To view the meeting minutes of the 032609 Public Works Committee meeting dealing with the Trenton Place residents' petition to ban parking in their neighborhood, please click on:
www.raleighnc.gov/publications/Boards,_Commissions_and_Council/Public_Works/2009_Minutes/PW-Minutes-20090326.doc
We encourage you to read the entire document carefully. Also, we do not plan to debate the issue here since the blog is intended for informational purposes for supporters (not for venting or debate.) We agree with the Umstead Coalition about banning parking setting a precedent. We support the positions of the Umstead Coalition, Mr Colvard and Mr Garrard and believe they provided adequate solutions to solve the problem at Reedy Creek/Trenton.
We're unsure why but there was a presentation by a resident at Lakes of Umstead not included in the minutes. This gentleman stated that he used to serve on city council in Greenville. He also stated that he would like the parking ban on Reedy Creek extended to Shenck Forest and essentially viewed Reedy Creek/Trenton as a neighborhood access. He provided a power point presentation of people parking on one side of the road at Lakes of Umstead during the orientation event. Again, we are very concerned about this mindset. We firmly believe any action at Trenton Place will have a domino effect for the other new developments along Reedy Creek and Ebenezer Church Road.
Clearly, part of the problem lies with the elimation of parking access for Umstead park users at Reedy Creek/Trenton. While Reedy Creek/Trenton may not have been a "formal access" to the park, it certainly preceeded any of the new subdivisions currently crying "foul" and we can argue as to why access is needed.
We appreciate Raleigh City Council member Russ Stephenson's efforts to communicate with the various parties involved in an effort to solve this problem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Do you support Mr. Garrard's position "I don’t support any restrictions on parking in the neighborhoods" or Mr. Colvard's position "Limit parking to one side of Trenton Woods Way and Tree Side Court after thorough review of road widths, speed limits and line-of-sight for compliance with current safety standards"?
Thanks for asking. As posted 4/1:
On these issue, Access Umstead supporters would like parking restored at the Reedy Creek/Trenton area and are opposed to any additional parking restrictions in the Reedy Creek/Trenton area. We request that the city not take action to ban parking at Trenton Place or any other subdivision in the Reedy Creek/Trenton area until provisions are made for designated parking. If the city must take action for safety purposes in the Trenton Place or any subdivision in the Reedy Creek/Trenton area, we request that any parking restrictions be limited to one side of the road. Additionally, we share the increased concerns about safety that have been exacerbated by the paving of these roads leading to increased vehicular traffic and increased car speeds. We agree with any efforts to make these roads more pedestrian/cyclist friendly while keeping the park accessible to all.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to be saying one-sided parking should be required irrespective of safety standards. If that's your position, I doubt you speak for more than a few "Access Umstead supporters". I support Access Umstead's overall objectives, but not at the expense of safety or park health.
You also appear to advocate holding Trenton Place hostage until the city provides designated parking, but parking in Trenton Place reduces the city's motivation to develop designated parking. How many designated parking spaces do you think are needed at that entrance?
Anonymous,
We appreciate your support to date but may have to agree to disagree on this issue. We hope you will continue to support us with the bigger issue. We find the suggestions offered to date appropriate in addressing the safety issues raised with enforcement and signage making up the remaining part of the equation.
Agreeing to disagree on a matter of fundamental values is a disagreement. You appear willing to pursue your objective at any (or at least grossly disproportionate) cost, or perhaps your priorities are upside down from the norm. In either case, I cannot now in good conscience lend my name in support of Access Umstead (whomever that may be) regardless of the issue. I'm sure we'll support some of the same initiatives, but henceforth I have to assume any information or position you advance cannot be relied upon without personal verification.
Anonymous,
We sincerely believe that everyone should critically examine issues of importance before forming an opinion. This is why, for example, when we posted the 11/07 meeting minutes of the Umstead PAC on 7/24/08, we recommended that folks read its entire contents to draw their own conclusions. We are not pretending to be unbiased nor are we investigative reporters. We do know most of our supporters. Supporters that know us and/or have followed our efforts know that our preferences for Reedy Creek/Trenton and Graylyn would be for things to revert back to how they were regarding parking access. It is more than just a shame that the issue is so complicated and contentious.
Re: Trenton Place. There are other neighborhoods in Raleigh that are not up to current code, some noted in the Public Work Meeting Minutes of 3/26/09, in which signage and enforcement effectively and appropriately deal with the actual risk to people residing in these neighborhoods.
On a final note, Anonymous, please remember to use caution whenever looking at information from anonymous sources and question the credibility and underlying motives.
I think the Public Works Committee will be voting on the public street parking restrictions in the Trenton Place Subdivision on 10/29/09 at 9am. If you want to have your thoughts heard you should try to attend and let the council members hear your opinion. This may be your last chance to protect the right to park on public streets.
Post a Comment