02-18-2018, 07:05 PM
Road width is irrelevant to this legislation. There is nothing in the bill that suggests the county taking ownership of the roads. It's more about county oversight.
I agree that oversight is desperately needed in some subdivisions, but what about the others? HA is a special situation and there may be similar ones, but perhaps there are others that are functioning properly, keeping the roads maintained and keeping the residents happy. Why should any of these subdivisions be subjected to the added expense of what amounts to a pseudo-receivership that is both unwanted and unneeded? There needs to be an opt out clause in the bill for those that don't want it (by popular vote, of course).
There also needs to be some constraints on the costs for those that do want it. Right now it's left up to the "entities" how much it will cost, with no limits. No voting. No voice. The "entities" will determine what level of maintenance is required and what level of oversight is required and how much that will cost and bill us for it. Giving them blank check is not a good idea.
I agree that oversight is desperately needed in some subdivisions, but what about the others? HA is a special situation and there may be similar ones, but perhaps there are others that are functioning properly, keeping the roads maintained and keeping the residents happy. Why should any of these subdivisions be subjected to the added expense of what amounts to a pseudo-receivership that is both unwanted and unneeded? There needs to be an opt out clause in the bill for those that don't want it (by popular vote, of course).
There also needs to be some constraints on the costs for those that do want it. Right now it's left up to the "entities" how much it will cost, with no limits. No voting. No voice. The "entities" will determine what level of maintenance is required and what level of oversight is required and how much that will cost and bill us for it. Giving them blank check is not a good idea.