Originally Posted by OH306
Your paragraphs 1,2 and 3 have nothing to do with the issue at hand. You are merely trying to build your case by degrading the people living in that community because you perceive them to be against the project. Like it or not, they are entitled to their position. They chose to live there and live by the association rules. If you don't want to be in an association like that, don't live there. Only paragraphs 4 and 5 relate to the issue. Paragraph 6 is merely an unsupported statement and paragraph 7 is more character assasination. I read the article and no where did I see the term "riff raff". In the article it was written: "Those opposed, he said, cite several reasons: they feel their children are safer on a less accessible trail; they worry after a spate of burglaries in the Dunes this spring that a connected trail will make the community less secure; and, those who use the local trail worry that a connected trail could get so crowded it would not be fun to walk, run or ride on.
In addition, Dooley said some residents aren't sure they want to create a second way for people to access their rather secluded development; they like their quiet neighborhoods. The subdivision was purposely designed with only one street leading in and out, he said." All legit concerns in my book. Did you see riff raff in there? I didn't. Maybe you consider yourself riff raff. Maybe they just don't want someone riding through their quiet neighborhood blowing an Airzound every couple minutes.
You don't live here, so you really don't know what they think. I do, I lived in the apts. in Dakota Dunes for 4 years. When we bought our home my wife & were looking to buy there. We did not like the rules or the restricted freedoms to live there, or the attitudes of those in the country club area of that community.
They seem to think that by limiting how people can enter the community, with only 1 road in or out, will limit who enters or exits the community, riff raff or not. This is not true. If anything I think the more the access is restricted the more elite it looks & the more outsiders want to visit, even if it is only to drive through.
In paragraph 2 I was stating the kind of community this is & give a description of it.
Paragraph 3 goes back to limiting how & what kind of people enter the community. By restricting access they think they can control who does or does not enter the community.
They think the burglaries are associated with the trail & that a trail will make the community more accessable. Yeah, by foot & bicycle. I could see the headline now, "Thief caught while riding bicycle away with stolen stereo system tucked under his arm on Dakota Dunes trail".
An MUP is not a street. The MUP is inside the community only, the only thing a bridge will do is connect it to the SIoux City trail. It will not make so much more accessable that the crime rate will sky rocket like they are making it sound. So that reason is not legit.
They are equating an MUP with the burglaries. When one has nothing to do with the other. For one the trail was not even finished when the burglaries occured.
As far as keeping the children safe. Well only good parenting will do that. Keep an eye on the kids, instead of letting the kids use the trail by themselves make it a family event.
They want to maintain their elite social status over everyone one else. They are afraid that by connecting their trail with the bridge to the Sioux City side they will lose that. The reason the Dunes trail is for public use is because public funds were used to build it. I can almost guarantee if the money had come from the Dunes & not the DOT there would be signs that say Dakota Dunes residents only.
This community was built around a golf course. It is one of the courses on the Nike Tour. It is a private country club. There are posted at every crossing where there the golf cart trail crosses a street that says Country Club Members Only. That is fine. I don't have a problem with that. The course & the cart trail was built with private monies. They have the exclusive right to exclude whom ever they wish to because of that.
But not when it comes to a public trail which we hope to have a public use bridge connecting the trail systems & communities together.