Over the weekend, the Chronicle‘s Rad Sallee checked in on business owners along Richmond near Shepherd, who are opposed to METRO’s plans to lay rail down their street (as opposed to Westpark, the street approved by voters in 2003). Here’s an excerpt:
“According to the drawings Metro released last Tuesday, what you’re seeing is an 86-foot right of way they will require — and that line is the edge of the street,” said gallery owner Robert McClain.
He was pointing to a blue line on the driveway of McClain Gallery on Richmond between Kirby and Greenbriar. About 80 residents and business people from the neighborhood gathered there Friday for a rally and news conference.
If McClain was correct, construction of the line in the segment between Kirby and Main would not only take the median but also parts of some front yards, some trees, and some of the already reduced parking space in front of businesses, which owners say is needed for deliveries and customers.
“I can read a tape measure. All you have to do is measure the street, and (room to accommodate the rail) is not there,” sald Daphne Scarborough, who operates the Brass Maiden, a metal design and fabrication shop.
When METRO officials assure Richmond stakeholders that all will be fine, and METRO has a plan that will preserve trees and existing traffic lanes and protect property owners, they are simply misleading the public, as these photos I took of the general area this weekend illustrate.
Of course, that’s leaving aside the question of voters approving rail on Westpark, not Richmond. As Richmond rail critic Ted Richardson pointed out in an email over the weekend, that’s an important question. Here is an excerpt of an email he sent to H-GAC (cc’ed to me and others) in response to recent rhetoric used by METRO to describe the METRO Solutions vote:
As I mentioned to you at the last TAC meeting on July 11, 2006, I take exception to [METRO executive vice president John] Sedlak’s response to Mr. Crossley as recorded in the Minutes of the TAC, June 14, 2006, page 4, paragraphs 5 and 6.
In response to Mr. Crossley’s question “about the mention of Westpark in relation to the University corridor”‘ in the ballot language, “Mr. Sedlak responded that the information on the ballot indicated the Westpark Corridor.”
There is absolutely no support for that statement in the METRO NOTICE OF SPECIAL ELECTION, nor in METRO RESOLUTION NO. 2003-77, nor in the EXHIBITS – including the PROPOSITION and the BALLOT, and I formally challenge METRO to identify specific 2003 election language that supports the statement attributed to Mr.Sedlak.
The term used in the Special Election documents was “Westpark”, and METRO is obviously attempting to translate “Westpark” to mean “Westpark Corridor or “travel corridor” which then opens their door to study “Richmond Avenue” as being located in what the NOI describes thusly: “The University Corridor extends approximately 10 miles east to west and includes the Greenway Plaza, the Uptown/Galleria, the University of Houston–Central Campus, the Texas Southern University, and the St. Thomas University areas.”
“Westpark” does not mean “Richmond Avenue” and it never will!
Richmond rail enthusiasts can continue to contort themselves with “corridor” rhetoric, but the fact remains that voters approved rail on Westpark (and on North Hardy) in the 2003 vote. Over the weekend, the Editorial LiveJournalists tried to gloss over that fact:
It’s time to replace heated rhetoric and scare tactics with a review of the facts regarding how best to secure the greatest good for the greatest number of Houston residents.
[snip]
Against the opposition of some residents who don’t want to endure the construction, the new line offers a $1.2 billion economic boom that directly and indirectly will generate 60,000 jobs over six years — fully 10 percent of the Greater Houston Partnership’s target of boosting employment by 600,000 in the same time period.
So, holding METRO to the promises it made to voters in the 2003 referendum is “heated rhetoric and scare tactics” in the view of the Houston Chronicle editorial board? That’s typical. “Experts” and elitist editorialists surely know much better than those pesky voters, especially the poor, transit-dependent voters who helped push the referendum to victory.
As noted previously, more meetings on the proposed Richmond/Westpark rail line will be held this week:
A second meeting is set for 5-8 p.m. Monday, July 24 at the Third Ward Multi-Service Center, 3611 Ennis.
From 5-8 p.m. Tuesday, July 25, Metro’s open house will be at St. Paul’s United Methodist Church, 5501 S. Main St.
UBU ROI ADDS: Chairman Wolff opens mouth, inserts foot; accusing residents of “stealing” land from the city. Basically, rail opponents noted that the edge of the pavement was actually not the legal edge of the city’s right-of-way:
…governments can take part of “your” front yard without either condemnation proceedings or compensation if it wasn’t really yours to begin with. Some lawns, driveways and parking areas extend onto what is in fact city property….So of course the question arose whether Metro was measuring these swaths from the edge of the current sidewalk or from the actual property line, which can be a much bigger bite.
Spokesman George Smalley indicated that they were measuring from the property line, not the pavement edge. And Wolff kicked in with an appropriately diplomatic remark.
“No adjoining property owner has any right to usurp public right of way for private purposes, and if taking something under misrepresentation, it is stealing public property.”
So remember, the next time the city doesn’t build a roadway right up to the very edge of your property line, you are automatically a thief if your driveway crosses public land to connect to the road. And don’t let any blades of your grass get on the city’s land! Clearly, people who actually put, you know, landscaping in this publicly-owned territory need to be doing hard time up in Huntsville. They certainly don’t have any right to any of Mr. Wulff’s, er, the taxpayers’ property.
“One of the things we have to communicate is that public right of way belongs to you, it belongs to me, it belongs to all the taxpayers,” he told the audience.
(Emphasis added –Ubu)
BLOGVERSATION: TBIFOC, Houstonist.
