07/22/1981 Meeting (2) - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

there could be a negative impact. He is concerned about the City using its e police powers when they are not needed. To provide for more quiet, in some areas of the city, street diverters have been put in. In this case, the possi- bility of more noise would be placed upon the property owners. This path is not critical to.the overall Master Bike Plan. People are using this area now and he feels the damages to these property owners would be stronger than the good to the majority as a whole. Sometimes unpopular decisions must be made. Ms. Schue stated that the City is committed to the development of alternative modes of transportation including the use of bicycles. She does not view this as bicycle recreation but rather as a way to shorten bicycle commuting distances. People are using this area now and they will probably continue. Th i s i s a question of "how" people will use this path not "if" they will use this area. She feels it is unfortunate this was not finalized with Mr. Ward before his house was bui It. She still feels it would be best to put the bike path across Mr. Ward's property. Mr. Lindberg stated that generally he is a strong proponent of the Bicycle Committee and the bicycle plan and an opponent of eminent domain unless it is essential. He feels that Mr. Obie and Ms. Schue have outlined their viewpoints well. Lacking a documented need, it is difficult to vote in favor of invoking eminent domain, but he would be interested in hearing the information again as documentation can be made available. The need to reduce auto traffic is real, but he wonders if this path would help. With more information, he might change his mind. Ms. Smith stated that she opposes this proposed bike path. The council is e committed to a good bike path program but with unknown costs, condemnation, and the handling of the notification procedure, she would oppose this project. Mr. Obie moved, seconded by Ms. Smith, to terminate further action on the present proposal. Ms. Miller stated that she thinks this is an important project and an important part of a transportation system for the Ferry Street Bridge area. Many people have public streets and alleys that go as close to their homes just as this bike path would to these property owners. She said that some people feel they can live in town, yet maintain private land and not share in the solution to the City's transportation problems. The cost for maintaining the overall transporta- tion system of the city is a cost the council should be concerned with. It wi 11 cost over $17 million to rebuild the Ferry Street Bridge. Traffic congestion is getting worse and this project could be an alternative in relieving this situa- tion. Mr. Obie noted that his intent with the motion was to reject this partic- ular proposal for this connector, not the entire concept. Mr. Lindberg stated that he does not feel Public Works violated City processes but he thinks staff may not have a proper process of notification developed. He asked staff to review the notification process of individual property owners when condemnation proceedings are involved. Mr. Gleason added that changes in policy in regard to subdivisions are what caused the problem and it should not happen again. e MINUTES--Eugene City Council July 22, 1981 Page 11