nov 19 MUMPO and Paxtons foot in mouth
Posted in the Stallings Forum
Since: Oct 08
#1 Nov 19, 2008
If you did not come to the meeting, you should have. Paxton tryed to make one of her own board members out to be a liar. She said that the towns "official stand" to support 18 a was not true. She says that they would have never revoted had they had a full board the night of the revote. Well, to me that sounds like one of those shoulda, woulda, coulda, but didn't. She also said that of the people that she spoke to in Forest Park, she was told that Forest Park did't care one way or another about were the bypass goes. I don't know who she talked to but of all my neighbors I have yet to hear any of them say anything positive about option 2. As a matter of fact of all my neighbors that I talk to, and I do so on a daily basis, they have all opposed option 2 because it will ruin our lives. She also says that one of the votes that was counted by the board was prejudist because that person has property in the effected area and that his vote should not have counted. Well if that is the case then noone in union county should vote on anything to do with the bypass. Because everyone in union county has land in the effected area and everyone on Stalling board is effected and we all, everyone in union county, elected official and private citizen alike, whether you like it or not will be effected. Something else I thought was rather strange about the meeting was that out of the over 2 thousand sighners of the petition against 18A, there were only 3 that showed up, one of witch was Paxton. There were 4 from forest park plus at least 2 others from the stallings area present to support 18A, 3 of which stood up and spoke out against option 2. Only one spoke for the over 2 thousand. If they are so concerned then why do they not show up and at least show support for the ones that do speak. I personaly do not do in person public speaking but I do show up and show my support. Thank you to the three that spoke up and I will continue to support my neighbors and my town. If we don't make a stand for what is best for our town and our county it is quite obviuos that our Mayor Paxton sure won't.
#2 Nov 21, 2008
When is the next meeting? I'd like to be there to show support.
#3 Nov 22, 2008
The next council meeting will be Monday, 11-24th at 7pm.
#4 Nov 22, 2008
4 Forest Park residents (plus 2 more Stallings residents) went to the MUMPO meeting. 3 of us spoke on behalf supporting 18A. One person spoke from the CARE group from Fairhaven spoke for supporting option 2.
The 1st person spoke about the 20-25 ft wall, the 12 lanes of traffic, and how the businesses (all of Stallings commercial property on 74 would be destroyed or negatively affected). The 2nd person spoke about the economy of Union County and the towns affected by the path of seg 2, how the Land Use plan is depending on this "new" non-residential growth in order to balance out the astronomical residential growth and help balance the fiscal strain of the county. The last perso spoke about the limited access with one entrance and how that could pose a problem with Fire/Police/EMS, potential evacuation hazards, and problems that could occur if there was an accident blocking this one access. No decisions were made.
There was an update from an engineer. There are currently working on the DEIS (Detailed Environmental Impact Study) and are receiving a lot data. They are working very hard in order to make a recommendation by the end of the year.
When Carl was finished speaking, he asked for comments/questions. Mayor Paxton asked if there was any way to give Forest Park another access. That is when he said that they were done designing and now working on the DEIS data.
Mayor Lynda Paxton went on to say the following:
1- That the Stallings Town Council did switch their position on October 13th, from supporting segment 2 to supporting 18A. She said that the council have supported option 2 since 2003 (I believe).
The part that she forgot was the in March 2008, option/segment 2 moved WEST towards Stallings and away from the Indian Trail. This is what changed.
2-That if there had been the full board present that this vote would have never happened. That the vote was not really fair, since the Town councilman was not present.
The part she left out was in July 23, 2007, Councilman Wyatt Dunn was absent and the board voted 3-2 supporting option 18. So a council member being absent is really not an issue.
3- One of the council members owned property along 74 and would be immediately affected by option 2 and for this reason he should have recused himself.
The part she left out is that Al Graham checked with the attorney at the July 23, 2007, and October 13, 2008, if he should recuse himself, and the attorney in both cases no. It was also a consensus that this was not a conflict from the remaining council.
4- She mentioned that she talked to some of the Forest Park residents and they only mentioned that their concern was the access not really being in opposition of option 2.
I would like to meet some of these people, does anyone know anyone who has this position?
#5 Nov 22, 2008
5-Mayor Paxton mentioned that a certain business owner invited 31 other business owners for a luncheon and they look at the maps and what not. She said she thought it was interesting since only 3 businesses were present to speak at the Town Council meeting after the Turnpike Authoritys presentation. Then she went to speak to each business owner individually, and they really did not have an opinion, but in some cases, the business owner wanted their land purchased.
I know this is not the case, I have spoken to several business owners myself, and either they did not talk to the mayor, did not believe she was the mayor and asked her to leave, and asked her to leave anyway.
6- She mentioned that the CARE group had 2300+ signatures. And that these signatures represent a majority of the town. Clearly, the town of Stallings has spoken.
What she does not mention, is that the Turnpike Authority question the authenticity some of the signatures, and some of them do not live in Stallings. So what would the number be of the actual residents who live in Stallings.
7- She mentioned that the town manager said the difference in tax revenue would be only $25,000 between the two options.
What she does not mention is that if option 18A is selected, then McGees tax revenue will stay in Stallings and Union County, so that revenue does not need to be counted (and makes the difference between the two about 82,000 for Stallings, and $170,000 for the county instead because you add it to 2 and take away from 18). And if segment 2 is selected, then McGee may not be able to use the land that they have purchased due to the Right of way being so bulged out (750-800 Feet). This is from what the company representatives said at the 10-13-08 public comment.
Never mind, that I calculated about 20 million in TAX VALUE for option 18A while about 40 million in tax value for option 2. I calculated the whole amount of the property regardless if what the right-of-way, the road, or if the property was landlocked. I did that for both routes.
Add your comments below
|Are Southerners Stupid or do they just sound th... (Oct '08)||16 hr||Go Blue Forever||4,896|
|Where the boy at in Charlotte ? (Dec '15)||Thu||Fred Herbert||46|
|Let's See Who's A REAL Charlottean! (Jan '08)||Wed||Fred Herbert||94|
|Button Earrings with Great Color||Aug 23||linda35ny||1|
|Loving black women||Aug 22||Nem0||2|
|Do you think prostitution should be legal in N.C.? (Aug '15)||Aug 22||Nem0||15|
|I Love Black Women (May '11)||Aug 22||Mred63||253|
Find what you want!
Search Stallings Forum Now
Copyright © 2016 Topix LLC