Sprawled Out: The Search for Community in the American Suburb

UPDATED: Sendik's at Shoppes at Wyndham Village to CLOSE; re-open as PICK 'n SAVE

Letter to the city of Franklin as received yesterday at city hall is below:

June 29, 2009

VIA HAND DELIVERY AND REGULAR U.S. MAIL
Mayor Tom Taylor
City of Franklin
9229 W. Loomis Road
Franklin, WI 53132

Re: Notice of Cessation of Operations/Sale of Business

Dear Mayor Taylor:

Due to changing business circumstances connected with the economy, our Wyndham Village store assets, located at 7780 S. Lovers Lane Road, Franklin, Wisconsin ("Sendik's-WyndhamVillage") will be sold to Roundy's Supermarkets, Inc. We expect the sale to close at the end of August. We will begin to wind down our operations during the weeks prior to that date.

We intend to continue pay and benefits for 74 eligible employees for 60 days from the date of this letter as required by Wisconsin law. Most of those employees will continue to work for most of that 60 day period while we wind down the operation. 8 additional employees will be offered positions at our Brookfield location. An additional group of part time low hour employees will also be laid off. All employees are also receiving notice on today's date.

It is our understanding Roundy's intends to reopen the store as a Pick 'n Save around November 1st. Roundy's has offered to interview all of our employees for positions in their new store. We have provided information to our employees about that interview process.

We are working with our employees to insure a smooth transition as our employees pursue other opportunities. If we can provide any further information or coordinate this activity with your office, please contact me at (262) 781-8200.

Sincerely,

Lori B. Barczak

RELATED:

A tale of two Sendik's stores

Sendik's (Shoppes at Wyndham Village) grand opening

Roundabouts: Knowledge is economic power

A West Allis blogger recently weighed in regarding roundabouts. His opinions, unfortunately, are derived from nothing more substantial than a "gut feeling"; he lashes out against those darn "knowitalls" who are going to "screw up your businesses."

Read his blog entry yourself and assess the quality of his reasoning. You cannot assess the veracity of his data because, well, he doesn't provide any.

Which is good enough for one of his fellow community bloggers. Always entertaining is the trick of shrugging off mountains of data by equating empirical research and documented facts to "brochures and pamphlets and spin." Why expend intellectual muscle when you can chuck peanuts from the sideline?

"Data." "Research." "Careful study." "Endorsements by business groups." "Documented success in other communities." "Fact-based debate." These are the tools of those darn "knowitalls" who are going to "screw up your businesses."

"Supposition." "Gut feeling." "Fear of personal annoyance." "Poor math skills." "Colorful language." "Dogmatic partisanship." Ah, the tools of persons with a keyboard and access to the internet - - and little else to aid their position.

The West Allis blog entry, self-evident in its irrelevance and divorced from reality in favor of venting annoyance, is not worth the point-by-point dissection (in this case, evisceration) that a carefully reasoned argument would deserve. However, I wanted to answer here a couple questions for commenter "StubbornOldMan," because some technical shortcoming on the NOW blogs will not allow comments over a certain number of characters.

The questions "StubbornOldMan" came up with (even after claiming that he'd spent some time reading entries on this blog) were:

I have no personal axe to grind with you John, but you haven't answered either of the two questions I asked you.

1) What specific conditions would lend a particular interchange to be a poor candidate for a roundabout interchange? You hinted that there are defintely some. You're being just a tad bit too general in your criticisms for my objective mind.

2) If businesses lose income as a result of lower sales as a result of consumers going elsewhere, doesn't that automatically result in a less profitable business (consequently less tax revenue)?

Yes, I'm aware of the irony of "StubbornOldMan" demanding my specificity in the form of his grossly generalized questions. Let's see, however, if we can use this space to encourage specific questions about the dozens of specific issues surrounding roundabouts.

(An aside to "StubbornOldMan": Specific questions about specific issues - and specific criticisms of specific assertions I make or quote in this blog from other sources  - would indicate at least a minimal level of respect for the value of my time.)

I’ll answer the second question first: Yes. And the point of that question? Alas, a mystery. Is "StubbornOldMan" asking this on the basis the muddled blog entry he and I commented under? Does he believe that the "gut feeling" of one Michael James of West Allis ("roundabouts are bad for business," says Michael James) constitutes a sound platform from which to launch some manner of if-then connection?

To address question one, let’s first lay out some simple realities:

1. Roundabouts are not appropriate everywhere.
2. Worth repeating: Roundabouts are not appropriate everywhere.
3. And, once again, in case you missed it: Roundabouts are not appropriate everywhere.

Hence the saying: Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.

Also, let's be more precise about "my criticisms." My argument is NOT "All roundabouts, all the time." My argument is: IF  careful study by the DOT brings a recommendation of roundabouts on 27th street, we should have the informed wisdom to exploit that to our advantage and not succumb to uninformed apprehensions.

What is important to note is that there are conditions that make roundabouts the far-and-away better choice in terms of safety, cost to build and maintain, convenience and commercial growth.

The blog entry we commented under - a blog entry based on zero facts, incorrect assumptions, a poor grasp of history and context, and a reliance on "gut feeling" - seems to deny that reality.

If I remain a “tad too general,” it's because, A) the data in three 4-inch thick three-ring binders gets a bit dense for non-engineers like myself and, one might suppose, “StubbornOldMan,”and B) "specifics conditions" are not at issue here other than to admit, as "StubbornOldMan" must if he is intellectually honest, that "specifics conditions" indeed exist and are measured by professionals.

To indulge "StubbornOldMan," here's a list of just a few of the factors - "specific conditions," if you will - the DOT weighs when measuring the appropriateness of a roundabout in a particular traffic environment. They look at the finished product in terms of:

• Entry Width
• Entry Flare
• Entry Angle
• Entry Radius
• Entry Deflection 
• Entry Path Curvature
• Entry Path Overlap
• Entry Speeds
• Fast Path Speeds
• Speed Consistency
• Sight Distance
• Exit Path Overlap
• Entry and Circulating Visibility
• Splitter Island Design
• Exit Lanes and Geometry
• Pedestrian Crossings/Crosswalks
• Maneuverability of Large Trucks
• Vertical Design Parameters

The ENTRY DEFLECTION is very important, for instance, as noted in the paper "Roundabout Studies in Kansas":

It must be stressed that the significant reductions in crashes and crash severity result from a well designed modern roundabout, with sufficient deflection to ensure low-speeds – no more than 30 to 40 km/hr. Also, the roadway environment or approach geometry (e.g. roadway curvature) should be such that drivers do not approach at high speeds. A study (Flannery, 2000) of crashes at modern roundabouts concluded that the main cause were approach geometry that allowed high-speed entry and lack of adequate deflection in the roundabout. Unfortunately, due to lack of clear cut guidelines and inexperienced designers, some new roundabouts in the USA are being built with little or no deflection.

That last line is very important.

If all of those (and much, much more) is found to be satisfactory, then roundabouts (properly engineered!) are recommended. If roundabouts are NOT recommended for 27th street by the DOT (which could still happen), then I would be first to agree with them. Tomatoes in fruit salad, remember?

But the bottom line is this:

After 20 years of careful study and data collection here and abroad, it has been shown to the satisfaction of state and national transportation officials, engineers, insurance companies (whose fortunes rise and fall on safety issues) and commercial organizations that properly engineered roundabouts in appropriate settings are far and away superior to traditional signaled intersections.

I’ll repeat a key phrase: “properly engineered roundabouts in appropriate settings.”

(DIGRESSION: I'll not insert here a long analysis of the difference between roundabouts and traffic circles that was flat out missed by a NOW commenter. Rather, I will direct "StubbornOldMan" to a website by the "knowitalls" at The Insurance Institute for Traffic Safety and a chart that conveys the information nicely.)

Then there's this from the voluminous file of "brochures and pamphlets and spin":

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) performed a study titled Crash Reductions Following Installation of Roundabouts in the United States in 2000 on 24 U.S. intersections that had been converted both signalized intersections and stop-controlled intersections to modern roundabouts.  Similarly, the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) also completed a related study in 2002. The U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) also produced Roundabouts: An Information Guide in 2000 with safety statistics contained.  All of these studies revealed very consistent “before” and “after” results with respect to the safety of modern roundabouts compared to other types of stop controlled and signalized intersections. The following is a brief summary of these results with regard to the extent to which modern roundabout conversions improved the accident safety of the intersections: 

• 38 - 40% average reduction in all crash types
• 74 - 78% average decrease in injury accidents 
• 90% average decrease in fatalities or incapacitating injuries 
• 30 - 40% average decrease in pedestrian accidents (depending on the  roundabout location and existing pedestrian volumes)
• As much as a 75% reduction in delay where roundabouts replaced signals

These study results replicate other results of numerous studies conducted on roundabouts in Europe and Australia and provide quantitative evidence that the selection of a roundabout over the more conventional intersection geometrics and traffic control can have significantly positive traffic safety implications. 

- Source: High Speed Approaches at Roundabouts

But, are roundabouts good for business? This is a discussion I'm having as a member of the Franklin Economic Development Commission, and I can tell you that many of my fellow commissioners knew very little about roundabouts and their effects at the beginning of our discussion; they know a bit more now that I've corrected their stated misconceptions with documented facts.

So, "StubbornOldMan," I invite you to read a paper entitled, simply enough, "Are Roundabouts Good For Business?"

As a preview, the paper ends thusly:

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 
South Golden Road is a typical suburban strip commercial corridor. The installation of four roundabouts within this half-mile long arterial has resulted in slower speeds, but lower travel times and less delay at business access points. Accident rates have dropped by 88% and injury accidents have declined from 31 in the 3 years prior to installation to only 1 in the 4½ years after – a decline in injury accidents rates of 93%. The improvement in traffic flow, vehicular safety and access to businesses combined with amenities such as landscaped medians and pedestrian walkways has stimulated economic activity. Sales tax revenues have increased 60% since installation of the roundabouts and 75,000 square feet of retail/office space has been built.  In Golden, CO, businesses have said “Yes, roundabouts are good for business.” 

Is this section of road, though a close match. exactly like 27th street? Of course not. But you cannot help but be compelled by the similarities and the positive results.

And, "StubbornOldMan," as you read the paper (it's not very long, I promise), you will encounter data that contradicts in rapid succession the egregious (and, frankly, adolescent) suppositions made by the WestAllisNOWblog entry we commented under.

You may choose to ignore, "StubbornOldMan," these data and the fruit of the other studies also included. You may choose to ignore the fact that this particular paper is but the tip of the iceberg in terms of data gathered and studies conducted that conclude in support of properly engineered roundabouts. But in doing so, you are putting intuition and "gut feeling" ahead of hard facts, and I have a difficult time accepting that mode of thinking.

In other words: If, on the one hand, I face "annoyance" and "the public's fear of change," and on the other hand I have reliable data that shows me over and over again that properly engineered roundabouts regularly lead to substantial improvements in safety, higher local commercial success, lower costs to build and maintain, fewer delays, better transit times, lower fuel consumption, etc., then, my friend, I will recommend that the local governments in question demonstrate leadership and advocate for roundabouts when the DOT indicates they're appropriate.

With that said - and knowing that there are specific problems with roundabouts that indeed need to be addressed -  I welcome informed, specific questions and challenges to the material above, "StubbornOldMan."

I also welcome your opinion of the KISS concert at this past weekend at Summerfest!

Roundabouts later; "Rock and Roll All Nite" now

Over at a WestAllisNOW community blog, "StubbornOldMan" asks me the following:

I have no personal axe to grind with you John, but you haven't answered either of the two questions I asked you.

1) What specific conditions would lend a particular interchange to be a poor candidate for a roundabout interchange? You hinted that there are defintely some. You're being just a tad bit too general in your criticisms for my objective mind.

2) If businesses lose income as a result of lower sales as a result of consumers going elsewhere, doesn't that automatically result in a less profitable business (consequently less tax revenue)?

Having had no luck attempting (twice) to post a hasty - but long - reply at the community blog, let this post be an assurance to "StubbornOldMan" that I will address his questions right here on Sunday.** (Especially that incisive second question, which seems to be based on someone's mistaken supposition about roundabouts' impact on a local economy. Hmmmm ... could loss of income mean a less profitable business?)

But I'm not doing it today, because I'm going to Summerfest to see KISS! Maybe I'll see "StubbornOldMan" there ...

**Gonna have to be MONDAY - - got caught up in a photography project at the KISS show, which you can see here.

Enriching the public discourse? The lost art of fact checking at NOW newspapers

Apparently, in addition to sponsoring blog space for the black helicopter crowd, Community Newspapers has evidently extended their laissez-faire policy to assertions of fact made in print at Community Newspaper Inc.'s "MyCommunityNOW" papers.

Witness the "Community Voices" feature in the June 25 edition of the Franklin/Greendale/Hales Corners/Oak Creek NOW Newspaper, "Love or hate 'em, plenty of views on roundabouts."

From "Linda G" of Philadelphia:

I spent 25 adult years in the Franklin area before moving out east and find this talk of roundabouts a bit strange. People in Pennsylvania and New Jersey are getting RID of them. Folks here hate them. Accidents abound. Granted, most accidents are minor. Ten years from now, I bet people will regret having built these things.

Editing? Well, the underlined material above was actually edited out of the print version of this comment (the online posting is here,) Another (wiser) edit was the rambling "A tour guide in Halifax, during one of our visits, said of a roundabout we were navigating that it was going to be replaced because at least two or three accidents happen every day. Sure enough, one happened right there in front of us. Semi-truck crunched a van.")

Fact checking? Opinions are one thing, but, as a newspaper, when you print an assertion of fact, it's generally a good idea to go to Google or make a phone call. Had anyone at Community Newspapers done so, they would have learned that in the older cities of the eastern United States - particularly in Pennsylvania and New Jersey - traffic circles were and are common traffic features.

Let's make this clear (as Community Newspapers missed a teachable moment): Just as not all roundabouts are correctly engineered or appropriate for certain locations, Traffic circles are very different - and much less safe and efficient than - roundabouts. In fact, any traffic circle - often erroneously referred to as a "roundabout" - built in the U.S. prior to 1994 is almost certainly not a conforming roundabout.

And, guess what? The old traffic circles in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, etc. - some dating back to horse and buggy days - are indeed being removed. And often replaced by roundabouts when appropriate.

Does Community Newspapers enrich public discussion when they take this lazy approach?

I guess it falls to me to do what they don't have time for.

From Traffic Circles vs. Roundabouts:

Democrats move to close developer loophole

Good news from Madison for home property taxpayers.

Democrats zoom in on property tax loophole - JSOnline.

Break meant for farmers, not developers, they say By Mike Johnson of the Journal Sentinel Posted: Jun. 22, 2009 Senate Democrats are moving to close a loophole that has given developers huge property tax breaks by planting crops on land that is zoned for residential or business purposes.

In some cases, lots have roads, utilities and street lights and are straddled by houses, but the developers get a break on the assessment and taxes because they have farmers grow corn, winter wheat or other crops.

At issue is the use-value assessment law enacted in 1995 to help keep farms viable by giving them a property tax break. Real estate developers soon found a way to make the law work for them.

"It just seems like it is being misused and getting out of hand," Fond du Lac Assessor Donald Wegner said.

Local assessors and municipalities complained to Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker (D-Weston) about the problem, and he has inserted a provision in the Senate version of the state budget bill that would remove the tax break.

Under the provision, the definition of agricultural land would be modified for property tax purposes to exclude any land that is platted or zoned for residential, commercial or industrial use.

If approved by the Senate and Assembly and signed by the governor, the change would take effect Jan. 1.

Effect on development

Developers and attorneys who represent them oppose the change, arguing it will stymie development.

"It will significantly increase costs related to development, discourage further economic development and have a direct impact on the affordability of housing and commercial office space," said Thomas D. Larson, director of Regulatory and Legislative Affairs for the Wisconsin Realtors Association. "With the downturn in the economy, many developments have been delayed, causing land that was planned and platted for development to continue to be used and taxed for property tax purposes as farmland until the economy improves," Larson said.

Larson said if this provision becomes law, the property tax assessments on land will significantly increase - ranging anywhere from 10 to 50 times higher per acre depending upon the location of the property. This, he said, would result in more financial hardship for developers, financial institutions and local economies.

Assessors and municipal officials, though, say they want the change because the loophole shifts property taxes that should be paid by developers to other taxpayers, mostly homeowners.

The change would not add "one nickel more" in tax revenue for municipalities, said Ed Huck, director of the Alliance of Wisconsin Cities, which supports the change. "For long periods of time, developers have been able to hold land and shift taxes to others," Huck said.

Rich Eggleston, communications coordinator of the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities, said a developer in Eau Claire is tilling and seeding two parcels next to the Metropolis Hotel so it will qualify for the use-value assessment next year. Currently, the property taxes for this land are $27,000, but next year, taxes will drop to about $40 because of the farm designation, Eggleston said.

And land adjacent to a Gander Mountain in Eau Claire also is being planted with crops. The current tax bill is about $50,000. It will drop to about $75 next year, Eggleston said.

Mike Grota, of Grota Appraisals, handles property assessments for Germantown and a number of municipalities in Ozaukee, Milwaukee, Washington and Waukesha counties.

"In Germantown and in many neighboring communities this scenario is common," he said of developers planting crops on land zoned for other purposes.

In Fond du Lac, Wegner, the assessor, said there are two commercial lots that should be assessed at $636,100, but are valued at a total of $900 because winter wheat was planted on them. With the commercial designation, the property tax bill should be around $13,536. Instead, the bill's estimated at $19.15.

Then there's the Whispering Springs subdivision that has homes along a golf course. Six lots there should be assessed at a total of $270,000, with property taxes totaling about $5,745. But with corn planted on one lot and weeds and marsh hay being harvested from the other five and used for farm bedding, Wegner said he is required to assess the land as agricultural. The total tax bill would be about $12.77.

Public can comment on city's master plan - FranklinNOW

Oops.

From FranklinNOW.

The city of Franklin has scheduled a series of sessions to gather public comments and input on its comprehensive master plan. The review sessions will be held from 6 to 8 p.m. June 23, June 25, June 29, June 30 and July 1 at Franklin City Hall, 9229 W. Loomis Road.

These sessions are for review of the current draft of the plan, which has not been completed yet.

Comprehensive plans are essentially a guide for city leaders to look at in future planning. Municipalities are required by state law to create comprehensive plans every 20 years.

A second series of review sessions will be held July 20, 22, 23, 28 and 29. Those are for review of the rough draft of the entire plan and will also be held from 6 to 8 p.m. at City Hall.

Is the tide slowly turning against sprawl?

Ten years ago, few had heard the terms "new urbanism", "walkable urbanism", "complete streets", "town center development", "mixed use development" and so forth. Today those terms are widely known - and not just in planning and architectural circles.

I attending the American Planning Association's annual convention in Minneapolis a few weeks back and noted that nearly every session incorporated the principles I listed above - a big change from just a year ago. The hottest subject there was "form-based codes" which is very much a town center/mixed use orientation that greatly de-emphasizes the automobile and elevates walking, biking, and mass transit use.

Read the rest at: Sense Of Place - An Architect's Point of View: The Future of Sprawl.

MilwaukeeWorld: WISPARK THREATENS OAK CREEK WITH BUSINESS "PARK" PLAN

From Michael Horne, a perspective on that scourge of the suburban dross-scape, the soul-killing, single-use "business park":

Oak Creek officials are saddling the citizens with an unsustainable development, even if they cover every square inch with green roofs, permeable pavement and solar panels. Why is New Urbanism observed only in the breach? We're talking about 1.4% of Oak Creek's total area in this development -- that is a large amount of space for an exceedingly limited use.

The city is giddy about attracting high paying jobs to the office park, which, according to Oak Creek standards, should lead to further sprawl.

You can be sure the development will not be tied into light rail or other transit, and that its convenience to the Interstate Highway system will be judged high among its attributes.

Wispark, of course, will ask the city to create a Tax Incremental Finance District to finance road improvements in the business park. Why not stick it to the taxpayers? The roads, to be sure, will be undulating and cul-de-saccharine. There will be parking lots, pretty flower beds, flags aplenty and lots of lawn to mow.

MilwaukeeWorld: WISPARK THREATENS OAK CREEK WITH BUSINESS "PARK" PLAN.

Roundabouts & drunk driving: A new defense against impaired drivers?

A note from local businesswoman and activist (Citizens for a Safe Wisconsin, Inc.) Shari Hanneman prompted this thought:

Could the argument be made that encountering periodic roundabouts provides an IMPEDIMENT for drunk drivers that stops them from getting too far and eventually venturing into residential subdivisions ala the incredibly tragic Buckhorn situation in Franklin?

Consider this: I'm not certain of Eddie Lynn Keck's exact route the night he killed two people with his vehicle after being overserved, but it's a pretty safe bet that the WIIIIIDE and fast 27th street or Ryan Road did nothing to impede him; he was on autopilot for that portion of the drive. He could very well have blown a few red lights without stopping his progress.

I'm willing to bet that a series of roundabouts might have caused him to run up a curb or sideswipe someone non-lethally rather than allow him to continue unabated into a subdivision where the tragedy occurred.

Food for thought. Roundabouts for 27th street are on the Franklin Economic Development Commission's agenda for this coming Monday.

From the column Circular Logic Wins Out- Car And Driver:

It occurred to me that these five consecutive Michigan roundabouts might comprise a better drunk-driving exam than any count-backward-and-touch-your-nose routine. It was the first quintuple roundabout I'd ever encountered and, as I later learned, Roundabouts No. 1 and No. 2 hold the distinction of being the first in the country intended to act as a single system. A tourist destination.

I immediately drove to see local police chief Robert Brookins. I said, "Hi, I'm a reporter, and I want to ask..."

"About the roundabouts?" he interrupted. And off he went.

"You should have seen it before," the chief said. "With stoplights and stop signs, the traffic would back up along the exits and onto the freeway. You could wait through three or four stoplight cycles. But now the longest delay I've observed is about 20 seconds. I know it looks complex, but it flows 17-to-20-percent-more traffic and does so at faster average speeds."

Brookins had been monitoring the roundabouts for less than a year but already possessed compelling statistics. "We've had 16 accidents in the big roundabout," he said. "One crash in the middle roundabout. And six in the eastern one. All were minor, mostly sideswipes, 'cause the speeds are so slow. Prior to the roundabouts, you'd get guys blowing the lights, and there'd be high-speed broadsides that were really bad."

Then the chief directed me to Mike Goryl, a soft-spoken county traffic engineer who helped design this crop of circles. Goryl explained that the center islands aren't perfectly round but resemble the agitator in a washing machine, flinging traffic away from the hurricane's eye and toward an exit — with no static cling. All the roundabouts are off-camber, too, he said, mostly to drain water but also to reduce cornering speeds. "Even if you follow what we call the 'fastest path,'" he said, "you'd voluntarily drive at about 25 mph."

In the coming years, Goryl predicts, Americans will become accustomed to such systems. "It's a really efficient way of flowing dense traffic," he says. "People complain at first, but what they don't realize is they're always moving, rather than stopped dead at a light."

Wiley aldermen haven't given up on their "eastward through Hillendale" fixation

Through the windshield: Last day of school 2009 - and last day to walk and ride safely to Hillendale?

NOTE: "Wiley" is arguably not a real word. It was invented by the makers of Looney Tunes cartoons, a form of "wiles" contorted to create the name Wile. E. Coyote.

While 27th Street roundabouts have not been allowed on the agenda for tomorrow night's Common Council meeting, a couple of wiley aldermen have - SURPRISE! - brought back the Hiilendale-Pleasant View road connection issue. And you thought it was settled at the last council meeting?

To recap: There is a cadre of city officials who are determined to build a connective road to Pleasant View east through Hillendale subdivision, eliminating an existing walking and biking path and ignoring the more logical westward route toward 49th street and, eventually, 51st street. We'll go west eventually, they claim. So we spend the money twice.

I've looked this issue over from stem to stern, talked at length to Alderman Steve Olson (who favors going east through Hillendale) about it, and I cannot for the life of me figure out why Olson, Alderman Lyle Sohns, and, it seems, city engineer Jack Bennett seem fixated on going east despite being contrary to the city's master plan and destructive to a safe walking/biking path.

At the last Common Council meeting, Hillendale residents attended in force and spoke on behalf of the more logical westward route. However, any municipal official realizes that it's a dead-cinch that you won't get turnout like that at more than one meeting in a row (I may not be able to make it tomorrow night either); just find a "problem" in the paperwork and bring in up at a subsequent meeting - - which I predicted in a comment on a Franklin Today blog entry erroneously titled "Marquette Avenue's fate has now been decided."

I wrote:

Not quite "decided."

Wiley practitioners of Robert's Rules know that if you vote YES on a motion (Wiley OLSON and Wiley SOHNS both voted YES), you can bring that motion back, then use that opportunity to ask the city engineer if he might "see a problem."

See what I'm getting at?

See what I'm getting at?

Voila! Indeed, the city engineer has "found a problem in the paperwork."