| Author | Post |
|---|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 06:16 pm |
|
| I think in the coming days you are going to see some folks come forward strongly opposed to seeing any new town hall being taken out of the downtown area and built out in the boondocks. What in the world are they thinking?
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 07:56 pm |
|
| Jimbo! What are you talking about? Isn't this property just on the other side of the school? What boondocks are you talking about? Where else could a new town hall be built? Is there land available in the downtown area?
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 10:01 pm |
|
| Depending on how close the 158 bypass is built could make this property right in the heart of things.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 10:45 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: Depending on how close the 158 bypass is built could make this property right in the heart of things.
Assuming that the NC Department of Transportation doesn't change the scheduling and priority of this road construction and that there is no shortfall of future highway funds, when would the installation of the 158 bypass occur? Is the location of this future proposed highway actually locked in stone?
Are you suggesting that the old downtown should be abandoned and that there will ultimately be some new downtown at some future date?
Don't you feel that the relocation of the town hall away from the present AND HISTORIC downtown area would be a slap in the face to residents in the core area and the existing downtown businesses? As action by a municpal board, it seems to many of us to be extremely shortsighted and evidence of a total lack of support for the existing community.
The downtown area along Main Street has historically been the primary vista by which most visitors to Stokesdale know Stokesdale and those historic attributes and improvements are in fact, what 'define' this community. To relocate town hall out to the boondocks (as I labeled it), would be to remove what should be the most visible landmark (a community's Town Hall) and relegate it to a tertiary position and location of even more complete irrelevance to the community.
Don't get me wrong: the current town council is so shortsdighted they will no doubt move forward and build their little dream out there in the boondocks. But that will simply leave it for some future town council to go in and clean up their mess, and one day restore the town council building to a visible downtown area where it belongs. A couple of these town council members are just so hell bent on building any building at any location in order to leave 'their legacy' without regard to the fact that their legacy will be one of blind ignorance, ego, and a total lack of vision. Not to mention a gross failure to understand, appreciate and support a vital part of Stokesdale's town history: it's historic downtown. A history which has served us well.
We need an election (town council) in Stokesdale and we need it quick.
Last edited on Jan 28th, 2007 11:28 pm by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
S. Smith
Moderator
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 11:43 pm |
|
Okay Jim, I know you love a good debate, and I'm going to give you the other side this one. I don't live in Stokesdale, so I'm purely looking at this from an outsider's point of view.
You are correct about the 158 bypass -- its exact route has not been chosen, and who knows when, or if, it will ever be built. Of course I'm not suggesting that, when it is built, the old downtown area be abandoned. I think Stokesdale's downtown area is lovely, and it is the only local town which actually has a downtown. But just like when a new interstate is built and new businesses crop up around the interchanges, I think that will happen here as well. Unfortunately that does mean just by the sheer volume of the traffic coming through the middle of town that some businesses will suffer. In my mind, that's just a fact, and is in no way meant as a slap in the face of anyone doing business in downtown.
And as macca pointed out, the town property is right behind the school. Also the Angels Glen development is being built there, and when the park and town hall (and maybe one day other buildings in the "municipal complex" -- such as perhaps a post office or library) are built, that will create a reason for people to come there. In other words, what may seem like the boondocks now probably won't seem that way in a few years. (If you build it, they will come....)
Just a few years ago, I would have thought anyone who said Linville Road would be the "downtown" of Oak Ridge was crazy. After all, I remember when the road was dirt. But then they built the fire department and the post office. Now the town hall and park are being built. The property on the corner has been sold for a credit union. Things are a'changing.
I think it would be wonderful for Stokesdale to have a town hall in the historic downtown area. I'm just not sure where that would be. Like macca, I don't know of that much available land in the "town core" area.
The Town of Stokesdale rented space for years which is quickly becoming too small. Anyone who has ever attended a meeting knows it can be impossible to hear from the traffic outside or if someone tries to carry on an ancillary converation. So at what point do you stop renting a one-bedroom apartment and build your own house? What was fine when you were a bachelor and even a young married person becomes more than just cozy when you have a few kids. At what point does it make sense for you to get your own place and stop giving money to your landlord?
I would argue that, at least from an outsider' perspective, the Stokesdale council is being visionary in their decision.
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 28th, 2007 11:58 pm |
|
S. Smith wrote: I would argue that, at least from an outsider' perspective, the Stokesdale council is being visionary in their decision.
Sandra, I am not opposed to the building of the park as planned. I fully support the construction of that park and would pray to support literally dozens of others in the Northwest area. There should be no higher priority than the preservation of open space and recreational lands for our future generations to enjoy, and my support for such is unconditional.
I further support the concept of building a town hall. Just not at this location and for the reasons which I have already ennumerated. Although there are dozens of other reasons equally compelling to argue against the proposed relocation away from the vital and historic downtown. As I have outlined in a PM to both you and Macca, I do feel that there are a few locations in the downtown core area which would be more visible, more accessible, and would continue to show support for the very core of people which assembled as the orginal community, and the original buildings which were responsible for there even being a community here to start with.
It doesn't take a visionary to simply recognize a need recognizable to all but the blind among us. The need for a larger space.
Being visionary means looking for the larger space in the right place. It means finding a location for a town hall in the downtown core area that would require looking ahead and seeing possibilities amidst an area where possibilties don't seem to exist. They are there, one simply has to open their eyes to the possibilities.
Last edited on Jan 29th, 2007 12:00 am by Jim Flynt
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Jan 29th, 2007 03:23 am |
|
You know, Jimbo, I've been thinking about what you posted, and all the critcism you've thrown at the current Council members. If I remember correctly about the land purchased by the town, they felt as though they got a really good deal on it, that the family who sold it to them did the town a favor by not charging more than they did for the land. I also think I've read phrases from Council members about "being good stewards" with Town funds, and I think they were criticised for taking a long time looking for land to buy. Is land available in the downtown area? If so, is it available at an affordable price? I know I looked at land transfers this week (in that other paper -- sorry, Sandra!) and noted 2 pieces of property that were sold in the downtown area, I think. One was for more than $100,000 and the other was for more than $800,000. I don't know how large these parcels were, but if they are in the "town core" area, I can't imagine that they are all that large. How much land did the town buy, and how much did they pay for it?
If these people who think a Town Hall shouldn't be built on the land that has already been bought are going to come forward, are they also going to offer to help with other land? Can the town afford to develop 2 pieces of land? I know there are folks in recreation programs who are looking forward to more fields to play on.
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 29th, 2007 09:30 am |
|
macca wrote: If these people who think a Town Hall shouldn't be built on the land that has already been bought are going to come forward, are they also going to offer to help with other land?
Macca, I am not sure I understand your comment above. Are you suggesting 'user fees'?
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 29th, 2007 09:37 am |
|
macca wrote: I know there are folks in recreation programs who are looking forward to more fields to play on.
Macca, just so we can all discuss this subject with the same foundation of understanding, HOW MANY "fields" are there currently in the town limits of Stokesdale and HOW MANY ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE NEEDED?
And when you use the term "fields" what exactly does that mean? Does that mean soccer fields, football fields, lacrosse fields, baseball fields, hockey fields, or what? And in what combination?
If there are indeed not enough "fields", please share with us the reasons why not?
There was never any scarcity when I was growing up and if we needed one, I'm sure we young folks would have just borrowed a father's tractor and gone out and cleared a new field on someone's farm somewhere. Why don't some of these parents do that now instead of running to government every time they want something? Are we really that helpless as a society?
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Jan 29th, 2007 10:18 am |
|
Jim Flynt wrote:
macca wrote: If these people who think a Town Hall shouldn't be built on the land that has already been bought are going to come forward, are they also going to offer to help with other land?
Macca, I am not sure I understand your comment above. Are you suggesting 'user fees'?
I'm not sure I even know what "user fees" are. What I was asking was, based on the fact that the town already has one piece of land it has already paid for, and that other land (if available in the town core) seems pretty expensive, if, along with requests that Council consider building a town hall in the "downtown" area, would these people also have some suggestions as to how to make that happen? And are they in a position to make it feasible? Meaning affordable and/or available? And do these people have their own agenda in wanting it downtown other than to preserve the current downtown area?
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Jan 29th, 2007 10:31 am |
|
Jim Flynt wrote:
macca wrote: I know there are folks in recreation programs who are looking forward to more fields to play on.
Macca, just so we can all discuss this subject with the same foundation of understanding, HOW MANY "fields" are there currently in the town limits of Stokesdale and HOW MANY ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE NEEDED?
And when you use the term "fields" what exactly does that mean? Does that mean soccer fields, football fields, lacrosse fields, baseball fields, hockey fields, or what? And in what combination?
If there are indeed not enough "fields", please share with us the reasons why not?
There was never any scarcity when I was growing up and if we needed one, I'm sure we young folks would have just borrowed a father's tractor and gone out and cleared a new field on someone's farm somewhere. Why don't some of these parents do that now instead of running to government every time they want something? Are we really that helpless as a society?
I don't have a copy of that issue of the NW Observer in front of me right now, but there were some kinds of fields included on the property along with a town hall building.
In terms of playing fields, as far as I know, there is one park in Stokesdale. Judging by all the cars and people crammed into that area, that park seems to be bustin' at the seams! In terms of clearing land on somebody's farm -- I don't know anything about how you'd go about finding out what farmer might have land they'd let people clear, but you also get into liability issues. I think there is some kind of Parks & Rec group that runs programs, but just at the park, and maybe now basketball at the school.... I know Guilford County is adding more parks, and of course, Oak Ridge is now..... I guess we could just expect other communities to provide recreation for folks who live in Stokesdale, but it would be nice to have more opportunities here. So, back in the day, if you wanted to play a little ball, you had to go get your own field first? I would think it would be obvious that we've got more and more folks moving here, and those folks have kids. I don't think people are "running to government" -- I think Parks & Rec is all volunteer, a nonprofit group like you're trying to set up for the tree area downtown -- but there is just so much land available right now that folks are welcoming the opportunity to have more....
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 29th, 2007 11:35 am |
|
macca wrote: And do these people have their own agenda in wanting it downtown other than to preserve the current downtown area?
It seems to most of us that you wouldn't erect a billboard at the end of a dead end street out in the middle of nowhere, but rather along a busy highway with visibility. In a great sense, a town hall becomes a rather significant billboard for a community. And the choice is whether a community either displays such a town hall with pride along it's main vista or hides it out in the middle of nowhere. A town government which is visible is certainly more relevant to it's citizens as opposed to one which is hidden and out of sight of the average day to day driver, pedestrian, and citizen.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 29th, 2007 12:04 pm |
|
macca wrote:
(1) In terms of playing fields, as far as I know, there is one park in Stokesdale. Judging by all the cars and people crammed into that area, that park seems to be bustin' at the seams!
(2) In terms of clearing land on somebody's farm -- I don't know anything about how you'd go about finding out what farmer might have land they'd let people clear, but you also get into liability issues. (3) .....to provide recreation for folks who live in Stokesdale, but it would be nice to have more opportunities here. (4) So, back in the day, if you wanted to play a little ball, you had to go get your own field first? (5) I would think it would be obvious that we've got more and more folks moving here, and those folks have kids. I don't think people are "running to government"
I have broken down your response (which failed to address my specific earlier questions by the way), in order to address each of the points you have made, and numbered them to make it easier to follow the discussion.
(1) There is one park in Stokesdale as you say, which includes more than one playing field. Again, I would ask you, what is the total number of fields available in Stokesdale currently and what number is needed? How many children live in the town limits of Stokesdale between the ages of 6 and 18? How does that number (the total number of Stokesdale children) equate to ACTUAL NEED?
As an aside, we all need to be reminded that the Stokesdale Park was originally built and paid for WITHOUT any government money. Why couldn't another group of interested parents still do that today?
(2) It seems to me the easy answer would be for someone to get off their duff, leave the comfort of home, and start by knocking on the doors of local farmers and inquiring about possibilities for a land lease or rental. That is what we would have done then and the first thing that would come to mind now if I were trying to do the same thing.
As for the liability issues which you mention in general, those could be resolved with hold harmless agreements and insurance policies.
(3) If you will go back and review my earlier comments, I suggested that I fully support the concept of more parks in Stokesdale and the entire Northwest area. I just happen to think that the park needs of Stokesdale citizens extend beyond simply adding more 'fields' as you suggest. Where are the recreational opportunities for tennis, swimming, basketball, football, picnics, etc. going to occur? I don't recall seeing those included in the proposed site planning for the new park in the boondocks.
(4) Back when I was growing up, there was a ballfield and basketball court at Stokesdale School as well as the ball field at Stokesdale Park. While I recognize that there has been some growth in the area since that time, my question remains: how many children of recreational age live within the town limits? What are the current facilities and what is the anticipated need? And if new growth is driving the demand, why aren't developers being required to build recreational facilities for the new residents or conversely, why isn't there some sort of surcharge added to the cost of developed lots to offset the additional costs to the towns to provide recreation for new residents?
(5) If people aren't running to government as you say, then why hasn't the private sector already developed these fields and parks you advocate? It could and can be done if only folks would use their imagination, get off their duffs, leave the comforts of their homes, and do something about it, rather than wait for government to do it for them.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
macca
Member
|
Posted: Jan 29th, 2007 12:19 pm |
|
| Sorry, Jimbo! Don't have time to keep this up right now.... I do think there were more than just "fields" planned on the town property. Maybe you could suggest to the Parks & Rec board some kind of drive to raise $ for more recreational areas, since that might be the best way to do that. You seem to have lots of connections to the movers and shakers of the town. We have 500+ kids enrolled in grades K-5 at Stokesdale Elem -- doesn't account for older and younger. It also doesn't account for kids in neighboring communities who feel a connection to Stokesdale and participate in activities here.
____________________
A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright
|
Jim Flynt
Member
| Joined: | Jul 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Bermuda Triangle |
| Posts: | 1372 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Jan 29th, 2007 12:30 pm |
|
macca wrote: It also doesn't account for kids in neighboring communities who feel a connection to Stokesdale and participate in activities here.
Sorry Macca, but I don't think the citizens nor the Town of Stokesdale have any obligation to provide recreation for those kids.
____________________
"Take no prisoners"
|
Current time is 12:52 pm | Page:   1 2 3 4 5 6   |
|
|
|