08/06/01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Session 1818 August 6, 2001 comfortable in covering the bill later if they came up with the written bill and signatures from a majority of these neighbors. Mr. Sharpe seconded the motion, which carried unanimously. RESOLUTION - METROLINK: Mr. Wagner said that he and Mr. Lieberman were jointly sponsoring this resolution which deals with the proposed construction of MetroLink through University City. Mr. Wagner moved approval of the resolution. Mr. Lieberman seconded the motion. The City Clerk read the resolution. Mr. Wagner said that the Council has traditionally supported MetroLink to come through our City. We think it will bring much added value to our community and we don't, in any sense, want this to be construed that we don't want MetroLink. We do want it emphasized that the design process must be improved; let's listen to the residents and build it right and if we don't have enough rnoney, sadly, wait until we do. His statement: In 1999, this Council passed a resolution confirming a negotiated handshake with East West Gateway Coordinating Council on thE; implementation of the Cross County MetroLink Extension through our City. We placed in that resolution six understandings, one that the track alignment from the eastern edge of U. City would be constructed in the median of Forest Park Parkway through to the west of Throop Drive. Two, sound and sight barriers, including landscaping, would be provided for residential neighborhoods. The other three or four understandings, he is skipping for brevity's sake. Sadly, all of the six conditions are now, in some sense, proposed to be violated. Now, two years later, our agreement has been abrogated by the MetroLink planners and the estimated costs are so murky and 'variable that the stated budget for the project is often and publicly called into serious question as grossly insufficient. Since 1999, the design process has radically changed the proposed alignment in U. City, much to the detriment and disregard of one our designated historic districts, namely the Parkview subdivision. The track alignment adjacent to Parkview is now proposed on the north side of the Parkway,, literally within inches of this historic district property. Suddenly, the promise of the construction of sound and sight barriers was broken, stating that they had originally made a mistake in locating the property lines and now determine that there is not enough space without taking any Parkview property. This performance is outrageous and the resulting design is unacceptable. While this new resolution we have just heard has been brought forth only after long consideration and serious debate, we note not only the disappointing abrogation in our previous resolution, but also the extensive design alterations in progress in other parts 6