Turn Back the Clock (op/ed #1)...

As promised, more coverage from the last election. This time from the op/ed page not the Editorial Board.

Link to op/ed here.

Inspections, water tanks and an election

3/6/2006

Lorin McLain
Last Call

I'm not including the bit about inspections and moving on...

And the water tank – what’s the deal with the water tank?

Word I got from the city manager is that developers fronted (money) for part of it and others building out there will pay for the remainder as they need to hook up with the city’s system.

The money to pay for it is not coming out of your water bill.

Like I said, this will be a 'fair and balanced' retrospective. I copied this only to point out the novel concept of developER's paying for developMENT. I think it points to probably the redundant need of 'impact' fees when -- and if -- the developER's are doing things like taking on extra risk to get their project going.

Plenty of scuttlebutt about the water tank issue a couple of years ago and I'm not going to seek out links to those articles for this series of posting. But hey, the gist is the community got a water tank to help serve a growing area with more growth headed in that direction.

As far as the election goes … don’t look to me to endorse anybody.

That seemed like a popular attitude during the last election.

All I can say is I hope voters have the brains to look at the facts when voting. I know everybody’s mad as hell about being hung up on Stockton Hill Road. I find it precarious, but I grew up in a metropolitan area. There’s a Stockton Hill Road every direction you turn down a major intersection.

If your voting based on your experience of driving down Stockton Hill Road, I don’t think the current Council has much to do with the inconvenience. If you want to blame anybody, blame whoever designed the thing for having terrible foresight.

There is more traffic on Stockton Hill now than there was two years ago, in my observation. There is good times to use the road, and really tough times. For me, it is not about getting rid of the traffic on the main road connecting the north and south sides of town, it is simply about offering a different alternative... another avenue to connect the north and south side of town... preferably sooner than 2014.

I have no comment on the (Airway) underpass.

My only comment is that it will be more efficient if there was access to the Interstate somewhere close around there.

In my opinion, the town’s growing, builders got to build, make them pay for it, and move on.

Reduce or drop impact fees so developers/builders don't have to pay for it (growth) twice and we are probably good to go. Please note, the impact fees were not in effect at the time this article originally was published.