Wayne Birkholz, St. Joseph
I am writing to say I agree with recent opinions expressed in letters to the editor which suggest our city council does not act in the best interest of the taxpayer of this city and that little is done to inform the public or encourage dialogue or debate on what are hot-button issues, the latest of which is the Field Street proposal.
I happened upon the Field Street project on the city website which reads: “2016 Proposed Field Street, The City Council is starting the process to consider constructing a new east/west collector street entitled Field Street. This link will provide information as it becomes available.” I followed the link to the Feasibility Report, which turns out to be horribly cumbersome to read online. But that is another matter.
In it, I find out the entire project has already undergone an engineering evaluation of the corridor!
How are the words “proposed” and “starting the process to consider” anything but a cover to what has already been pushed through?
I live in Graceview. Do you suppose I was mailed any information on the project? We have a council member living in Graceview. Do you suppose I had a knock on my door to inform me of the proposed street that I would see from my kitchen window? The answer to both is no.
My point is not that a street should never be built in that location. My point is that every effort should be made to inform the public and get input prior to front-end feasibility studies being performed. It seems time and again this council is putting the cart before the horse of every major project it has considered. The remodel of city hall, a splash pad morphing into a mega-waterpark, the purchase of Colt’s Academy. All of which were surreptitiously put in motion. If it’s untrue, there would not have been an effort to put a stop to these projects at the last hour. Next in line is an entirely new building for City Hall to be built on the Colt’s Academy site at a cost of $5 million.
Adding insult to injury regarding Field Street is the rationale offered by council members as reported in the Newsleader. One is saying the street is needed to relieve traffic on the other corridors. Baker and Minnesota? When I drive those streets in the morning, it certainly doesn’t seem the street is anywhere near beyond capacity. If there is such a need, I would certainly like to see the traffic study which supports that opinion, and have fired the engineer who made that evaluation.
The other argument is from the council member who lives in Graceview. The claim is it’s a safety concern not having alternate routes out of Graceview. But there are alternate routes out of Graceview. There is Callaway and both ends of Elena Lane have exits to other streets. To the west, it’s the very corridor Field Street would use. Sure it’s a farm road now, but given some imaginary catastrophe befalling Graceview, it could easily be opened in the winter.
My understanding of this project demonstrates to me it’s neither wanted nor needed. Landowners most affected by the project expressed to the council they have no intention in their lifetimes to develop the land which is currently farmed. We have multiple stalled or failed housing developments sitting idle, multiple homes which have been vacant for years by foreclosure and multiple vacant lots which are held by the county in tax forfeiture. Who is demanding a new road be built?
Identifying the corridor as a possible future road is one thing, building it today is another. Tell the city council to put the brakes on Field Street.