Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was of the impression that this was universally wanted, but I guess not.
Interesting how much influence the unions have
I don't see what the unions have to do with this, as a lot of the pushback is coming from other parts of the community that likely feel that other options should be considered.
I don't see what the unions have to do with this, as a lot of the pushback is coming from other parts of the community that likely feel that other options should be considered.
Buffalo is a union town, plain and simple. I don't blame them for wanting this to go through as it would create a lot of union jobs. Check back in 15 years to see how the project is coming along.
I don't see what the unions have to do with this, as a lot of the pushback is coming from other parts of the community that likely feel that other options should be considered.
Do you even listen to the videos that you link? You can't possibly with all you post. Listen to this one for your answer.
Buffalo is a union town, plain and simple. I don't blame them for wanting this to go through as it would create a lot of union jobs. Check back in 15 years to see how the project is coming along.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JWRocks
Do you even listen to the videos that you link? You can't possibly with all you post. Listen to this one for your answer.
Yes, it is a union town and I know they want it to go through, but my response was in regards to the plan more so than what the unions want. Either way, the unions would be involved. So, to me, that is a no brainer.
The focus is more about the actual plan and the conflicting ideas for what should be done.
The focus is more about the actual plan and the conflicting ideas for what should be done.
Done??? Again, the video shows more against, than for it, except when the union vote is considered, and I doubt any of them even live in the neighborhood.
Done??? Again, the video shows more against, than for it, except when the union vote is considered, and I doubt any of them even live in the neighborhood.
All of this has been repeated many times in the thread via the shows from those that live in the community(and likely some involved that aren't behind the scenes.
Again, the focus isn't about the unions, but the conflicting ideas/plans for the Kensington.
All of this has been repeated many times in the thread via the shows from those that live in the community(and likely some involved that aren't behind the scenes.
Again, the focus isn't about the unions, but the conflicting ideas/plans for the Kensington.
Yes, but this video showed to not support the project. In fact the yay's were mostly pre filled out forms, where the nay's, actually took the time to itemize, meaning much more involved.
Yes, but this video showed to not support the project. In fact the yay's were mostly pre filled out forms, where the nay's, actually took the time to itemize, meaning much more involved.
Again, that is from one group and actually in plurality, the results were favorable towards the project(48%). So, this may be a matter of semantics and a portion of the community looking for more information, given the 11% "neutral".
If anything, this just means that there needs to be more discussion/clarification about the project.
When this meeting takes place today at 6:30 pm, I'm curious how the information and the group involved will be received by those at the meeting, particularly those directly impacted by the project.
Also, when looking at this information: "As part of the process, the Department of Transportation collected public comment between Sept. 13 and Nov. 10 last year and reported 48% of respondents were in favor of the project, 41% opposed and 11% neutral. However, a group of private citizens called the East Side Parkways Coalition reviewed more than 1,300 comments independently and found inconsistencies, including by its analysis that at least by a small margin, more respondents oppose than are in favor.
"We're talking about a truly transformative thing that's going to happen to the city and I don't think we can just sit by and rely on this very murky result," coalition member Jeff Carballada said.
The coalition said, on its face, its analysis does not disqualify the project but further inspection raises more concerns. For instance, researcher Morgan Baker said the vast majority of comments in favor of the project came from already written templates, essentially only signed by citizens.
"We don't want to discount those comments because these pre-filled comments are an incredibly versatile and common way of making sure people's voices get heard," Baker said.
In fact, the coalition distributed its own pre-filled comments but also showed the vast majority of opposing comments were unique. Furthermore, the researchers claimed many in favor cite aspects of the project not included under the current scope.
Finally, they pointed out if comments from trade union members are removed, the results skew significantly toward the opposition.
"From the public comments, we see a lot of concern that this project doesn't serve the needs of this generation or the next," Baker said."
That bolded sentence in particular is interesting given the statements in the radio shows posted in this thread, about revitalization of the area in terms of housing value if the cap is put in place. So, again, it will be interesting to see how the coalition is viewed given this information.
"From the public comments, we see a lot of concern that this project doesn't serve the needs of this generation or the next," Baker said."
That bolded sentence in particular is interesting given the statements in the radio shows posted in this thread, about revitalization of the area in terms of housing value if the cap is put in place. So, again, it will be interesting to see how the coalition is viewed given this information.
The fact that it doesn't meet the needs of this this generation, or the next is because they never lived in the neighborhood. They don't remember how it used to be (nice as it was). Whatever they do, will be brand new, and not a restoration. That's why I say, start with what is there now. Take advantage of the advantage of the traffic.
The fact that it doesn't meet the needs of this this generation, or the next is because they never lived in the neighborhood. They don't remember how it used to be (nice as it was). Whatever they do, will be brand new, and not a restoration. That's why I say, start with what is there now. Take advantage of the advantage of the traffic.
How can the neighborhood take advantage of the traffic that was designed to simply go through the neighborhood versus actually going through the neighborhood grid? If anything, that would make the case for the fill in option versus the cap that the state DOT feels is the best option.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
