss of Trees. Aesthetic charator of neighborhood.
-Additional width of road may lead to higher speeds on roadway, esp with Western -Blvd/Kent inersection being possible only connection to I-440. (Lorimer will be road of choice for anyone West of Kent…)
-Undo cost burden on some property owners. (Would the Church have signed if they had to pay?
-??? List more here….
Sharon Moll Mixon 7. Concern that peoples are making assumptions and upsetting their neighbors.
Like · September 13, 2015 at 4:32am · Edited
Don Munn Lets try to stick with the concerns… if there are facts that are wrong, lets correct them.
Like · September 12, 2015 at 12:38am
Sharon Moll Mixon If I can trust that you will not slap me with a lawsuit for stating something incorrectly….
Like · September 12, 2015 at 1:18am · Edited
Sharon Moll Mixon 1. The road is going to stay the same 22ft then they are adding 2.5ft curb and gutter on each side. please read Curries post —I would like to bring a little real-world clarity to an issue— from Sept 9th
Like · September 13, 2015 at 4:34am · Edited
Don Munn The drawing posted is straight from the petition. I am in the process of making the “modified” 5′ sidewalk version.
Like · September 12, 2015 at 1:05am
Sharon Moll Mixon Don did you watch the video from September 1st council meeting? Jimmy Upchurch said a 3.5 foot setback would not be a problem. But no one proposed that at the meeting. The talking point was not about the size of the footprint. Instead it was about leaving the 1200 block off petition. The petitioner and the 28 homes that made this happen, had no idea 7 households were being represented by a lawyer to oppose the petition.
Like · September 13, 2015 at 4:25am
Sharon Moll Mixon there will be a 5ft sidewalk but it will have grass (or something) on both sides of it
Like · September 12, 2015 at 1:06am
Don Munn Yes, as the drawing shows… 6′ between the curb and the sidewalk
Like · September 12, 2015 at 1:07am
Sharon Moll Mixon 2.encroachment=intrusion on a person’s territory. The city has 60ft easement they will only be using 50ft. So they will not be on your property. I don’t think anyone really knows the width of the set back at this point.
Like · September 12, 2015 at 1:16am
Don Munn On the west side they are using all but 3′ per the current design. (was 2′ but the reduction of the sidewalk made it 3..) And yes, I understand that the city has the right to use their right of way, but when most of these houses were built, that ROW was not in effect. so houses were built closer to the property lines than would be allowed today.
Like · September 12, 2015 at 1:22am · Edited
Sharon Moll Mixon ? have you noticed the placement of the last home built in this neighborhood. I would guess it is the closest to the property line.
Like · September 13, 2015 at 4:30am
Sharon Moll Mixon 3. Have you seen the sidewalk project on Kaplen? they are doing a great good on driveways/elevation issues in my opinion.
Like · September 12, 2015 at 1:22am
Sharon Moll Mixon 6. The church does have to pay for the area that does not have curb and gutter already.
Like · September 12, 2015 at 1:33am
Erin Salmon All of the measurements I have done on our road equal 20′. I could be wrong, but I have measured many times in many places. The city has us listed on the project report as 22′. Not sure why. They list Garland as 20′.
Like · September 12, 2015 at 1:48am
Erin Salmon Perhaps we need this corrected in the city records –