| Author | Post |
|---|
Cracker Jax
Member
| Joined: | Oct 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 4722 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 01:44 am |
|
Tonight in Summerfield there was a "special call meeting" of the Summerfield town council held primarily to discuss the acquisition of ball field land and the budget.
This meeting was "special" indeed. The people who attended were treated to an unprecedented sight. Councilwoman Barnes and Mayor Brown literally buckled under to the pressure of the Concerned Citizens and voted against the apparant majority of citizens in Summerfield.
Next time, I suppose it would be more effective to carry SIGNS into the council meeting since some of our council members seem to only respond to that.
Councilman Wray presented arguments in favor of purchasing the Friddle Property that were IRONCLAD. Councilman Williams, while he had recused himself from the vote, supported Wray's position with a prepared speech of his own. Collins said that she had gone back and forth on the issue, but the fact that choosing the 220 site was going to result in the loss of more trees.
The only negative that Strickland could come up with about the Friddle property is that the person that holds the first right of refusal had written a letter stating that she was going to exercise her right and purchase the property. Let's think about this.....Is it at all possible that some of our council members were duped???
Let's say that someone goes to Mrs. 1st right of refusal woman and says "How about writing a letter stating that you will exercise your right. Don't worry though, the council will be so SCARED of losing our votes that it will never even come to pass and you won't need do anything further." And if she resists, they tell her "Worst case scenario, if you do exercise your right, we have a buyer just waiting in the wings who will gladly take this property off of your hands"
Strickland also stated that she didn't want to "waste" any more of the taxpayer's money. HELLO? How much does it cost to MAKE AN OFFER???? A couple hundred bucks???? So, as a result, we are spending 5-8 HUNDRED THOUSAND (Isn't that what Wray said?) more of our tax dollars to save that couple of hundred. REAL sensible.
I stated earlier on that I didn't really care where the ballfields were located, but that the Friddle property was the most sensible choice. I have heard NOTHING to change my mind. I am so frustrated I could just scream.
They wasted MY time and the time of all of the others who visited the sites to give EDUCATED input on which land to purchase. The citizens spoke. They wanted the Friddle property. The majority of citizens in attendance tonight wanted the Friddle Property.
I hope Barnes and Brown counted the votes that walked out the door tonight. I also hope they compare them to the number of signs up along Summerfield Road.
____________________
Opinions in this post are mine. Do not copy, distribute, mass mail or quote out of context without my consent.
|
DOGGETTJA
Member
| Joined: | Oct 24th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield |
| Posts: | 1198 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 02:30 am |
|
Cracker- I don't often disagree with you but I will have to say that we spent a long long time on the parks committee the other night discussing the pros and cons and the Parks committee recommended the Marshall property with the caveat that the safety issues with the highway can be worked out.. Neither property was perfect but some of John's figures were misleading I think. Doesn't matter which property the Town buys they will have to put turning lanes in. That cost was not included in any of the land preparation figures. 220 was where the council orginally many long years ago earmarked as being a good place to have ball fields based on the fact that 220 is a major highway and there are limited residential areas. 8 to 10 more ballfields on Summerfield road would have a significant impact on that road. The number of Summerfield residents impacted was pretty significant.
The Marshall property is for sale no ifs ands or buts about it. Mr. Marshall has indicated he is willing to negotiate. While we were waiting for the Friddle property to come free if it did we can start on the ballfields on the Marshall property. We potentially could have lost both properties while we tried to buy the Friddle property.
I think the Friddle property from a location stand point was better but I also think the potential 8-10 ballfields was a lot to ask that one neighborhood that has houses some of which are 75 to 100 years old to shoulder. Lets pull together as a community, work on the road issues on 220, get the ball fields built quickly and then look, if we still need ballfields, for another tract in a different neighborhood.
I thought the goal here was ballfields.
I think John Wray showed the right spirit of compromise and negotiation when he said he would volunteer his time to see that the safety issues were taken care of. Lets all get behind the council and lets get these ballfields built!!
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 02:38 am |
|
| Shame shame shame. I am very disappointed in Mayor Brown and Mrs. Barnes. Logic was not used while voting. Many times in the past I always could not agree with what goes on at council meetings but could see the logic in the decision. I could not find that here. The oldest political trick in the book was used on these 2. Using the fear of not getting future votes from these people against them in an election year. If you 2 had to worry about not getting votes from this group of Concerned Citizens you never had their vote anyway. Now you have probably lost the support of many more than the few who stroked you. This is exactly what the Concerned Citizens hoped would happen and it did. Now you will have to explain why 5 to 8 hundred thousand dollars extra had to be spent and all we asked for was an offer to purchase the "Friddle property that would not cost nearly anything to make the offer. Plus if the Town would exercise the right for Immanent Domain to purchase the Friddle Property the first right of refusal would have no bearing and thats a fact. A couple of weeks ago this property was too dangerous and all agreed, now what changed? The only change I see is a few signs on Summerfield Rd. Mayor Brown said on the 21st that he feared someone would be killed there. Strickland said it was the most expensive. John Wray said it was a disaster waiting to happen. Deana Barnes and Carolyn Collins agreed with John Wray. Bob Williams Has always thought better of the Friddle property. What changed? What happened tonight? I felt like I was in an episode of the Twilight Zone!
____________________
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.
|
Cracker Jax
Member
| Joined: | Oct 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 4722 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 03:17 am |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Cracker- I don't often disagree with you but I will have to say that we spent a long long time on the parks committee the other night discussing the pros and cons and the Parks committee recommended the Marshall property with the caveat that the safety issues with the highway can be worked out..
Jane, you know I love you  , but we might just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I just don't understand why the parks committee wasn't consulted in the first place if they were the ones to ultimately make the decision.
Why was the public invited to give input?
Be sure to plug your ears so you don't hear all of those trees on the marshall property screamin' when the bulldozers come racin' thru....... 
____________________
Opinions in this post are mine. Do not copy, distribute, mass mail or quote out of context without my consent.
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 03:25 am |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: I will have to say that we spent a long long time on the parks committee the other night discussing the pros and cons and the Parks committee recommended the Marshall property with the caveat that the safety issues with the highway can be worked out..
That is if the safety issues with the highway can be worked out. Previously I was told that this was a BIG if--if I remember correctly, I was told that the DOT has already said that they would NOT put a light at Gas Town and Old Summerfield Road because there was not enough traffic generated here to support a light. Instead medians were going to be installed and traffic would be forced to turn right when leaving the Marshall property. So when did all this change? Nothing will be done until the new highway comes through, or has that changed as well at the expense of the taxpayer? $800,000.00 is alot of money for a light, one light. This will just be added on to our tax bill, and now I have to argue this.
What happens if the safety issues aren't resolved? Are we still going to agree to put ballfields here? Are we obligated to this property?
We also now are decreasing the amount of ballfields that are needed because a resident of that area specifically asked if Jay Copeland had overkilled his guesstimates--did the town really need 8 ballfields? The answer to that is yes---I suggest we buy both pieces of property and develop them both for athletic fields. We are going to need them.
I hardly think that the 7-9 signs displayed on Summerfield Road could even possibly hold that much bearing to sway a council in making the proper decision. Jane if 8 ballfields is the determining factor as to too much impact on the resident's quality of life, could a compromise of 6 ballfields have been reached? Was this even considered?
I personally would not use Oak Street or Shady Side as a cut through--there is hardly any room for 1 vehicle to drive down these streets. I also fear a child darting out in front of my car due to the overflow of vehicles and boats parked on the side of the road. Why are these resident not screaming about the traffic currently using this a cut through at 5 o'clock in the afternoon? I haven't heard complaints about this, but mention a ballfield moving from one side of their property to the other---they all start screaming about traffic. Buying the Friddle property would not add traffic to Summerfield Road because the kids are already playing ball at Summerfield School. already on Summerfield Road. This was not and still is not a valid argument.
I do support the ballfields, but I do not think the council has made the right decision. They obviously did not listen to the majority of the town. Instead they listened to SHAMU simply because of his instrumentation on the Rabbit Hollow case. That is what this all boils down to. Way to go CC's you did your job--but the fight isn't over.
(Edited by S. Smith)
Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 12:45 pm by
|
Cracker Jax
Member
| Joined: | Oct 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 4722 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 03:46 am |
|
GRITS wrote: DOGGETTJA wrote: I will have to say that we spent a long long time on the parks committee the other night discussing the pros and cons and the Parks committee recommended the Marshall property with the caveat that the safety issues with the highway can be worked out.. That is if the safety issues with the highway can be worked out. Previously I was told that this was a BIG if--if I remember correctly, I was told that the DOT has already said that they would NOT put a light at Gas Town and Old Summerfield Road because there was not enough traffic generated here to support a light. Instead medians were going to be installed and traffic would be forced to turn right when leaving the Marshall property. So when did all this change? Nothing will be done until the new highway comes through, or has that changed as well at the expense of the taxpayer? $800,000.00 is alot of money for a light, one light. This will just be added on to our tax bill, and now I have to argue this.
What happens if the safety issues aren't resolved? Are we still going to agree to put ballfields here? Are we obligated to this property?
I don't think I'm understanding this safety thing either.....
If the parks committee added the caveat that the safety issues had to be worked out, and the safety procedures won't even be able to be implemented until the road is widened a zillion years from now, should we wait until then to purchase the fields to be sure to follow the parks committee's recommendation???
This is exactly the kind of thing that Strickland would jump all over if she had the true interest of Summerfield at heart.
Once that ball park's built, it's gonna be too late. It's not gonna matter one whit whether or not the DOT agrees to our safety concerns.
We're stuck with a ballfield whether we have safe access to it or not. At least the parks committee will be able to say that it's "on the record" that they added that caveat.
____________________
Opinions in this post are mine. Do not copy, distribute, mass mail or quote out of context without my consent.
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 03:47 am |
|
Cracker Jax wrote: DOGGETTJA wrote: Cracker- I don't often disagree with you but I will have to say that we spent a long long time on the parks committee the other night discussing the pros and cons and the Parks committee recommended the Marshall property with the caveat that the safety issues with the highway can be worked out..
Jane, you know I love you , but we might just have to agree to disagree on this one.
I just don't understand why the parks committee wasn't consulted in the first place if they were the ones to ultimately make the decision.
Why was the public invited to give input?
Be sure to plug your ears so you don't hear all of those trees on the marshall property screamin' when the bulldozers come racin' thru.......
Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 03:48 am by GRITS
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 03:50 am |
|
| The parks committee meeting was not a productive meeting. It was a split decision with people getting mad and having to leave before they lost their religion. I left early because my wife was sick and the baby was crying. I would have probably showed my but also if I had stayed. I don't know what happened to you people in the last couple of weeks but like I said I felt as if I was in an episode of the Twilight Zone. I realize I am not a voting member of the Parks committee but thought I had some input that held water up until now. This is very disturbing when people ask your opinion and it does not matter. They should have just asked my dogs opinion. Or did they think it made me fell better to ask my opinion? I wish I had never been asked. We have all these Monday morning quarterbacks saying what we should do. I have personally looked for land in Summerfield for over 5 years and walked every inch of Summerfield looking at land. I don't claim to be an expert at any of this but did get asked for my opinion. Safety should always be the first factor in any decision. It was not here. Saftey has to come after the fact. Now we have to make it safe before we can pursue ball fields. This is not a good example of being good stewards with the taxpayers dollars. You have no excuse because you did not even try to make an offer on the Friddle property. Council will be ridiculed for this.
____________________
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.
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 12:21 pm |
|
DOGGETTJA wrote: Cracker- I don't often disagree with you but I will have to say that we spent a long long time on the parks committee the other night discussing the pros and cons and the Parks committee recommended the Marshall property with the caveat that the safety issues with the highway can be worked out..
This is what is very disturbing to me. How did the P & R committee leave agreeing on the Marshall property, when I was told by an individual that sits on the committee that the meeting was left with you guys recommending the Friddle Property? Something went on afterwards, and everyone who had a vote (not all that walked out of the P&R meeting--due to no compromise could be reached) were not included. What happened? I hope Jane, that as strongly as you felt regarding the Friddle property and previously was very much in support of, your compromise was to resolve the issue and get the ballfields built for the kids. I am going to believe that and will not question, but others had other reasons. I may never know the exact reason, but will always wonder why?
I have to agree with CJ---I should have never been asked for input if the town had already made it's decision. I feel as though my concerns were overlooked and were of no importance. The safety issues should have been in place and done before purchasing the Marshall Property. I guess I have to live with the decision for now---but let it be known it was not made on my behalf.
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 12:24 pm |
|
I am confused. Did the town not look at land before on 220 but decided to move away from it because of environmental concerns? I will never agree to this town using immanent domain to purchase land. I will always feel it is an unfair use of power, but enough discussion on that.
Everyone has the right to speak their opinion and have their voice be heard. The decision was made whether you agree or not, but this town needs ballfields so we need to pull together and make sure we get the ballfields built.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 12:26 pm |
|
Isn't Democracy wonderful?
Not perfect. But still wonderful.
Ya'll sure keep things interesting over in Summerfield for the rest of us.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 12:50 pm |
|
Hairbrush wrote: I am confused. Did the town not look at land before on 220 but decided to move away from it because of environmental concerns? I will never agree to this town using immanent domain to purchase land. I will always feel it is an unfair use of power, but enough discussion on that.
Everyone has the right to speak their opinion and have their voice be heard. The decision was made whether you agree or not, but this town needs ballfields so we need to pull together and make sure we get the ballfields built.
That was a different piece of property. It was close to this one, but not the same one.
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 12:53 pm |
|
| Thanks Sandra, that is what I thought. I don't remember a big safety issue on that one, but that could have been because the environmental issue came up so quickly.
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 12:55 pm |
|
I'm confused on some of the last few posts and the mention of the Concerned Citizens. Are you guys talking about the Concerned Citizens, or the group of citizens on Summerfield Road who were opposed to buying the Friddle property? Or are the two somehow connected in a way that I'm not aware of?
I know emotions are running high on this issue, but let's remember to "flame ideas, not people." It is certainly okay to disagree and some of you have done a great job stating your case, but let's don't bring private citizens into the fray.
|
Cracker Jax
Member
| Joined: | Oct 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 4722 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 01:03 pm |
|
Hairbrush wrote: The decision was made whether you agree or not, but this town needs ballfields so we need to pull together and make sure we get the ballfields built.
I think ya'll know me well enough to know that I will do whatever I can to see these ballfields become a reality.... Wherever they are located.
Pulling together toward a common goal will not make me forget how the decision was reached and who the decision makers were.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Can someone please give me a list of the VOTING members of the Parks committe who were present at this meeting?
____________________
Opinions in this post are mine. Do not copy, distribute, mass mail or quote out of context without my consent.
|
|
|
