I would like the help of Calblog's readership on this post - especially those of you with children. The brief set-up is as follows: (Please read on)
A few years ago, our city fathers and mothers decided to revamp our downtown area. In their zeal to institute "traffic calming" measures, they reduced the width of lanes through the downtown area, and slowed traffic there to a crawl. The unintended consequence of this short-sightedness is that, almost overnight, our residential side street became a popular shortcut to bypass the downtown area. So we did what all good, involved citizens should do: We brought the issue before our local city council more times than I care to mention before we FINALLY got them to agree to install a median that would channel through-traffic down nearby arterial streets. So far, so good we thought. The trouble is, another group of neighbors in a PUD behind our house decided to use the new median as an excuse to air a longtime grievance: The fact that they are asked to endure ANY traffic has been too much for these poor dears to bear since they first moved in. Incredibly, they want the median removed, even though they are too obtuse to realize it is to their benefit as well. Now comes the part I need help with: In their petition to have the median removed, they are claiming that an increase in traffic has occurred, and can't be tolerated on their streets because, and I quote: "Jorgensen ... is a narrow street... where children regularly play." Is it just me, or does anyone else out there find it incredulous that thirty-two adults and parents would actually sign a petition that states that their children should have the right to play in the street before it is used for the purpose for which it was originally designed, namely, on which to drive a car? I put this to our city council last night and received nothing but blank stares in return. In addition, I am stymied by the apparent lack of concern of some parents for their children who are allowed to play in the street with no adult supervision while society as a whole finds it inconceivable that a parent would leave a child in a car unattended for even one minute. Please chime in, I value any and all feedback on this issue.
Posted by Mark D. Firestone at May 27, 2004 07:34 PM | TrackBackHard thing is, to some degree streets are for cars, but remember back to when you were youngish too...they were for street hockey (well I guess if you're Wayne and Garth not too long ago) and playing ball, playing catch. The problem is, everyone wants quiet streets because everyone wants to have peace and quiet and do those activities that a nice wide paved area is useful for. Sounds like the real problem is the traffic calming measures in the downtown, that's where traffic should be channelled not down residential streets. But I'm sure the city is probably unduly influenced by the sales tax revenues that the downtown area provides. The council's shortsidedness is merely the result of yet another unintended consequence.
Posted by: Joel B. at May 27, 2004 08:48 PM (Permalink)Joel - Thanks for the feedback. I reminded our council last night that we all used to play in the street (as you pointed out). I then went on to explain that I fully realize that children will always play in the street, I merely sought to discredit that particular point as a valid item of consideration on these folks' petition. And you are also right about the root of the problem being the downtown area. Since we all have pointed out their folly to them, our city officials have been disinclined to do anything that will even remotely suggest that they were in error, which is why we had to fight so hard to get the median in the first place.
Posted by: Mark D. Firestone at May 27, 2004 09:07 PM (Permalink)