My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
03-28-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Orono
>
City Council
>
1988
>
03-28-1988 - Agenda Packet City Council - regular meeting
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/12/2026 10:57:02 AM
Creation date
8/19/2025 11:35:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Administration
Admin Doc Type
Agenda Packet City Council
Section
City Council
Subject
regular meeting
Document Date
3/28/1988
Retention Effective Date
8/19/2025
Retention
Permanent After File Date
Protection
Public
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
496
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
10 ;-a7 <br />Dear Council Nemiers: <br />Id0'd !387 <br />LVII <br />I, as a widow on a limited income am appalled (as well as my neigh- <br />bors) that this village expects me to pay for a "Public" sidewalk. <br />This is NOT a residential sidewalk on a residential street. It as a <br />community sidewalk on a county road providing a "supposedly" safe <br />pedestrian oath from one community to the next. This sidewalk is a <br />community benefit, riot just a neighborhood improvement. <br />I need documencet, proof snowing that this sidewalk is only an <br />improvement only to my property. <br />This sidewalk will be useC by touristE, py ALL Orono residents (as <br />well as Mound and Spring Park) who use this main artery pathway to <br />negotiate their trios to work, visit friends, conduct their business <br />errands, and walk to the MTC bus line. <br />I feel the sicewalk is a detriment to my property. It encourages <br />people to walk in my yard. A public park adjacent to my bedroom windows <br />Police records will document that the close proximity to the road has <br />resulted in intruders and window peekers. The sidewalk will bring <br />Deoole even closer to my home and make them seem natural standing or <br />strolling so close to my house. <br />I do not want this sidewalk nor do I feel it is an asset or <br />improvement to the side yard of my property; but rather a detriment to <br />my personal property and a dangerous attraction to children and <br />pedestrians who would ordinarily use a sidewalk as a safe made of <br />travel. <br />If a public safety study was done = am sure it wculd concur that <br />County read 15 between Navarre and Spring Park is an extremely <br />dangerous 'rafficked road. To encourage pedestrians or children to <br />frequent u tis area could be highly injurious to the -1 Fare. <br />Conversely if tie village deeriis the sideweld try, the expense <br />should be borne by all DroDerty ,_owners of the villau <br />Pt a time w-e-! municioa'_ities and government agencies are <br />scrutinizing exper,!itures or services, why should 'ands be spent on <br />projects that citizens Don't want? Five or ten years ir., the future will <br />tnese sidewalks be orr, uo tc, add more traffic lanes? Traffic lanes <br />that the county feels are riceciec ricr-it now after vxnaustive traffic <br />st ud t.es. <br />If this noter,tial exists, certainly these SiCewalKS are not a <br />iuLJ1C1oi_ts i_tst= of ".1nCs. <br />r.arert Dridersori <br />241.3 Carman Str^eel. <br />W&tyzata, r-N 55391 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.