- Go back to the 103 foot plan
- The “Final Report” prepared by the city (see the link in the side bar) had three options. The report compares three options. The 103 foot option is far less expensive and time consuming to build
- According to the city’s own report the 103 foot option only lowers traffic “performance” a small amount
- The 103 foot plan moderately avoids the worst of the property taking and damage to the remaining property. Even the 103 foot plan is still a premium plan compared to other divided street in town
- The 103 foot plan still forces an unwieldly “jammed between buildings” effect on our mature neighborhood but at least it’s not quite a “right outside your window” project
2. Remove unnecessary features
- Right turn areas. Turning right off Six Forks is not a problem. Adding a right turn area is a solution for no known problem. A third lane should help this if it was a problem. Lowering the speed limit should help this problem. We don’t need further taking of people’s property to solve a non-existent problem
- Bike lanes are not in the 103 plan and are a long time controversial feature. It bears repeating that the NC Statute authorizing municipalities to take private property for public use does not include bike paths. Bike usage studies show very little use by both commuter or recreational riders.
- 18.5 foot median. While it may sound like a self-lampooning statement – the city is actually serious about the 18.5 foot media, with pedestrian resting zone in the middle of the street.
3. Clear, unambiguous policy to reimburse for the full “Damage to the Remainder”
- If the community really wants this as the city proports then the community should pay the price of the property and damage they are causing.
4. Property owners secure their own appraisers
- Relying on the city paid appraiser is a clear conflict of interest. Since the city is initiating this action the court should allow the plaintiffs to protect themselves. Suggesting that the city will protect them when they city is taking their property is impossible position to believe.
- The very existence of the Eminent Domaine practice testifies this is a standard practice that abuses property owners
5. City pays for property owners full legal expenses
- In cases where a defendant is found guilty they must pay for the damage they incur – including legal fees. In cases where the city loses or settles the city, like any other losing defendant should pay the legal fees of people trying to protect themselves
- Asking the people who are losing their property to pay for legal expenses to protect themselves is inconsistent with other legal practices, besides being unconscionable
6. Establish a “true-up” provision to readjust the payment in case the project causes more damage during or after the project
- Expecting to pay a one time fee that will cover all future work is completely unreasonable. The city cannot promise at the time of settlement that no further damage will be incurred, including further damage to the remainder
7. Pay for time and effort to protect our property
- The city initiated this action and no property owner asked for this time consuming and upsetting intrusion into their lives. The owners are required to spend time and effort just to understand what is happening. City employees, appraisers, attorneys, do this as their full time job. Owners face an inefficient chore just to understand and protect their rights. This creates a very lopsided situation in terms of information, experience, energy, and time to deal with this. Any credible defense requires a vast investment in time and energy. The city pays for this to be done on its behalf but the property owners (the victims of this intrusion) must pay to protect themselves. This is an unfair asymmetry resulting in the victimization by the rest of the community, as represented by the city council.
8. Engage the community in a third-party mediated discussion about what should actually be in the plan
- The case for many of the features has not been made. Restricting left turns in and out of the neighborhood is a flaw not a feature. The risk for side swipe accidents will increase due to the narrowing of lanes – even as we make room no one to ride bikes. These are clear demonstrations that the city cannot be trusted to engage in real community discovery.
- Over the years numerous requests were made and after long delays rejected. Data and studies continue to be egregiously misrepresented. Facts, analysis and reasonable conversation and suggestions were simply cut off by city managers. The city simply did not listened to the community. The plans only represent the interests of the city/developers/campaign contribution recipients rather than the community itself.
- The city, regrettably, positioned itself as an adversary to the community. Therefore, it cannot take the role of a developer and at the same time be the arbitrator/mediator/disinterested 3rd party and also final decision maker.
- Change suggestions have only been superficially addressed and dismissed with little accommodation.
- The report did not address the impact on the adjacent neighborhoods. Extra traffic load, U-turns on Six Forks, emergency vehicle access, school busses, and safety have never been addressed.
Changing to the 103 foot plan will still be shorter and less expensive than the existing plan