04-05-2009, 07:04 AM
At one time we heard serious concerns (lawyers got mentioned) over the equitable distribution of the funds collected from the membership of HPPOA at large when it was known that only about a third of the roads would be paved. I have heard two versions of how this equity would be achieved.
One was to pave only those roads with the most expensive maintenance costs, thus allowing for the maximum amount of maintenance savings to be reinvested in better upkeep of the unpaved remainder. (The gentleman from the bond company who addressed us seemed to strongly suggest this course.) This could easily result in most of the paving being clustered near the highway and near the shore, which is where the highest traffic and population densities are.
The other idea to achieve equity was to create a grid of paved cross-subdivision roads spaced so that no one would be more that a few blocks from a paved road. As I understand it, this was the original rationale for paving 16th. This philosophy also assumes that most of us have a significant interest in ease of cross-subdivision movement, which some people question. IIRC, this second concept was put forward by the previous board and the now defunct Paving Committee. I was at a meeting after the current Board was came into office where a presentation was made supporting the "pave the worst first" concept. I clearly remember loud complaints at that time from people on 16th who felt they had been promised paving. So a few months later, 16th is back on the list.
IMHO, the shift back and forth and/or effort to balance between the two philosophies has created difficulties. We have paved much of 19th based on its horrid condition and are now about to pave 16th, just three blocks away. That kind of undoes the even spacing equity and leaves us with a mixed philosophy which is confusing to some.
And just to show that you should always watch what you wish for, we are already hearing complaints from people on the newly paved roads about speeding and reckless driving. As a result, I think there is a speed bump policy in the works.
I am convinced that the current board is more functional, rational, and approachable than the previous versions I have seen. Unfortunately, it is hard to undo past decisions and change momentum in the middle of something like this. I support the efforts of Jeff and others to make things work rather than engage in the theatrical arguments we have seen in the past.
Cheers,
Jerry
One was to pave only those roads with the most expensive maintenance costs, thus allowing for the maximum amount of maintenance savings to be reinvested in better upkeep of the unpaved remainder. (The gentleman from the bond company who addressed us seemed to strongly suggest this course.) This could easily result in most of the paving being clustered near the highway and near the shore, which is where the highest traffic and population densities are.
The other idea to achieve equity was to create a grid of paved cross-subdivision roads spaced so that no one would be more that a few blocks from a paved road. As I understand it, this was the original rationale for paving 16th. This philosophy also assumes that most of us have a significant interest in ease of cross-subdivision movement, which some people question. IIRC, this second concept was put forward by the previous board and the now defunct Paving Committee. I was at a meeting after the current Board was came into office where a presentation was made supporting the "pave the worst first" concept. I clearly remember loud complaints at that time from people on 16th who felt they had been promised paving. So a few months later, 16th is back on the list.
IMHO, the shift back and forth and/or effort to balance between the two philosophies has created difficulties. We have paved much of 19th based on its horrid condition and are now about to pave 16th, just three blocks away. That kind of undoes the even spacing equity and leaves us with a mixed philosophy which is confusing to some.
And just to show that you should always watch what you wish for, we are already hearing complaints from people on the newly paved roads about speeding and reckless driving. As a result, I think there is a speed bump policy in the works.
I am convinced that the current board is more functional, rational, and approachable than the previous versions I have seen. Unfortunately, it is hard to undo past decisions and change momentum in the middle of something like this. I support the efforts of Jeff and others to make things work rather than engage in the theatrical arguments we have seen in the past.
Cheers,
Jerry