|
Council Minutes of 9/1/98
<br />these people say, well what have you done for me lately? As a response to that question,
<br />,~. Councilman Limpert and I have again sponsored a resolution asking ODOT, the county
<br />engineer and the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency to simply keep this
<br />project on track. It's nothing more, and nothing less- just keep this project on track.
<br />Based on upon the real need for this project, based upon the mounting injury and debt toll
<br />in some of our overused secondary roads and based upon an overwhelming majority vote
<br />of the people of this city in 1988, what Councilperson could, in good conscience, vote
<br />against this resolution. Well, I found in 1996 that some people could say one thing and do
<br />another. And this situation is not one that's unique to North Olmsted. When I was in
<br />Washington, I heard one seasoned Congressperson comment: `It's okay to listen to what
<br />a politician says; but, if you really want to know where they stand, watch how they vote.'
<br />Well, if you want to know whether today's Council has the integrity and courage to do
<br />what's right regarding the safety of our citizens, do to what's right to improve the quality
<br />of life in our city, and to support the will of the 11,637 people who voted for this project,
<br />then I would echo the words of that Congressman. I would tell you to watch how they
<br />vote." Roll call continued: Limpert, yes, with comment: "My heart goes out to long-
<br />time residents of Stearns and Hampton who may be opposed to this project, but changes
<br />must be made for the vast majority of the residents of North Olmsted. How many people
<br />in North Olmsted, people who live on Barton, Bradley, Porter, Dover, Canterbury, Forest
<br />Ridge, Park Ridge, Lansing. Basically, I could name them all--the Twin Woods, Park
<br />Wood, Pine Ridge, those who try to go and pull out onto those roads. How many of
<br />those people must continue to be inconvenienced and risk bodily harm every time they
<br />either try to pull out of their driveway or on the main street. A lady was killed on Barton,
<br />a young man was crippled on Porter. This resolution is not about natural resources, it's
<br />about public safety. It's not about commercialism. It's about trying to keep our residents
<br />safe. We cannot, true we cannot control the schedule. But the schedule will not be kept if
<br />we don't express a desire to have it kept." Roll call continued: Nashar, no, with
<br />comment: "Resolution 98-82 I feel is unnecessary. We could be sending out a false
<br />message to the residents of North Olmsted regarding Crocker-Stearns Road. Currently,
<br />the wetlands study is not yet complete. Delaying, which is also delaying the purchase of
<br />surrounding property. The federal government, the county and the City of North Olmsted
<br />at this time do not have funds allocated. The federal government is looking to prioritize
<br />funds to be used for mass transportation. Recently at a NOACA meeting, they stated that
<br />they, the funds that they have for the year 1999, they only have enough funds to do one
<br />project. The start-up date is anticipated for August 2001. North Olmsted cannot be at
<br />fault for delaying this project. The cost of construction is almost $15,000,000. North
<br />Olmsted's cost is almost 10%. Engineering cost has not even yet been determined or
<br />finalized. And that's the reason why I'm voting no. Thank you." Roll call continued:
<br />Miller, yes, with comment: "When this ordinance came into committee, there was
<br />reference to a `body count' that was occurring as a result of a lack of this roadway going
<br />through. Of course, that alarmed me, concerned me. I asked for a report from the Safety
<br />Department to address that issue. Whether there's statistics to back up that issue.
<br />Because certainly, if there was a `body count' involved, then I would strongly, strongly
<br />urge not only that this roadway go through, but it go through immediately for the
<br />"'~`` protection of our citizens. There is no support to that comment of a `body count.' The
<br />11
<br />
<br />
|