Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all?
#55
Road width is irrelevant to this legislation.

Incorrect: road width will be a sticking point that County can use to derail the intent of the legislation.

See also: Bill 37, introduced by O'Hara, would have reduced the minimum right-of-way to 40 feet for "minor streets in rural and agricultural areas". Bill was withdrawn after objection from Public Works citing the "dangerous and unsafe conditions" that would be created by such a narrow right-of-way, because there are AASHTO studies that say this is true.

As is often the case with "must have new rules", there are perfectly usable rules already on the books: simply declare that roads within a subdivision are "alleys", which only require a 20-foot paved right-of-way.

The subdivisions were approved with a 40-foot right-of-way. Either the 60-foot requirement existed (and the plats were illegal as written) or the 60-foot requirement was added later (thereby rendering all existing subdivisions "substandard").

Fortunately, all of this nonsense is paid for with public dollars, so all the public has to do is vote for what they want, because democracy and freedom and America.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - by randomq - 02-15-2018, 10:48 AM
RE: HB2570: Mandatory Road Dues for all? - by kalakoa - 02-19-2018, 05:23 AM

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)