"...BY PERCEIVING OURSELVES AS PART OF THE RIVER, WE ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE RIVER AS WHOLE
(WHICH IS FOLLY IN THE EYES OF ALL OWNERS OF THE DAM AND PARTICULAR HORIZONS). " VACLAV HAVEL
THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN
The Streetscape Committee held a meeting on Nov 1st for the purpose of reviewing the latest version
of the plans for Phase I. The meeting made it clear that the committee has chosen to disregard the results of the residents’
survey entirely.
To review the residents’ survey results:
a. 134 surveys were counted (139 were
sent in; 5 were received after the deadline).
b. Bulb-outs (curb extensions) at all four corners of all three intersections
on German street between Princess street and Church street were rejected by 63% to 29% (85 no, 39 yes).
c. Brick crosswalks
at all three intersections on German street between Princess street and Church street were rejected by 53% to 35% (72 no,
47 yes).
d. Cutting down the 5 mature trees on German street near Church street when planting new trees was rejected
by 58% to 30% (78 no, 41 yes).
e. Using bulb-outs instead of stone steps at the Church street drop-offs was rejected
by 52% to 22% (70 no, 30 yes).
f. Having a planned, updated look to German street rather than an unchanged look was
rejected by 68% to 27% (92 no, 37 yes).
g. doing more on German street than just repairing sidewalks and planting
trees was rejected by 57% to 33% (77 no, 44 yes).
h. the only aspect of Phase I that a majority of residents sided
with the committee on was that German street’s sidewalks need to be repaired; supported by 86% to 11% (115 yes, 15 no).
Home | BY WAY OF CREDENTIALS | MY SWEET ACCOUNTABLE YOU | THE ISSUES | ANNOUNCEMENTS | FOR THE THE PEOPLE? | GRIST FOR THE MILL | ECOCENTRISM | MATTERS OF CONCERN I | MATTERS OF CONCERN II | WE THE PEOPLE | GOOD LINKS | VOX POPULI? | GOING POSTAL | HOW MUCH DO WE PAY THEM? | RATE YOUR PUBLIC SERVANT | GLOVES OFF | RATE IT | INCLUSIVE GOVERNMENT? | WE THE PEOPLE II | RUN, BABY, RUN | OMNIVOROUSLY YOURS | BLOOMING RIGHT | SPIN DOCTOR | A PLACE TO LOVE III | KID SPACE I | AUTUMN 06 PLACE TO LOVE
NEWS FROM OLD UNTERRIFIED
STREETSCAPE?
Consumers consume. In a consumer society, manufacturers must
strive constantly to tempt those who have few material needs left unfulfilled. As an American consumer I see the results of
this striving all around me. Occasionally, I make note of little doodads such as battery powered polyester roses, to remind
myself that we are a long way from being civilized, since each of us has a different idea of what is essential to his well
being. Perhaps somewhere there are dozens of people who would die if they did not own battery operated polyester roses. But
I seriously doubt that there is anyone out there who would die if he did not have an insect repellent apron. Now, it is
all very well to wax sanctimonious and get on a soapbox to rage against the machine. In my long experience, sanctimony and
rage have their limits. What then must we do, as poor old misguided Leo Tolstoy used to ask? My community's equivalent
of the insect repellent apron is a plan grandly called Streetscape. It apparently involves, among other depredations, cutting
town healthy trees and replace them with new ones. The difference is, according to my sources, that experts recommend such
actions. Just who these experts are and why do they think that the public is stupid are some of the opinions floating around
among town residents, a) Town Council has a million dollars burning a hole in its collective pocket. b) The plan is
nothing but a way of creating infrastructure for development. c) At least one Town Council member--and he knows who he
is--called surveys designed to find out how town residents would vote on Streetscape, " a new weapon." c) The mayor does
not want Town Council to "take the plan apart."
Reporting on rumors is not an effective way to commit Journalism. The
right and good thing to do is to talk to town officials and get the real story. But since the Pete Wilson administration,
most municipals officials have taken the attitude that they do not need to answer questions from anyone who might oppose their
views. There is always a chance to get information from those who talk off the record, but that is not the best way to inform
the public. We all know that the town has some serious problems that are not being addressed. One of them is the need for
a new water plant. The cost of water keeps going up and eventually it might become too high for all but upper middle class
residents. This might suggest that the administration's unofficial plan to gentrify the town to the point that no under in
the lower middle and low income levels. Could that happen, right here in River City? Could the majority our Town Parents really
play into the hands of fat cat developers? The question here is, who benefits from grandiose Streetscape plans? Is it the
merchants, developers, Shepherd university, real estate agencies, the masses? It would be nice to have an answer to these
questions, but do not hold your breath. Unless the townspeople are ready to descend upon Town Hall to demand their rights,
there will be no change in the status quo. Individuals or small groups of individuals trying to get answers can be isolated,
ridiculed and rendered ineffective. The key is to organise and everyone knows that in this community we are too individualistic
to do anything of that sort. What happens in this town depends very much on what we want to happen. Ir we leave it to Lance
Dom to decide that his vision of Shepherdstown is the right one, we deserve to have him put it into practice. If we refuse
to see that the greatest damage being done to Shepherdstown is not gentrification. What is at issue is the democratic process.
When the voice of the community is seen as a weapon against the very people elected to represent it, something is gravely
wrong. It is up to us to fix it.
Clara Castelar
ISSUE II 2007
ISSUE I 2006
Copyright Independent Press 2006/2007
Shepherdstown, WV
May 2006
FOR THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE
|