INC NEWS - East End Connector options

[RW Pickle]

Those that attended the first (of a long series) meeting today on the
planned East End Connector, according to the Manager of Transportation for
the City, Mark Ahrendsen, numbered more than 170. He said at tonights INC
meeting it was one of the most well attended meetings of that type to
which he has ever been. I guess that just shows the interest in it
(something I understand that we can not waiver on; for if we do, there are
other communities across our State ready to spend the money designated for
this project).

If INC is about "Building Better Neighborhoods" as our tag line says, then
I'd urge those who look at the four options for the route of the EEC to
consider option #4 as the option of choice. This option is the only option
of the four that will preserve areas of  communities. All other options
will cause relocations of families, businesses, and really do not meet
what our tag line states we're for. Option 4 crosses undeveloped land and
is the path of least displacement of family homes or businesses. Plus it
will extend the interchange work and road improvements further down Hwy.
70 past the Laurel Drive entry onto 70. It's just the best option out
there when it comes to not disturbing people or businesses. If INC is
truly for building better neighborhoods, then it would be a shame to see
them removed because of a road when there is an option that would work
otherwise. It's going to be built, it's just a matter of where.

As we look at these options over the next couple of years (it'll be May of
2008 when they present the final decision on the path), I hope you'll
consider option #4 as being the best because it preserves neighborhoods
and doesn't destroy them. Some of the residents (of the original option
#2) in one path have already been displaced once before. They lived in the
147 corridor when it came through Durham and that required them to move.
Had they built the EEC at that time (that was part of the original plan
some 40+ years ago), this wouldn't even be an issue today. But since it
is, please consider option #4 as it is the path of least displacement.
Building better neighborhoods doesn't mean tearing them down for a road...

Want to know more? Visit Calebs' website:

http://www.DurhamLoop.org

In 2002 and again in 2005, INC registered its support for this project. As
a group that supports building better neighborhoods, I'd like to see us
support an option that doesn't destroy neighborhoods. That is only option
#4. Hopefully in the near future we can bring the EEC roadshow to one of
our INC meetings so everyone can learn more. Then perhaps we can support a
resolution (as we have done in the past supporting the project itself, but
not the path) to register what INC feels is a better path to take.

RWP
27 Beverly