[Vision2020] Re: subdivisions (Was "Tribune Uncovers")

[bill bonte]

Reference Mr. Harkins statement that residents of the Rolling Hills
subdivisions have easy acess to the Joseph Street ball parks and Latah
Fairgrounds:  It is true that a wonderful stairway was constructed  
between
6th street and Hathaway Drive and another between Panorama and the new
Trinity Baptist Church.  These provide a walkable connection among the
three neighborhoods.  A further connection is possible to the  
Fairgrounds
through the Salsbury neighborhoods (when the streets are completed).  As
for now, bicycle and foot traffic to the Joseph Street ballparks from  
all
neighborhoods east of Paradise Creek must the use Joseph Street Bridge.
This is one of the most dangerous pedestrian rights of way in  
Moscow.  Now
that the traffic has increased in volume and speed it can be life
threatening to use this narrow bridge.  This is a good example of the
failure of city development officials.  Before approving the Salsbury
addition, they should have required the bridge be replaced by a new,  
wider,
pedestrian friendly crossing, at the developers' expense.  It is obvious
that Joseph, east of Paradise Creek will become a major arterial, but no
provision was made, and the developer was not required to provide  
right of
way for future widening of the road.

The comprehensive plan does show a connection from the Rollings Hills
subdivisions to the area of Good Sam and Hordeman Pond, but this does  
not
currently exist.  Residents must walk or bike (as Bill London stated)  
to Mt
View Rd, and walk along it, without sidewalks most of the way, to D  
street.
Once again, the developers of Rolling Hills and the planned Windfall
subdivision east of Mt. View between Rollings Hills Dr and Paradise  
Creek,
shoud be required to provide sidewalks on Mt. View.

The Comprehensive plan shows a public park at the end of Moser  
extending to
the south.  This would further connect the neighborhoods.  The  
developers
must have paid into a fund to contruct this park, but it has not been
started after more than 8 yrs of Rolling Hills development.  I am  
firmly against
private parks and doubt their legality.  With the property taxes I  
pay, I am within
my rights to expect a public park in my neighborhood, as promised.

Developers already pay far too little for the privilege of building  
in Moscow.  They
can afford to put in right of way connections as exist in your  
Frontier and Borah
neighborhoods.

On another subject - water.  Developers of residential lots should  
have increased
water and sewer hookup fees, in the $20,000-30,000 range per lot.   
This would
let the market regulate the amount of new construction in Moscow.

Bill Bonte

 > Different perspectives on subdivisions and related amenities ......
 >
 > I am puzzled by the posts which refer to lack of
 > connectivity between subdivisions and lack of access to parks.
 >
 > I lived in the Frontier Addition for 8 years.  In
 > addition to road connectivity, there were two
 > (now three) connections between Frontier and the
 > connecting living areas - one to the Borah
 > neighborhood (walk and bike) and one (via stairs)
 > to Ridge Road and the campus.   A third was
 > constructed when Frontier II was launched - it is
 > also walk/bike.  And the Frontier Park is
 > available.  Surprisingly, many in this
 > neighborhood strongly opposed the Palouse River Drive ballfields.
 >
 > The Rolling Hills addition and the new Salisbury
 > addition are now connected with each other - by
 > road and the Rolling Hills addition (upper) is
 > connected to the lower level via
 > staircase.  These folks all enjoy easy access to
 > Hordemen Pond, the Joseph Street ball parks,
 > Mountain View Park and the Aquatic Center as well
 > as the Latah Fairgrounds and the Lions Park.
 >
 > Oddly enough, residents around 3rd and 6th St are
 > vocally opposed to connecting the subdivisions
 > with their neighborhoods by completing the bridge for the "planned  
arterial".
 >
 > Should there be additional parks created? - Of
 > course - parks are usually nice additions to a
 > community, unless they are ballfields.
 >
 > But, who should pay for them?  Users, those in
 > the immediate neighborhood or general
 > taxpayers?  Given all the wrangling over parks
 > and park use, perhaps it is time to consider
 > "private parks".  Such parks would be paid for by
 > local residents for the exclusive use of those
 > residents - include athletic facilities (tennis,
 > golf, lawn bowling, etc), social activities and like-minded folks?
 >
 > On that theme, would it be reasonable to have the
 > Thompson property developed as a private living
 > community with restricted access - perhaps offer
 > golf, tennis, equestrian amenities - parklike
 > appearance, but no public access?  This would
 > probably require a change in the prohibition of
 > gated communities, but it would allow individuals
 > to seek living sites that catered to their
 > personal interests.  It would seem to eliminate
 > many of the disputes between neighbors, e.g.,
 > dogs versus no dogs, cats versus no cats,
 > children versus no children, outside storage
 > versus no outside storage, "ugly" houses next to
 > "nice" houses, approved landscaping versus eclectic landscaping.
 >
 > Would such a project be compatible with a "smart growth" agenda?
 >
 > Should there be improved transportation queues?
 > Of course. Who should pay for them? Users, those
 > in the immediate neighborhood or general
 > taxpayers?  The current model seems to be built
 > around the view that subdivision streets and
 > sidewalks are covered by developers - which means
 > the cost is impounded in the price of the
 > lot.  Arterials are financed by general
 > taxpayers.  Are their alternatives to this model?
 >
 > Bike trails are an interesting element in the
 > transportation mix.  I had hoped that the Latah
 > Trail would be a real solution for encouraging
 > walking and bike/traffic issues on the east
 > side.  But sadly (and I drive adjacent to the
 > trail at least twice a day) I have seen wholesale
 > disregard for the trail as a traffic
 > solution.  Each day, I see more bikers and
 > runners not using the trail - instead, opting for
 > using Palouse River Drive or Highway 8 for their
 > trek. This is puzzling.  It would be helpful to
 > know why so many folks are not using the trail.
 > Now my post is not intended to infer that no one
 > uses the trail - each day I also see many folks
 > walking with a friend, walking a dog - ie, using
 > the trail - my point is that there are many opting to not use the  
trail.
 >
 > Question, if a more extensive bike trail system
 > were built, would it be appropriate to mandate
 > that bikers and walkers use the trails?
 >
 >
 > At 06:46 AM 5/26/2006, you wrote:
 > >The discussion of the character of new subdivisions, and  
walkability, is a
 > >good one.
 > >
 > >I think Keely's point can be seen in this google map
 > >
 > >http://maps.google.com/? 
ll=46.727683,-116.980019&spn=0.026887,0.055189&om=1
 > >
 > >I also live on the edge of one of those new neighborhoods, there  
is no
 > >"block" we can walk around for an evening stroll, because there  
are no
 > >blocks.
 > >
 > >I grew up in Pullman on Alfred Lane, one of three streets that  
dead end into
 > >WSU near Regents dorms. Each street ends in a flight of stairs  
onto campus.
 > >This makes them through streets for pedestrians walking to campus  
from
 > >further north. Further, the three streets are linked by a narrow  
public path
 > >(the route of the sewer) located 2/3 of the way from the corner  
to the dead
 > >end.
 > >
 > >The hills explain some of the road alignments in the new  
developments. The
 > >hills were not as problematic in the old town (hence its location  
I guess).
 > >If you look at the old grid, where it charges up the hills (6th  
from main to
 > >the Courthouse), there can be some steep and problematic grades.  
Pullman has
 > >it worse (consider High or Spring street from Downtown) I don't  
think Moscow
 > >will accept streets of that steepness anymore. Nor are they so  
great for
 > >walking, biking, wheelchairs, etc.
 > >
 > >Maybe its worth a look at historic cities with hills and their  
solutions in
 > >days when horses pulled carts. As in Rome, we might build streets  
as flights
 > >of steps (see Spanins Steps) (Google it, look at images). A  
street-wide
 > >stair makes a public pedestrian space. I have see a wide stair  
designed with
 > >a ramp that zig-zaged up across its face, but it doesn't quite  
work for
 > >wheelchairs because the ramp has no railings to help pull oneself  
along.
 > >
 > >_____________________________________________________
 > >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
 > >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
 > >                http://www.fsr.net
 > >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
 > >¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
 >
 >
 >
 > _____________________________________________________
 >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
 >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
 >                http://www.fsr.net
 >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
 > ¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
 >



---------------------------------------------
This message was sent by First Step Internet.
            http://www.fsr.com/



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20060528/7582094e/attachment-0001.htm