Taking the ball and going home...

Funny night Thursday, with only a few neighbors showing up until about 5 or more minutes after the start time, I was just a bit nervous as so many people had shared compelling reasons that were keeping them away, but then a large contingent arrived en masse.

The short story is CRCDS-ACS should be rapidly trying to turn around a site plan revision to meet with the neighborhood again this upcoming week. They collected email addresses and will I guess try to help get the word out rather than slowly releasing time and location info the last few days expecting us to handle comunication.

The long story involved some drama during which a proponent of liberal asphalt application, who I will call 'Curveball' took the floor and seemed to threaten that they may just submit the original proposal to the planning board or tear the building down. That's really what I remember but he couldn't have been that irrational I suppose. To be fair, emotional comments came from the opposition, but there was truth to these comments unlike many attempted assertions of needs for the office entrance parking location that receded under questioning.

Finally with a chance to speak, I blathered on stating the obvious, pointing out how all available internet aerial (Google, Zillow, Microsoft live) imagery supports, that people don't seem to park in the East lot at all if spaces are available in the West, and why would they? The West lot is where all of the current campus need is, the only thing convenient to the East lot is Trevor Eaton. I suggested how additional spaces could reasonably be added to the design in which they have already found 20 more of the thirty five spaces (and 51 of the 66 total) that absolutely can't fit up top in the current parking areas. I mentioned a repeated story told about how there wouldn't be space for all of the ACS office workers in the lot down below and that some of the staff would be forced to park up top and walk down, and asked why on earth anyone would want to park down below rather than up top. I provided an illustration showing distance to door convenience of none and only a slight advantage of 7' less elevation change in the lower lot spaces, which is obviously many times offset by the 500'or 700'+ of aisles and drives, 360 to 540 degrees of turning and 24'+ of altitude change required to drive to the lower lot. I also mentioned how if the last required spots were built off of the East lot with a level sidewalk to the entrance, the worst spots for all of CRCDS would only be 3-4 car lengths longer than the initial proposal's worst spaces, but with zero compared to the 10' foot vertical climb of the proposal. Of course these would be closer and much more convenient to the rest of campus, and I'd think much easier to maintain, plow, light, construct, and use. The response seemed just shy of stunned silence. I asked this utility question again a bit later, and even Curveball offered nothing to justify the consruction of this lot.

Who knows what Curveball and his team will cook up next. Pam thinks she saw him cruising the neghborhood Friday afternoon so maybe he's brewing a new plot against Alling Deforrest's landscape work, or hopefully he's had an epiphany. I think it's clear that many more spaces can be added to the existing parking areas than have been yet admitted. I don't fully understand the ADA access ramifications but am convinced other solutions must be available at cost savings. I do really feel confident and hope they are finding the best possible solution, but we need to be ready.

One suggestion that I think makes sense is circulating a pettition stating simply that we find a new parking lot constructed on the grounds unacceptable given the lack of any solid justification.

I also think there is a lot more to provide feedback on, lighting, final parking space location decisions etc.. Please let me know if you think I am being overly optimistic or unfair.

Thanks,

Bill