Council upholds 51st Street veto; stimulus application concentrates on different section

Is this any way to build roads? Designed for SPEED - with a path emerging from a public park directly onto to a blind curve?

You can't fault the NIMBY (Not In My BackYard) reflex that is present in the average person. It's just human nature. The starkness of that reflex can still be disconcerting; it was manifested at this past Tuesday's special Common Council meeting immediately following discussion of the controversial 51st street widening north of Rawson. The room virtually emptied once it became clear that the issue had been put to rest.

Next on the agenda: How to address 51st street in front of Franklin High School. The room emptied before that topic got underway.

It's not your backyard. Just your children.

Still, it was heartening to hear a common thread in citizen's comments (and then echoed by council members): Franklin needs to reassess its priorities and start making this city accessible to people rather than simply vehicles. Unfortunately, the stimulus application is limited to work on collector-level streets, and the collector-level streets here are already past redemption: wide and speed-inducing, there is no room for adding a proper, segregated bike and pedestrian lane without acquiring land, which also disallows a stimulus application. 

The feared and despised four-lane possibility on 51st north of Rawson was also disallowed, making the mayor's veto of that project moot. Nonetheless, there was a vote on sustaining the veto - - which two aldermen chose inexplicably to vote against.

Sometimes logic is left at the door of common council meetings.

Chosen instead for inclusion in the stimulus application is the stretch of 51st street in front of Franklin High School, site of many, many crashes and a tragic pedestrian fatality a few years back.

Sidewalks? Maybe.

More later, including further discussion of atrocities like the residential street pictured above .....

Council upholds 51st Street veto - FranklinNOW.

Comments

[Steve F. Taylor]

A vote of the Common Council was not required due to the fact that the 51st street project no longer qualified. Also, it was my opinion that the veto issue was DOA and I am still very comfortable with my initial vote on March 17th. Those are reasons enough for me to vote NO.

[John Michlig]

Not to put too fine a point on it, Steve, but a vote WAS required, waste of time or not.

Sustaining a veto rendered moot by circumstance (an "aye" vote) is an equally moot gesture. I still can't understand a "nay" vote in that circumstance. Not condemning it; just can't understand it. I don't imagine that you disagreed with the spirit of the veto or the language used in the mayor's letter accompanying the veto, so I'm left with "inexplicable."

In Alderman Olson's case, however (his was the other "nay"), there is likely another dynamic at play that I will ask him about over ice cream sundaes some day.

[Franklin Resident - 3rd District]

I am just so sick of our elected officials more interested in themselves and not our children in this community. I know it costs money to build roads but what is the cost of a human life when one of our children is struck and killed by a driver because we could not take the time up front to make a safe road. It can be added later is so sickening to hear come out of our common council man and woman, and when one says how about a trail of some sort so we can get our children off the roads, the snickers and taking amongst themselves was downright rude. I am ashamed to say that I wanted to live in Franklin, now am looking elsewhere to raise my children

[John Michlig]

One thing is for sure: Their self-interest can be leveraged to the advantage of our children and differently-abled neighbors as long as people continue to articulate their desire for a better designed community.

It takes a while to change the course of such a large ship, but I see a little progress.

[Fred Keller]

To put it very bluntly, the Franklin Common Council members who voted to suspend the Buckhorn Tavern’s license for a short 90 days as opposed to revoking it, clearly demonstrated to me how much they value the lives of Franklin citizens.

“Big tough talk” immediately after the West Allis couple was killed by a drunken-driver patron of the Buckhorn on Christmas 2007; cowardly disposition over a year later. The priorities of a number of aldermen and the mayor are seriously messed-up.

“Responsible Leadership”?! What a JOKE!