Sunday, January 18, 2009

Safety in Daisy

A commenter recently claimed that a car dealership would be unsafe at "the intersection" in Daisy. I don't understand how that is the case. I thought that the public safety argument against the car dealer was that the roads leading to the intersection from Rt. 97 or Rt. 144 could not safely handle the tractor trailers carrying cars. The CCWHC produced a video that attempted to show this (I think the videos failed to show a public safety hazard). Watch the videos here.


commenter-jim adams said...

My comment concerning Daisey made reference to the dangers that would exist when approaching from the top of the hill, should a truck to pulling out from the car lot on to the road. Not route 97 or 144. Also I included the thought that traffic would be increased due to the business. This video is not meant, nor should it be used in discussion with my points.

I still feel public safety is the argument.

Thanks for this posting, this argument should be continued, until there is a working agreement between all parties.

Anonymous said...

Great job on pointing out NIMBY paranoia - the property for the new car lot is zoned commercial and has been since the 50's predating all of the houses where the complainers live - This means that for 50 years someone has paid commercial property taxes for the ability to have a business at Daisy. Additionally its amusing to me that behind the old bus depot directly across the street O'Donnell Honda is storing more cars than would probably be at the new lot - It's basically the same thing as the proposed lot - outside of a few car to deer incidents there have been no safety hazards....

jim adams said...

Let's say it is NIMBY, is that reason not to hear out the argument. Would there be a discussion by individuals living in New York, or Flordia about this issue. No they are not interested or influenced by this issue.

Anonymous, would it be more important to you if it was next store to you. Don't suggest your interest level would not be spiked.

50 years of commercial taxes, well if they had planned early than now, they may have run into the same argument concerning saftey. The payment of commercial taxes does not assure that a business will be built on the property, and does not prevent residents from opposing a business project.

What is amusing about the storage of cars across the street, does that mean we can store cars across the street, up the street, on your street.

Would it be possible that increasing the number of cars would increase the odd's against saftey in the area?

Anonymous said...

Jim Adams does not live anywhere near that site - he is opposed for safety reasons.

Why is it so difficult to accept that neighboring communities care what happens to those with less political access?

You see nimby because that is the only way you'd be involved. And while I'd feel disgraced if that were my attitude, judgement is reserved when it's someone else's.

The critism and accusations on motive are out of line in addition to being only the way the accuser sees things, and not related to reality.

Anonymous said...

From Anonymous 2-
Its amazing that in a very short 200 years people have forgotten about the bill of rights and the struggle our forefathers had with Britan - We have property rights because they were given to us with the blood, sweat and tears of our forefathers. When you tell this owner of private property what He can't do, you are in essence eroding your own property rights. I guess the other posters will never put an addition on their houses or work at a business that needs to expand!

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:37,

Your argument would stand to scrutiny except that smaller changes are not summarily approved, whereas any increase in commercial or residential development is rubber-stamped.

That is backward, but the influence of money has soured the process, justice, and the bill of rights that applies equally to everyone.

jim adams said...

Thank you anon 6:43, that was gracious of you.