CC Minutes - 06/15/09 Public Hearing

Home Browse Search

Jules DeGiulio , 3205 Whitten Drive, Ward 2, asked the council to please overturn the recently submitted remonstrance. He did not wish to address the assessments. He felt that even if the assessment language was imperfect, the ordinances in question had been in effect for years and were well known by the residents in the LID. He noted that the question of whether the streets were collectors or residential streets had also been established years earlier. He believed that the overriding issue was the safety of the 250 children who attended Crest Drive Elementary School. He said though his home was only a quarter-mile from his son’s school, he could not allow his son to walk to school alone or with a friend. He felt it was the responsibility of the community to provide safe walking and bicycling streets and to not do this was a “full-scale community failure.” He averred that the street design that the citizens had worked with the City to develop would provide the best and safest option. He said until the stretch of road was improved, he could not allow his son to walk to school alone. He opined that the community had “stolen” from its children “a milestone in their growth toward independence.” William Jaeger , 3201 Inspiration Point Drive, stated that he was an economics professor and did research on land economics and land use regulations. He saw two distinct issues to be solved: 1) whether the road project had public support, and 2) whether the rules for LID assessments were fair. He observed, regarding the former, that the project was approved and funded and nearly all of the residents wanted it to go forward. He said the second issue had to do with fairness, which was judged by whether the same rules were applied consistently across similar situations. He noted that the City had applied the rules in other parts of the City. He opined that if the City stopped the project as a result of the petition, it would be unfair to the other Crest area residents who had waited “years” for the roads to be fixed and it would also be unfair to the other city residents who had paid assessments under the same rules. He said if the rules were fair, they should be applied, and if they were unfair, they should be changed. He had found many of the recent arguments of the petitioners against the project to be “unpersuasive.” The only issue raised that he had found to have merit was that it was unfair that people in cul de sacs who only had access to their residences via the streets in the LID were not assessed. He averred that if it was the council’s collective judgment that the existing rules were fair, then there was no justification for delaying the project further. And if the council felt otherwise, he asked that the council then change the rules and not delay the project. He felt that the legal counsel could find a creative way to grandfather in the project if the council decided to change the assessment policy. Neal Spangler , 963 Tiara Court, stated that he owned property on Friendly Street. He appreciated and honored the work that had gone into the project design. He believed they were doing the best they could do to maintain the character of the streets. He said because of the unique location, by default the streets would be collector streets. For this reason, he felt the assessments to be unfair. He asked that the council review the policy. He averred that the few were paying for the many. He added that he preferred the potholes because it slowed down traffic. He added that if he could refinance his home with an annual percentage rate of less than five percent, the City should not charge eight percent in interest. Connie Wonham , 3208 Whitten Drive, asked the council to vote to form the LID without further delay. She declared that the need for road improvements was obvious. She wanted them to uphold the original directive and get the work started. She said hundreds of people used the roads daily and were forced to drive on substandard roads though they also paid taxes. She felt it was most important to protect the safety of the children, runners, bikers, and dogs who tried “to navigate” the streets every day. She thought there should be some solutions to the objections put forth by the neighbors that could derail the project. She urged the council to implement the “great street design” that had come out of collaborative effort between the neighbors and the City. MINUTES—Eugene City Council June 15, 2009 Page 6 Public Hearing