An Autumn eve's drive

Mr. Saunders:

Thank you for your comments.

I, too, had occasion to "motor" on Aberdeen very recently and was pleased to notice the fine improvements that we, the people of Middletown, provided. Since my “motoring” occurred in the wee hours, one thing that I happened to notice that I never noticed before was the “olde tyme” style street lights. As I drove along, I couldn’t help but wonder when this style street light was installed there, and at how much extra expense to the taxpayers.

I also trust that the property owners along this street (as well as the property owners along north Breiel, Sutphin Street, University Boulevard, parts of Central Avenue in the downtown area, and other recently rehabilitated city streets) realize how fortunate they are that their streets were rehabbed before any new policies are instituted that will force property owners who desire such adequate streets to go through the gymnastics of petitions, and then paying for the work themselves, rather than having the rehab bankrolled by all city taxpayers sharing in the costs.

One good thing is, perhaps the property owners on S. Main Street and in the Highlands District will actually pay for the “olde tyme” street lights themselves if they desire them under this new plan, instead of sticking the taxpayers with the bill as occurred downtown, but for some reason I don’t think I will hold my breath.

Can anyone imagine the great hue and cry that would result if this same methodology were applied to, say, the downtown development risky schemes???

The way it works now, the “stake holders” (those who own property downtown) meet and decide what they want to try to reinvigorate the downtown area and then the implementation is paid for by the “bag holders” (ALL city taxpayers).

Under the “pay for your own street repairs” plan, the downtown “stake holders” would meet and decide what they want to try to reinvigorate the downtown area and then pay for it themselves.

I’m willing to lay odds that this will NEVER happen!!!

What about things such as “gateways” or “water features”??? Perhaps we should have some sort of vote on who wants those and other questionable projects, and then have those folks pay with some sort of assessments to the “yes” voters’ property.  I wish this would've happened with the I-75/122 interchange "enhancements".