Letter: Regarding S. Blake project
The City Council has an important mission statement: to meet the health, safety and welfare needs of our citizens, and to contribute to their quality of life.
We, the members of the Palmer Avenue neighborhood, have twice signed petitions requesting that our street remain a dead-end street so that upvalley commuters cannot use it as one of their thoroughfares. In both petitions we asked for an emergency access gate at the end of Palmer to separate us from the proposed 79 rental apartments beyond our street.
During the time the bridge was out, there were 200 and more vehicles per hour flying by on Palmer during the rush hours. The vehicles continued on Bennett to 21st Street. If Palmer becomes a continuous street we will have even more of this traffic. With no sidewalks we have no safe place to walk. Please do not add drivers to our neighborhoods.
I personally believe the council should take into consideration the wishes of the woman at the south end of Palmer to have the gate at the south end of her driveway as we requested in our first petition. She is a very important member of our neighborhood family who has lived here longer than almost everyone.
Because I like my car I don’t drive on Blake (it has always been in horrible condition), but I think the two women who were born and raised on Blake and have lived for many years in the homes they were born in should have a key say in what happens to Blake. They do not want it to be one-way.
When a new developer comes in, that should not mean all of us need to suffer with having our streets changed. Our traffic manager does not take into consideration the needs of the individuals and neighborhoods and that does not meet the mission statement of the City Council.
Because traffic in this small town is already above reasonable capacity limits and the city either will not or cannot keep up with repairing the streets, especially at our end of town, it does not make sense to add more people and more traffic. As one of the P&Z members stated, it is not our place to provide another bedroom district for upvalley workers.
Our neighborhoods have stated that we feel the development is too large, and as many have suggested, if it must go in, it would be better if it had homes, duplexes, and/or townhomes that could be purchased. The pride of ownership is an important part of any neighborhood, and it is important that citizens have a commitment to our community. As presently proposed, the development will only create a burden on everyone.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Glenwood Springs and Garfield County make the Post Independent’s work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Each donation will be used exclusively for the development and creation of increased news coverage.
Start a dialogue, stay on topic and be civil.
If you don't follow the rules, your comment may be deleted.
User Legend: Moderator Trusted User