Facebook Posts – September 10-11, 2015

Erin Salmon

September 10, 2015

I am finding it very difficult to keep up with all of the posts because they are embedded as responses to previous posts. Perhaps the discussions could continue as new posts that begin, “In response to so-and-so’s previous post.”

I too am disappointed by the removal of Kay Crowder. Having her voice in this matter could provide a lot of clarity. Particularly since I am missing so much information from the April meeting, and that seems to be where the misinformation began. It is also disappointing that Donna, the legal petitioner to this proposal has also left the conversation, and that we are left dealing with the fallout.

I appreciate Sam Bellezza’a comments around the positive benefits of this forum. Obviously this is a deeply emotional experience because we are talking about our homes. We live in an intimate neighborhood, and we will all live with one another after this is history.

Comments

Sharon Moll Mixon

September 10, 2015 · Raleigh, NC, United States

As the administrator of this page I removed Kay Crowder from this secret group. If you would like to talk to her in person PM me and I will give you her assistant’s number. I was surprised how easy it was to get in touch with her.

Comments

Barbara Scott Thanks for telling us.

Like · 1 · September 10, 2015 at 11:22am

Don Munn – Why was she removed? I would think she could do a lot to answer a many of our questions……..

Like · 2 · September 10, 2015 at 11:41am

Jane Fenn – That has not been my experience at all. I have her assistant’s phone number and have spoken to him many times since mid-August. Not once have I ever been allowed to speak to her. I have emailed her — not one reply. I have written a letter — no reply. Every way there is of reaching her goes through the assistant — nothing goes to her directly. I was told recently by the assistant that she would call me. So far, nothing. He did say she might receive a hundred emails a day and did I expect she responded to all? My thought there is what working person does NOT receive many many emails a day, and we all have to respond as part of our jobs. Did she think when she took this office that she could choose to respond only when it was convenient for her or matched her own goals? I have not found her responsive nor helpful. She would know, I would think, that a council member is going to hear from constituents and I would further think she would know that part of her job responsibilities is responding. I do say emphatically that her assistant Nick Sadler is unfailingly courteous and helpful but his job is clearly to shield her and he does it well. If you have been successful at speaking with her, Sharon, I can’t help but wonder if the difference is that you are supporting something she wants and I am advocating changes in something she wants. My correspondence with her has been respectful and has offered positive suggestions, but it does not agree with what she clearly is pushing. I did speak very assertively to the assistant once about not ever being able to reach her directly in my frustration, and still he remained helpful and friendly, but no way was he going to get me through to her directly at all. His job responsibilities are clear and he fulfills them very well. He does his best to answer any question I ask but he is making sure I don’t get through directly to her. I don’t doubt that she has seen what I have sent — I am certain he does that effectively. I personally have not had any reason to think at this point that she is fulfilling her responsibility of being responsive to those she represents — a key art of the job she was elected to do. Please do call the council offices at 919-996-3050 and I sincerely hope each of you has better luck at getting through to her than I have had.

Like · September 10, 2015 at 1:18pm

Karen Flowers Essic – Oh, that’s too bad, Sharon. It was disappointing to me she didn’t receive a better welcome to the group–improving communication with the council could have been helpful.

Like · 4 · September 10, 2015 at 1:54pm

Erin Salmon – I am curious, like Don, as to why she was removed. Did she ask to be removed?

Like · 1 · September 11, 2015 at 3:03pm

Sharon Moll Mixon – I sent a friends request to Kay Crowder’s personal FB page and a PM to ask her if she would like to be added to this group. I noticed that she is not much of a FB person (she doesn’t post anything on her own page). I pictured Kay spending her valuable time sorting through this increasingly negative page. After the “Kay Where are you?” comment I thought, “wow – this was a bad idea I had.” I felt embarrassed by what she saw, so I got in touch with her and offered to remove her from the group. She said “that is fine”.

Like · September 11, 2015 at 10:44pm

Steve Grothmann – I wrote her an email, very objectively conveying some of the concerns of the 1/3 opposed and pointing out the emotional debate on this page, and asking for her input about those concerns. She did respond, but it was very rote and didn’t really say anything more than, “the petition passed and the rules were followed.”

Like · 3 · September 13, 2015 at 3:41pm

.  .  .  .  .  .

Don Munn 

September 11, 2015
Minority Concerns.
    1. Watershead issues.  Additional impervious surface will exacerbate existing issues on Bushy Creek
    2. 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
    3. 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….

Comments

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.

Erin Salmon's photo.
Like · September 12, 2015 at 1:49am