« Council subcommittee considers a smoking ban in bars, billiard halls | Main | Back Talks new home, Tuesday edition »

November 18, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


I think you have a good point to make but what are the issues on which these two demographic groups differ?


We can debate the DART station until we are blue in the face but Bill Blaydes's time (along with any other official who has vested interest in this development) would be better spent trying to figure out a way to attract retailers to the towncenter. None of this is going to matter if the retailers don't come our way.


I'm with Russell. Is there some fundamental topic of discussion that people have overwhelmingly disagreed with along demographic lines?


I am a newer younger LH resident who sides with No on the WRT access. It might be misleading to assume all agree on one side and all on another. It directly affects my neighborhood and is very close to our street so it's just not a good idea from our perspective. I have to agree with the earlier posters though - with so many developments going up so close to each other, please update us on what is being done to attract retailers. None of it matters if the LHTC is empty.


The real point to be made is the complete disregard by city officials of that which Lake Highlands citizens are seeking in redevelopment along Skillman. Citizen voices have been virtually disregarded throughout the "rezoning" and "redevelopment" processes by city officials and this announcement by DART is but one more in a series of the decisions made over the objections of LH citizens or without benefit of LH citizen input.

The fabric of trust necessary for citizens to have confidence in their elected and appointed officials continues to be ripped apart by city council and city staff agendas agendas and decisions and those of DART in the redevelopment of Lake Highlands properties. This reversal by DART appears to be an accomodation to Prescott Realty to eliminate the developer's cost of constructing a non-revenue generating structure. Perhaps Prescott has been holding non-public discussions with, and/or lobbying DART and city representatives to make this change. If so, the common denominator in this equation may very well be our current city councilman whom has served on both the DART board and now as city councilman - perhaps some backroom politics in action?

This decision appears to have been in place within DART for some period of time; had it not been for this meeting, LH citizens may yet not know of DART's decision. Does anyone in Lake Highlands yet perceive the city, or perhaps our city councilman is attempting once again to jam our citizens for what is politically expedient at city hall? What deal has been cut, and with whom, that would cause such a significant change to be made in development plans without community hearings.

Regardless of one's position on the type of transit center to be constructed, citizens need to be asking much more of our current representative and do so with more frequency.

For example, has anyone noticed there has been no redevelopment at the locations of Ferndale/Shoreview; Skillman/Merriman Parkway; and Church/Skillman? Perhaps our citizenry was spot on when it came to evaluating the capabilities of unproven and start-up developers backed by the current councilman. Be the first to enjoy the restaurant at the top of the ten story structure at Ferndale/Shoreview - that is how it was represented was it not? Where is the accountability of our councilman for backing these poorly crafted projects? They could not access funding before the meltdown - what makes anyone think funding can be gained following the credit market meltdown?

Bill Kennedy

1) With respect to retail, I agree. Still no announcements, and that is key.

2) With respect to access from WRT -- the post is not clear on what occured. There has *never* been car access planned from WRT to LHTC, so that is *not* on the table. And that is good.

3) "Some residents were further whipped up when DART indicated that they hope to provide walking and biking access to the station from the east (perhaps via a bridge). White Rock Trail can't handle additional traffic, angry neighbors stressed." That quoted statement is not clear. Why are residents angry about bike and walking traffic traffic on WRT? Big deal if it's there. It's there now. Or, are they angry about 2) above, which has never been planned?

4) Ditto on demographics. What's the conundrum?


I hope the residents aren't angry about bike and walking access, although I've noticed an increase in drivers out there annoyed by the people out being green and getting their exercise done. I just hope the DART people put some bike racks in at the station.

As far as not having a parking option--that's no different from the Lovers Lane station. The Mockingbird station is close enough you can drive and park there. Ditto here--the White Rock station and Skillman station are both just not that far away. If you really need/want to park at the station, my guess is, based on today's economy and the fact retailers are scaling back, there is going to be plenty of parking at the LHTC.

White Rock Trail isn't equipped for more traffic and I for one don't want to see it widened to accomodate more vehicles. By the way, I thought this whole DART parking thing and access along WRT was settled when Bill Blaydes wasn't able to force that garage door manufacturer out of his property.

Bill Kennedy

All great points, Cyclist. And it burns me up when drivers drive around a cyclist, oncoming into my lane, and force me to slow down/stop! Instead of them being far less rude and impatient and simply waiting till oncoming traffic has passed and then drive around the cyclist. Bicycles have just as much right to use the road as a car.

Don't get me started again on Blaydes... ;-)

Brandon Toombs

Let's just say that last week's meeting was a tad on the snippy side. :)

I understand that there are a lot of undercurrents here.
1. Generational-The experienced folks are (understandably) very skeptical of developers and city organizations because they feel they've been burned before. Plus, I'm guessing they feel like they are the ones who have built the neighborhood and do most of the neighborhood work and are therefore owed a level of deference. The younger folks are just now being awakened to the reailty that we need to become more involved.

2. Practicality- The covemeadow folks are (understandably) concerned about commuters parking in front of their houses.

The meeting got away from us before it even began. I think that if we could start over and have a civil dialogue at minimum it will go a long way toward repairing any intra-community damage. Additionally, I can't help but think there may be compromises that we could get to that everyone could live with.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


  • Add to Technorati Favorites