Road Projects Were In Conflict With Law



I realize that the bond committee worked long hours in trying to craft several bond proposals that they felt would benefit the town. I want to comment on one issue that I did not support.

The street bond proposal had two items that ran contrary to a state plan that the town has signed on to and supported: The Smart Growth concept.

1. The back entrance to Wal-Mart -- This street would not provide more safety, would not limit the use of automobiles or increase pedestrian traffic in the area and it would increase vehicle traffic in a residential block. It would solely benefit the automobile. And to what extent? By saving one minute off the travel time from McLane to Hwy 87 (from either feeder street and with the lights being with you).

2. The Mud Springs extension -- This extension would cause a light to be built on Hwy 260 which would mean that there would be four lights in less than two miles of roadway, from Highway 87 to Mud Springs Road. This would not add to safety, it would cause more congestion when Highway 260 is busy, it would cause more high speed traffic in a school and residential block.

I find it irresponsible that the Community Development Department did not make the voters aware of these conflicts with the Growing Smarter Act, an act that the town and the department said they supported.

Robert Elliott, Payson

Commenting has been disabled for this item.