MRT Expansion

Viper,

With all due respect, I, for one, do not need to be informed about the demographics of southern California, or many other areas of the USA.

Although I was born and raised here, I have lived and worked in:

Upland/Ontario/Fontana, California; the old “combat zone” area of Boston; urban and rural areas of Tulsa, Oklahoma; both the Loop and the South Side of Chicago (plus at O’Hare); industrial suburban areas of Chicago such as Gary and Burns Harbor Indiana;  Steubenville, Ohio; Dallas/Fort Worth, and Midlothian, TX; Elyria, OH (and other environs of Cleveland); the worst areas of Baltimore; all industrial areas of (and surrounding) Detroit; Birmingham, AL; the worst areas of Kansas City; Buffalo, NY; Watertown, NY; every industrial area around Pittsburgh (including Weirton and Wheeling, WV).

I guarantee you that I also realize that 20 or 30 minutes is NOT a long commute. However, since I was born and raised here, I also understand why many Middletonians think otherwise. If you would never have had to commute farther than Dayton or northern Cincinnati, you would likely feel the same way!!! It’s all relative.

Now, if you’d like to have a “who has witnessed/lived/been involved in the most violence” contest with someone who has had a 30 year career in heavy industrial construction--fine. But I can guarantee that there are other native Middletonians that have not left Middletown except to fight wars or go to prison who can beat us both!!! So let’s drop that subject…OK???

Next, I’m glad that you: “get it that not everyone likes old houses” but I fear that you are misreading their sentiments. What folks might complain about (and YOU listen up, too, Ms. Brown) is NOT “the old homes in town” but the attitude that EVERYONE in town must PAY to keep up the “old homes in town”!!!

Consider Ms. TudorBrown’s comment:

“Anyone who doesn't like old houses isn't my friend. “

Now, how stupid is that???

“Anyone who doesn't like BRAND NEW houses isn't my friend.”???

Think how many people would have raked me over the coals and hung me out to dry…and justifiably so!!! Such a statement is purely DUMB!!!

And what about folks who don’t like “old” OR “new” houses but prefer “middle-aged” houses??? Is there no place in Middletown for them???

No, Viper, the point is NOT that people don’t like old houses. THAT is ABSURD!!! The point is that SOME people are so taken with OLD houses that they think that EVERYONE ELSE should BOW to THEIR WISHES, CONTRIBUTE to the UPKEEP , MAINTENANCE and MODERNIZATION (under the guise of “restoration”) of THEIR “old houses”, and forsake the ENTIRE future of the ENTIRE city to protect THEIR investment, without regard to everyone else’s investments in their own properties!!!

Viper, many, many OLD homes have fallen by the wayside in this town. Homes that are even OLDER, but just as “historic” as the houses on South Main Street or in the Highlands have fallen to ruin only because “connected” people did not chose to “invest in” (buy) them.

Sad? Perhaps. But it is NOT the responsibility of the ENTIRE CITIZENRY to yield the good of the entire city just to save the investment of anyone who sees themselves as someone better than the rest of us.

That is NOT the purpose of the TAXPAYERS’ funds!!!

Voice of Reason wrote: …However, I have to say, it is pretty ludricrous to compare the original steel and paper mills to what is going on now. Mike, you point out that you could walk from the Sorg Mansion to the original Sorg paper company and you're right--you had to walk! This was, of course, before the automobile became widely affordable so people had to walk to work or take the horse, or what have you. So it made sense for people to live in close proximity to their workplaces. But to claim that it's ok for that same sort of situation, in the era of the automobile and interstate, to persist today is silly. It is good and appropriate to separate residential and commercial/industrial areas from each other, for the benefit of both the residents and the businesses. The point I was trying to make was that there are likely many better locations for a company in need of a crane-equipped building, and the only reason they are located where they are is almost certainly because it is the cheapest possible location in town. And it seems to me that it is the poor people right next door who get shafted the most in the whole deal.

Not ludicrous at all. I have now had the opportunity to watch last week’s planning meeting, and the “ludicrousness” is on the part of the protesters from the Historic District.

Certainly, there may be other areas of the city that may be as, or even more, suitable for this type of business, but this company already owns this property and already had a facility in operation here doing exactly the same type of business. This is an EXPANSION. The expense to RELOCATE the existing facilities would be tremendous. I know. I have done it. (Everything from site selection to estimating on through to the construction and commissioning of the relocated equipment. It is NOT like moving a household.)

In addition, the existing facility and EVERYTHING on THREE SIDES of the existing facility and the adjacent, proposed expansion site is ALREADY ZONED HEAVY INDUSTRIAL!!! This business is only asking for “light industrial” zoning, not even as objectionable as what already exists on THREE SIDES surrounding the site in question.

It should also be noted that Kohler and the historical crowd have already made efforts to rezone all of this, and surrounding properties “residential” but have been stymied by remediation problems. If this owner was to relocate his facilities, his property would likely be nearly worthless, thanks to these “crusaders.”

You can get a “sense” of their “sincerity” by paying close attention to last week’s hearings:

When the owner asked for a variance easing the setback requirements from the alley, Kohler and the opponents from the Historic District objected as a matter of “SAFETY”, claiming that the dangerous trucks exiting the building into the alley would have their vision obstructed!! Then, just minutes later, they clamored for the owner to plant 42-foot high pine trees, and other “screening” shrubbery in the same exact setback area to “screen the objectionable building from their sensitive historic district” with no regards for the very same safety issues!!!

Oops…I guess I just did point that out, didn't I?

Sorry.