| Author | Post |
|---|
Lilly Spears
Member
| Joined: | Mar 29th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |  |
|
Posted: Apr 23rd, 2007 02:00 am |
|
Shamu wrote: We should be looking at ways to make the 220 site work, as the only drawback appears to be access from 220. There are several things to look at including access from Winfree Road, turn lanes from the north and south and possibly a traffic light. I am not sure the NCDOT is as inaccessible as some say. For example, they did a study and held meetings for the 150 re-alignment based on a request from Summerfield.
People turn on and off of 220 every day, seven days a week. I am not making light of things people have witnessed on the road, but we can’t base our decisions on anecdotes.
Summerfield Road is not exactly perfect either, given curves, speeders, and the possibility that the 150 re-alignment will come right through the site. At least at the 220 site there is a good line of site in either direction.
By the way, I don’t think the rough numbers thrown out on the cost sheets that were given out at the sites were intended to become an argument point for the decision. Grading numbers are obviously a wild guess. I would suggest that we contact. Michael Brandt before anyone starts to hang their hats on these numbers. Also, Mr. Marshall, a very nice man and completely supportive of the ballfields on his property, mentioned that when DOT takes his road-frontage and house, there will be a substantial amount of money coming back to the Town.
BB, you seem focused on the Friddle-Holland-whoever else needs to be involved site. I would think you would be a supporter of ballfield sites in general. Are you willing to consider any of the other sites? Do you have a hidden agenda?
Hi Shamu, I am with Cracker Jax -- let's just get the ballfields built. But in having said this, I must ask what are the other advantages specifically to 220? I thought the NCDOT said that they would not put cut throughs along 220, forcing everyone to turn right. That could be a nightmare considering the traffic congestion at all times of the day. Think about the median located at Wal-mart at this very moment. How many times of you traveled battleground regardless of the time of day and either had to slam on brakes to avoid rear ending someone or as a driver-by spectating such an event? These accidents are caused by hurried, non-paying attention drivers either driving too fast, or pulling out in front of on-coming traffic from Wal-mart. I fear the same thing could happen here at Gas Town. Why make more madness?
Not only do you need to think about the traffic, but how many homes are being built by Turner in the new development? I thought, we were looking for land that would note greatly impact homeowners. I know it can not be totally ruled out, but wouldn't it be more feasable to put the ballfields on Summerfield Road?
I thought I had read in an earlier post that you would look into how many homes would be affected specifically on Summerfield Road, have you gather any information yet? I am curious to know in comparision to all affected properties.
Regardless of where the ballfields end up, I do believe EVERYONE will be affected in someway, whether it be lights, traffic, or noise. But this is something that the youth needs in our community, and the town has agreed to build it. We will learn to accept this change in our community as we have accepted the change from Summerfield's overpopulated growth.
Is there any particular reason as to why you appear to be protesting the Friddle property? I am just curious.
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Apr 23rd, 2007 02:39 am |
|
My agenda has never been hidden nor has my identity. Don't try to make this into something it is not. Don't try to draw attention away from you and your agenda by saying I have one. This is a typical CC in the works people. This is how they operate.
I am turning green.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Super Moderator
Super Moderator
| Joined: | Apr 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 12 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 23rd, 2007 03:53 am |
|
Shamu wrote: BB, you seem focused on the Friddle-Holland-whoever else needs to be involved site. I would think you would be a supporter of ballfield sites in general. Are you willing to consider any of the other sites? Do you have a hidden agenda?
Baseball Buddy wrote:
My agenda has never been hidden nor has my identity. Don't try to make this into something it is not. Don't try to draw attention away from you and your agenda by saying I have one. This is a typical CC in the works people. This is how they operate.
I am turning green.
Flame ideas, not people please
|
bama80
Member
|
Posted: Apr 23rd, 2007 01:26 pm |
|
I have a hidden agenda that I will unveil at this time. I like to get home in the afternoon/evening without being stuck in traffic. there it is.. that's it.
I hope you all get your ballfields. There definitely seems to be a need for them. Well, I guess you could just build more houses.... Anyway, I travel through that Gastown area numerous times a week. I think everyone knows how busy 220 can get with trucks, etc also. Please don't muck up 220 more than it already is. My hidden agenda is out. I have no idea where the other locations are but I hope they are not off hwy 68 at the bottom of the hill near Harrell RD. haha.
____________________
Roll Tide and Go Pack. Maybe or maybe not in that order. [insert profound quote here]
This post will self destruct in 10.......9......8....
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1375 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |   |
|
Posted: Apr 23rd, 2007 01:53 pm |
|
bama80 wrote: I have a hidden agenda that I will unveil at this time. I like to get home in the afternoon/evening without being stuck in traffic. I have no idea where the other locations are but I hope they are not off hwy 68 at the bottom of the hill near Harrell RD. haha.
Bama, you and I share the same hidden agenda, except mine goes one step further, I also like to get out of my driveway in the mornings and afternoons on a timely basis, which is sometimes a feat that even Houdini would envy.
I also share your concern about locations along Highway 68 although my more specific concern is about a mile and a half north of you just past the golf course.
When oh when are elected officials going to figure out that the cost of more growth and development is more traffic congestion and more accidents?
Last edited on Apr 23rd, 2007 01:54 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
I Did It My Way (Frank Sinatra)
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 247 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 23rd, 2007 01:54 pm |
|
Thanks Bama for your honest hidden agenda. Your input on traffic congestion certainly supports the fact that alot of us are trying to make.
I have no hidden agenda--I have looked at the properties with an open mind and I have formed my decision based upon my own opinions. I already knew alot about the properties before hand through listening to others that serve on Parks and Recs and SRA. I felt obligated to view the properties myself and make some conclusion of some sort.
I was concerned about the traffic from the very beginning on 220 (not about the creek on the property). After visiting the site and the others, I still do not think anything that the DOT can or will do will eliminate the traffic problem. Baseball is a summer sport, and so is water sports. Increase traffic from vehicles pulling water recreation toys. Gas town is a stop to top of on fuel before you get to the lake. Cars pull out in front of cars all the time, making it more difficult for the towing driver to slow down and stop. Get the picture-----let's protect our kids and everyone else and decrease EMS calls instead of increase.
The speed limit within Summerfield's Town limits is 35 unless otherwise posted. Well, it is posted as 45--just a note to think about.
Bama--you are safe on Harrell Road unless Oak Ridge wants to do something. Highway 68 is certainly far more dangerous than 220.
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Apr 25th, 2007 12:55 pm |
|
I do have one question about the Friddle/Holland property. I understand that the owner (which might be the town at that point) might have to give up some of this property if the DOT ever decides to realign Highway 150 through there. I know there is no money for this project and it would be years and years down the road before this could ever happen.
Does anybody know about how much of this property might later have to be sacrificed? And if the town had to make a decision on keeping property which it had bought and developed for ballfields or getting a new road, which one would be more important?
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 247 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 26th, 2007 01:53 am |
|
Lilly Spears wrote: Shamu wrote: We should be looking at ways to make the 220 site work, as the only drawback appears to be access from 220. There are several things to look at including access from Winfree Road, turn lanes from the north and south and possibly a traffic light. I am not sure the NCDOT is as inaccessible as some say. For example, they did a study and held meetings for the 150 re-alignment based on a request from Summerfield.
By the way, I don’t think the rough numbers thrown out on the cost sheets that were given out at the sites were intended to become an argument point for the decision. Grading numbers are obviously a wild guess. I would suggest that we contact. Michael Brandt before anyone starts to hang their hats on these numbers. .
I did some little outside investigating myself today by contacting John Turner who is building the 23 homes located on Robinson Road that is behind the potential property being considered for the new ballfields. He strongly suggested that before purchasing this piece, an engineer should look at the slope of the gully that backs up to his property, and perform soil sample tests. He inlightened me that this is not just a running stream, (nor is it a river) but it is considerably large. The ground is very moist and the cost of grading 3-4 acres (that is approximately the amt of acreage involved on the ballfield property ) to get the land suitable for anything could cost astronomically high. He doubts very seriously ballfields or any type of field could be placed in this area due to the soft ground layers. I do not think Mr. Turner was misconstruding any information because he in fact liked the idea of a residential neighborhood having a ball park in close proximity. He did in fact speak with Mr. Marshall possibly purchasing the land himself to build homes on, but the gully and the high price of the total acreage made him decide not to persue this any further. Last edited on Apr 26th, 2007 01:55 am by GRITS
|
Shamu
Member
| Joined: | Feb 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 26th, 2007 03:23 am |
|
My as-to-date hidden agenda is I live within 1/2 mile of the Friddle/Holland whoever else needs to be involved property. And I'm concerned about how the ballfields in that area would effect me and my family. I'm also concerned with how the Town of Summerfield treats the people who are most effected by these ballfields. I think their track record is poor. Ask me about Rabbit Hollow Road in 2004.
Despite BB and Michael Brandt's claims, I do not think an adequate study for potential sites for ballfields was done. I am an expert in site selection studies.
1. I do not do business with the town of Summerfield. Neither my company or myself have been hired or paid by the Town for any business purposes.
2. I do not own commercial property, or adjacent property, to the A, B and C sites.
I would like everyone else participating on this topic to address these specific areas as well.
Now, here's some figures:
In the 1/4 mile radius of the 7044 Summerfield Road property, there are 32 houses. there are 99 within 1/2 mile excluding houses east of 220. I am excluding houses on the opposite side of 220 for the Summerfield Road site and the Marshall property because I think it is probably not as important to someone who is living across a highway regarding lighted ballfields.
There are 6 houses within 1/4 mile for the Marshall property, and 25 within a 1/2 mile.
There are 19 houses within 1/4 mile of the Hudson-James property and 73 within a 1/2 mile.
My resource is the USGS 7 1/2 minute Quadrangle Maps, Guilford County GIS aerial photography and some walking around and looking. These numbers are approximate based on data available and amount of walking around looking I could squeeze in.
More to come!!
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Apr 26th, 2007 10:58 am |
|
Shamu wrote: My as-to-date hidden agenda is I live within 1/2 mile of the Friddle/Holland whoever else needs to be involved property. And I'm concerned about how the ballfields in that area would effect me and my family. I'm also concerned with how the Town of Summerfield treats the people who are most effected by these ballfields. I think their track record is poor. Ask me about Rabbit Hollow Road in 2004.
Despite BB and Michael Brandt's claims, I do not think an adequate study for potential sites for ballfields was done. I am an expert in site selection studies.
1. I do not do business with the town of Summerfield. Neither my company or myself have been hired or paid by the Town for any business purposes.
2. I do not own commercial property, or adjacent property, to the A, B and C sites.
I would like everyone else participating on this topic to address these specific areas as well.
Now, here's some figures:
In the 1/4 mile radius of the 7044 Summerfield Road property, there are 32 houses. there are 99 within 1/2 mile excluding houses east of 220. I am excluding houses on the opposite side of 220 for the Summerfield Road site and the Marshall property because I think it is probably not as important to someone who is living across a highway regarding lighted ballfields.
There are 6 houses within 1/4 mile for the Marshall property, and 25 within a 1/2 mile.
There are 19 houses within 1/4 mile of the Hudson-James property and 73 within a 1/2 mile.
My resource is the USGS 7 1/2 minute Quadrangle Maps, Guilford County GIS aerial photography and some walking around and looking. These numbers are approximate based on data available and amount of walking around looking I could squeeze in.
More to come!!
How many of these properties are owner occupied? Or occupied at all? The Mobile Home Park included?
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
Shamu
Member
| Joined: | Feb 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 26th, 2007 01:26 pm |
|
The numbers do not include the mobile home park, although it is within 1/2 mile. The numbers for Summerfield Road would be quite a bit higher if the mobile homes were included. The reason they weren't included is because they are not shown individually on the maps.
As far as owner occupied, probably most are, although even if they aren't I'm not sure that makes any difference to my point (which is comparing how many residents are effected). My walking around and driving around so far indicate there are very few unoccupied houses, which is a good thing.
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 247 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Apr 26th, 2007 01:42 pm |
|
Shamu wrote: I'm also concerned with how the Town of Summerfield treats the people who are most effected by these ballfields. I think their track record is poor. Ask me about Rabbit Hollow Road in 2004.
1. I do not do business with the town of Summerfield. Neither my company or myself have been hired or paid by the Town for any business purposes.
2. I do not own commercial property, or adjacent property, to the A, B and C sites.
I would like everyone else participating on this topic to address these specific areas as well.
Since you have invited me to address the 2 specifics stated above, I will inform you I do not exchange business or own commercial or adjacent property to the A-B-C sites. Nor do I participate on any committee to either entice the deciding factor either way. I joined your forum to give input to help benefit the proper property for ballfields. Either direction other than the Hudson James Proptery, I am within a 1.39 radius of the Friddle or Marshall properties.
Please let everyone know a little bit more regarding Rabbit Hollow Road---this has some history to it regarding location and ballfields. I would like to know exactly what the tract record is regarding how the Town of Summerfield treat others affected by ballfields. Please do not insinuate anyone has mistreated only a selected few, facts would beneficial. If this has any bearing on the Summerfield Road location, please be specific.
Instead of protesting this particular property and you are an expert in site locations, can you direct M. Brandt and BB to other potential properties to take into consideration for ballfields? This does not need to be delayed another year, it is time to move forward. Any help that you can assist with would greatly be appreciated.
|
bama80
Member
|
Posted: Apr 26th, 2007 02:11 pm |
|
Yeah it seems like there is a lot of resistance to certain sites but no positive statements for any site. This gives me the impression that certain people just don't want ANY ballfields. I wish they would just come out and say it instead of trying to surreptitiously derail the process.
If I were a nearby landowner, I would much rather have the hind end of a commercial building or another 1/3 acre-per-lot superdevelopment in my back/front yard. ->that was some sarcasm for you people that did not pick up on that. Puhhhlease waht do you think they are going to do with the land in the future if the town of Sf doesnt buy it for ballfields? Turn a million dollar piece of property into a $50 wildlife preserve?!?! I don't think so. There are nature minded good samaritans out there but I wouldn't hold my breath.
____________________
Roll Tide and Go Pack. Maybe or maybe not in that order. [insert profound quote here]
This post will self destruct in 10.......9......8....
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Apr 26th, 2007 02:47 pm |
|
| I live 1.25 miles from the Friddle and Marshall properties. I do participate in the committees as a rep for the SRA but have no voting power. The PARKS Committee voted to proceed with the Friddle property as the best site. I was asked to speak in front of the Town Council to show the need to move forward on this piece of property. After doing so I was personally attacked by BS for what reason GOD only knows. Now we have a self proclaimed expert that lives in Summerfield coming out from under a rock after this has been an issue for 10 or more years. We have people working with the Town who are "REAL" experts in acquiring land for development of ballfields. This group has been doing this since 1970. They have a great track record and have aquired land and developed many many ballfields.
____________________
The views/opinions expressed in this post are personal and belong to Baseball Buddy. Please do not duplicate, distribute, BCC, or mass mail my comments without my written consent.
|
bama80
Member
|
Posted: Apr 26th, 2007 02:54 pm |
|
It does seem blatantly obvious even to someone from Stokesdale 
____________________
Roll Tide and Go Pack. Maybe or maybe not in that order. [insert profound quote here]
This post will self destruct in 10.......9......8....
|
|
|
