Message from Elizaeth McDonald

4 views

Skip to first unread message

MWIAPR...@gmail.com

unread,

May 10, 2007, 11:10:55 PM5/10/07

to Jones Falls Trail

I am not characterizing any one person in the employment of the city
as
someone who would willfully or knowingly cheat the residents of Mt
Washington.

However, the political machine is what it is and it is naive folly
for all
of us to believe that when you give the city full reign [ i.e.
approval to
develop a plan which is "at this time only conceptual" and based on
"a budget
which does not yet exist" as stated by Mac and city officials] that
we as an
historic and unique community might not end up with a permanent
construction
which is not in many ways the benefit it was initially supposed to
be to OUR
community.

I am ONLY asking and strongly suggesting [ as a 36 year resident of
Mt
Washington and an active cyclist/ avid outdoor 40 year old] that we
SLOW down this
process, REFUSE to be put on a deadline to make an inadequately
informed
vote, and to allow for experts in the areas of environment, safety,
aesthetic,
wildlife, etc to create the proper and FULL report which the city has
not yet
prepared for us.

You are right, Carol, that most [if any] of the prime players in the
Dept of
Parks and Rec are NOT Mt Washington residents. As residents and
stewards
of our own very special and beautiful neighborhood we are going to
have to be
strong and energetic advocates [MANY of us are willing to do that.]
The city
has its own agenda which does not take personally into account Mt
Washington's historic past, its current uniqueness and its fragile
future.

THE FOLLOWING REPLY WAS POSTED BY CAROL BERKOWER
Elizabeth

At the April 17 public meeting at the Wesley Homes, Beth Strommen
clearly stated that when the light rail was double-tracked it reduced
the amount of space available to the bike trail, so that it was no
longer feasible to run it alongside the tracks. (I'm not sure why we
would want a recreational path placed right next to the tracks anyway
- it hardly seems like a "perfect" solution.) Cutting a wider path
in
this area would now require a major earth-moving project. To
characterize Beth's rejection of this route as "cutting corners" is
misleading. As mentioned previously, Beth wrote the environmental
regulations governing trail placement in the city.

The Parks & Rec planners are professionals who have devoted their
careers to improving the quality of life for residents of Baltimore.
And although they may not live in Mt. Washington, they are
Baltimoreans and also our neighbors. To characterize them as folks
who are out "to save another buck by cutting corners along the way"
is
simply unfair.

Carol

On May 10, 12:23 am, ElizM...@aol.com wrote:-
> I DO NOT support the trail as proposed by the city AT THIS TIME.

> The city officials on record for this proposal do not inspire confidence
> that the trail will be constructed in the best possible way for the
community
> neighbors, safety issues, the environment or the woods' resident wildlife.
They
> have already stated that corners must be cut due to funds they wish not to
> spend. Initially the trail was to run by the light rail. Perfect. But now,
they
> are careening it through a quiet historical residential neighborhood and
> through an old woods which is quite active with wildlife. Because its the
> cheaper, more expedient plan.

> If the meeting comes to a vote and the city is given approval to move
ahead
> with this "conceptual trail design" then that's it, we get whatever they
put
> in our neighborhood and we have no additional say or design veto power
> regardless of what new city budget woes may pop up along the way. But it
is quite
> certain that if the city can save another buck by cutting more corners
along
> the way, it will [i.e. in design,trail maintenance, trail safety,
> environmental preservation]

> There is no reason not to delay a vote in order to truly do the impact
> studies. The funding will be there this year, it will be there next year.
Its
> ridiculously naive to think otherwise.

> No matter how much we want to be able to bike to work or to take a walk
with
> the kids, it is never a mistake to take what ever time is needed to
consider
> and explore [with specialists and experts] the impact of a big decision
such
> as the trail. It will almost always lead to an improved design. It is
> precisely for the kids, the future generations which makes this
consideration so
> important.

> On the flip side, it is foolish, selfish, arrogant folly to blithely
accept
> what the city is proposing in "deadline" form simply because we "want to
bike
> to work." Mac has stated that the city isn't proposing any other plan
at
> this time. However, the city wants to do a trail and if the community
pushed
> hard enough or simply resisted enough in a unified manner then the city
would
> be forced to be more creative in its design of the trail. They would have
> to. Why are we settling? Because there are a few residents who just want
what
> they want for themselves and they want it NOW?

> Mt Washington is so unique. We don't need a trail through the woods to see
> that. Just step outside your door, its obvious. Some people move in and
then
> they move out. But many of us come to stay. This neighborhood deserves much
> more farsighted consideration and protection than it is currently
receiving.

> I believe that we cannot lose anything by taking a step back from the vote
> at this time in order to fully obtain expert and objective advice on the
> various areas of trail impact.