| Author | Post |
|---|
FatPappy
Member
| Joined: | Oct 25th, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 3245 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 01:04 pm |
|
The good news is we're gettin' ballfields! The bad news is the council's wishy-washy performance left a lot of people wonderin' who's in charge and what's really goin' on.
John Wray made some very clearly stated and well reasoned arguments for the Friddle property. That's what Pappy likes to hear. I agree with Crackah, I didn't hear anything compelling in favor of the 220 property.
Hairbrush also has a good point. The decision's been made, so let's pull together.
On the other hand, what if they build a ballfield and nobody comes? Pappy sure don't consider the 220 property a field o' dreams. Let's hope it don't become a field o' nightmares instead.
____________________
How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
--Abraham Lincoln
|
Cracker Jax
Member
| Joined: | Oct 23rd, 2005 |
| Location: | Summerfield, USA |
| Posts: | 4722 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 01:07 pm |
|
Sandra, I'm asking for a list of the parks committee members because I want to know who the apparent decision makers were, not because I want to flame any of them. I appreciate the time they donate to help our town. It's not their fault that the decision was based soley on their recommendation....
Just wanted to clarify that. 
____________________
Opinions in this post are mine. Do not copy, distribute, mass mail or quote out of context without my consent.
|
Hairbrush
Member
| Joined: | Jan 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 120 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 01:32 pm |
|
| Cracker Jax I know that you will make sure that the town gets those ballfields built no matter where they end up. I never had any doubt about that at all. You are my long lost sister after all and us sisters have to stick together.
|
bama80
Member
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 01:35 pm |
|
I think the ballfields being located on 220 will result in the building of a hospital, a hotel, some restaurants, a car cemetary, and a towing company. Good Job on that one! what a nightmare 220 already can be at times. I can only imagine the mess now. What a joke.- but I'm not laughing. I don't even live in SF but once the development of this stuff on 220 begins, I don't even think I will turn my car in the direction of Summerfield. On second thought, I think I will open up a flower and wooden cross shop there so people can honor all the tragedies that will occur.
-may be being over-dramatic, but my point stands.
____________________
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....
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 02:00 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: 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.
They are part of the concerned citizens. I am only stating a FACT that regardless of where they live, and they do live here--I have to question if their fight against ballfields were strictly due to their backyard reasoning or other political avenues.
They have lived beside the ballfield for years and possibly forever if any of them can say they have been here for as long as I have. It didn't appear to be a problem in their backyard then--why now? Who's running this town?
|
happycamper
Member
| Joined: | May 4th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 02:21 pm |
|
Whew...glad I stayed out of this one!
I am not affiliated with the "concerned citizens" group, and try my best to stay neutral. I am on the side of the citizens who are concerned. ie. those closest to the property that feel that the ball field will have a negative impact on their property values. If the decision was made to protect these folks from what they viewed as a possible intrusion on their neighborhood, I say it was a good decision. If it was made to gain votes in an election year, I say bad decision.. but I feel that it was not an attempt to gain votes... and give credit to those who stood up for the neighborhood. Would it have hurt the neighborhood? Who knows, but the fact remains that the neighbors thought it would.
Our neighborhood protested an office going up,even had the planning board with us 100%,and we had well over the amount of signatures required to protest.. and still we lost. Talk about not being heard, why did we even go to the trouble of attending meetings,gathering signatures, etc....a complete waste of time!
The idea of imminent domain being used scares the daylights out of me ! Come on, this is still a small town, folks know one another, kids go to same schools together, etc.. Surely no one wants to have government step in and force a decision.
Are most of the games still played late in the evenings and weekends? Seems to me most of the traffic on Hwy 220 is during weekday business and rush hours. Can the games and practice times be arranged such that it takes into account the busy traffic issues?
In conclusion, I'm for ballfields...and trust that the decision was based on nothing but with the best intentions...at least that what was explained to me when we lost our neighborhood.
|
bama80
Member
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 02:38 pm |
|
| From what I have seen, games and practices are after school on weekdays (rush hour) and on weekends. I havent done any traffic studies other than driving through there multiple times per day over the last 2 years but hey, what do i know..
____________________
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....
|
Lacka
Member
| Joined: | Dec 27th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 664 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 03:54 pm |
|
When I visited the three sites I was given information about plans for each site. I visited all three properties and was given a questionnaire to fill out about which site I would prefer. What was the purpose of this? When Michael read the comments that the citizens who visited the sites made, at the TC meeting, most comments were for the Friddle property.
When I visited the property on 158 there were two citizens present who opposed the ball fields being built on this property. They were very polite, however, made their voice heard and it was important enough for them to get involved. I may or may not agree with them, but it made a difference to me that they were there on site when I visited the location. When I visited the Friddle property I didn’t see any citizens who opposed the fields in their back yards.
How far is the current ball field from the back yards of the citizens who have signs in their yards in comparison to the site on Friddle road? It looks like to me it is not any closer than the current ball field.
bama80 wrote:
On second thought, I think I will open up a flower and wooden cross shop there so people can honor all the tragedies that will occur.
-may be being over-dramatic, but my point stands.
Sick thought, but true.
____________________
The views/opinions in this post are mine.Do not copy,or distribute without my consent.
Copied with Crackah's consent.
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 04:23 pm |
|
The well being and the safety of my children is my first priority. I love them both dearly and would not DARE compromise to jeopardize their lives for the sake of a ball field.
I can not fathom the idea of parents and grandparents sitting in a seat would even agree to jeopardize their kids and grandkids lives. This is both heart breaking and sickening to me.
You guys say we need to pull together and get these ball fields built -- but sometimes you have to stop and ask yourself just what is being put at risk here and at whose expense. I am sorry but no ball field is EVER going to come before my family.
The safety issues on 220 should have been set in concrete before even persuing. This may never get resolved., AND THEN YOU MUST LIVE WITH IT.
FIND A BETTER LOCATION IF NONE PRESENTED WHERE SUITABLE. LET THE CITIZENS VOTE AND MAKE THE DECISION IF COUNCIL CAN'T MAKE THE RIGHT ONE.
Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 04:50 pm by GRITS
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 05:48 pm |
|
GRITS wrote: LET THE CITIZENS VOTE AND MAKE THE DECISION IF COUNCIL CAN'T MAKE THE RIGHT ONE.
I fully support the concept of citizens being allowed to participate more vigorously in citizen initiatives and major policy decisions. It should happen more often if we truly want people to be part of and close to good government.
That being said, I wonder who you would suggest would decide whether or not the council decisions made are the 'right' one? And in your mind, how would such a process to override council decisions work?
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
bama80
Member
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 07:07 pm |
|
| yeah once you start to undermine the council, then basically you would have to have a citizen vote (referendum?) on every decision that anyone was unhappy with. Therefore nullifying the need for a council at all.
____________________
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....
|
Shamu
Member
| Joined: | Feb 26th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 52 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 07:10 pm |
|
| To my knowledge, there is NO connection between the group 'Concerned Citizens' and people who put up signs asking the town to find another site for ballfields. The neighbors in the vicinity of Oak Street, ShadySide, Rabbit Hollow and Summerfield Road were only connected by an interest to preserve their quality of life and safety.
|
GRITS
Member
| Joined: | Mar 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 244 |
| Status: |
Online
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 07:18 pm |
|
Jim Flynt wrote: GRITS wrote: LET THE CITIZENS VOTE AND MAKE THE DECISION IF COUNCIL CAN'T MAKE THE RIGHT ONE.
I fully support the concept of citizens being allowed to participate more vigorously in citizen initiatives and major policy decisions. It should happen more often if we truly want people to be part of and close to good government.
That being said, I wonder who you would suggest would decide whether or not the council decisions made are the 'right' one? And in your mind, how would such a process to override council decisions work?
I suppose that decision right now would be left to the citizens. Of course you are going to have those that agree council made the right decision, and you will always have others thinking the opposite.
IMHO - when the town asked the citizens to visit the sites and give their input as to what they liked or disliked about the properties,and which you preferred, it was a large number and it was a majority of the visitors all agreed and preferred the Friddle property. Site B (220) was a close 2nd with the exception of the safety issues that the majority had. How the entire voting process went was so misconstrued -- not even making the offer toward the 1st right of refusal, and just burring their heads & making light of the major concerns regarding safety like it could easily be resolved is why I suppose this is the group that will always feel like the wrong decision was made.
Now since you asked about override of council decision I have been asking all morning long if this could be done. If so I want to know the process. I have not had time to do any research this morning, but I have been thinking of avenues to approach for answers. I know nothing about political science when it comes to such factors, but I plan on finding out.
How can a person on the Parks and Rec committee be able to vote, when he clearly had a conflict of interest with the Friddle Property and was asked to help Michael Brandt and BB find suitable land for ball fields. He did nothing other than gain supporting ammunition to fight the number 1 choice of most of the citizens of Summerfield--said he had a petition with 30 some signatures opposing the Friddle property (which was never produced-- as I figured)-- ignored forum questions regarding environmental issues regarding the Marshall property but went to great extreme protecting the Friddle property concerning the environment and the watershed. He came right out and told me not to assume facts that I stated about the Marshall property--he tried to make look as if I knew nothing and wanted to know where I got my information. I may not of had access to government maps like he said that he did--but all it took was a small visit to the sites and view them before the town invited everyone to do so. He could vote with the P & R committee, but Bob Williams was advised not to because he owned property that was adjacent to the other 30 acres that Friddle was not selling to the town. Becky Strickland lives here as well, but was allowed to vote. He is a resident of Rabbit Hollow. lIf you are going to play a fair game and aid in making affective decisions that is for the best interest of the town, then play fair. That's all I'm asking. This is wHy council's decision should be overridden.
Last edited on Jun 1st, 2007 07:56 pm by GRITS
|
Baseball Buddy
Member
|
Posted: Jun 1st, 2007 07:19 pm |
|
Shamu wrote: To my knowledge, there is NO connection between the group 'Concerned Citizens' and people who put up signs asking the town to find another site for ballfields. The neighbors in the vicinity of Oak Street, ShadySide, Rabbit Hollow and Summerfield Road were only connected by an interest to preserve their quality of life and safety.
Please. I am an educated man. Don't take us for being stupid. If it looks like a duck ...........
____________________
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 07:29 pm |
|
Shamu wrote: To my knowledge, there is NO connection between the group 'Concerned Citizens' and people who put up signs asking the town to find another site for ballfields. The neighbors in the vicinity of Oak Street, ShadySide, Rabbit Hollow and Summerfield Road were only connected by an interest to preserve their quality of life and safety.
Say what you want but if you really wanted to preserve quality of life and safety you would have put the KIDs at the top of your list with their quality of life and saftey as priorty,. and your personal, quality of life and safety next.
|
|
|
