Wichita City Council member Sue Schlapp insists she likes green space and bike paths, and is not trying to kill the proposed 17th Street rail-trail project that would run through northeast Wichita.
She told The Eagle editorial board Monday that she has tried to “look at all sides,” and that includes the objections of some homeowners along the route.
More important, she said, she wants to wait for the upcoming release of a Wichita Area Metropolitan Planning Organization regional pathways study to see whether the project serves the overall recreational needs of the city and region.
In the meantime, she says she’s keeping an open mind.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- kansasdem on Whose ‘unchecked spending’?
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- Freebird1971 on Open thread 11/24
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/24
- DavidB on Open thread 11/24
22 Comments
It’s important to look at all aspects of any issue that will impact citizens of an area. Since I don’t live in Wichita – I don’t have a dog in this race, but I like biking, jogging, walking paths, and I think they are mostly frequented by nature and fitness-minded folks.
But after unsuccessfully fighting for a Rails to Trails path in my area for seven years, I have come to realize that there are REAL concerns out there for the property owners along said path.
It became so divisive in my community that our path is dead – probably forever.
For us it became a question of the importance of desire. Was the desire of the joggers (me) more important than the desire of the home owners (mostly farmers?)
We lost because we only had a recreational interest – their interest was deemed far greater as it was their primary place of abode, their family security, and they paid for a semblance of seclusion.
And so the rail bank sits, obliterated by thick weeds – silent and empty.
I don’t know about your trail, but if it plays out like ours did – they will weigh the mental impact upon the psyche of the homeowners in determining the outcome.
Bike paths through residential areas is not needed. It cuts into people’s front yards, forcibly pushing their property lines back and decreasing property values. If you joggers need a place to ‘do your thing’, there are indoor tracks at the local gyms. You can even use the existing sidewalks, but stop encouraging in neighborhood bike/jogging paths. A lot of people want to keep you types out of their neighborhoods.
As someone who has lived nearby the rail line concerned. I strongly support the conversion. I don’t think there are farming area in the proposed route.
As for discouraging note from ICTgrl, I will jog indoor if she start paying for my membership due. As for jogging on the sidewalks, she needs to pay higher taxes to pay for the sidewalks in the first place, since in many places they are but figments of her imagination, or in such bad condition that my coach told me to just run on the street. My guess is that you haven’t been out of your “wealthy” Chealsea tractors inhabited neighbourhood to see the real world.
So, joggers, bikers, runners, walkers of the world, UNITE!
Going east and west in Wichita is pretty difficult (see this mornings headline). Are we going to create a cross walk on rock road or are we going to build a bridge? Either way, It doesn’t seem very feasible.
One aspect to consider is the fact that the ‘bad guys’ are there anyway. Some years ago a motorist was killed on I-235 by a 30-06 bullet fired from the Big Ditch. Homocidal moron just shooting for ‘fun’ down there not giving a damn who he kills. Similar with alcohol and all the other kinds of problems. Allow citizens to use such areas and we tend to have cell phones. I see something like that and I call 911. I think the adjacent landowners might find that with citizens on the trails that there security will improve, not get worse.
It doesn’t surprise me at all that uber-conservative Sherri, Baby is against bike paths because “they cut into people’s lawns.”
It’s the same stupidity that makes fearful people like her vote for Bush even though the Democrats have done more for her than the party of selfishness and fear has ever done.
Bike paths INCREASE property values. Vandalism and crime is what you have when there’s an effing RAILROAD running next to your house. A parkway is what you have after you convert the noisy, dirty rail line into a . . . uhm . . . parkway.
Running, riding, biking paths are so sought after that high-dollar housing developments now BUILD THEM IN.
But CONs are so selfish and short-sighted, so against anything that has the word “public” in front of it, that they’ll cut off their nose to spit their face.
Nice going, dimwits.
Ben, exactly right.
Why would crime be higher than it was when it was a virturally unsupervised railroad?
Doesn’t make sense . . . but then if it made sense, they wouldn’t be CONs.
“How will they ever get across Rock Road?” Moan and despair!
How did the TRAIN get across Rock Road?
You put in a pedestrian stoplight.
Sheesh . . .
Oops . . . I re-read Sherri,Baby’s original post.
She’s FOR the trails.
My bad. Sorry about that.
Carry on . . .
Green spaces like this are a wonderful commonity asset.
The crime issue is such a lame excuse. There is absolutely no merit to that aurgument.
Cuts into people’s property. Well! How did they like it when a rail train came through all the time.
It make sense to turn it into a bike path.
I live in a neighborhood that has walking paths between the backyard of houses all over the place. It also lighted with lamps and everything. I bet not a single owner has one bit of problem with it and it hasn’t contribute to any known crime in the area.
Another pedestrian cross walk on Rock Road might cause a few additional problems. But I’m sure the convenience of a few, outweighs the inconvenience imposed on the rest of us. The impact certainly deserves some study.
It just goes to show how dimwitted you are because you resort to name-calling. I don’t live in a rich area and I have been out in the real world. I just happen to have family members that resent any talk or plans of putting in a bike/jogging path because it will cut into their front lawn, thus diminishing property values. Another thing joggers… try not tossing your trash on the paths while you’re out there. Didn’t your mother teach you better or was your whole family born and raised in a barn?
Wichitagirl?
You have family members who have a railroad right of way for a front lawn?
?
Well that was pretty poor discretion on their part when they bought the house?
MOST people are responsible with their trash. People who enjoy biking and jogging are not usually litterbugs. And have you considered that the presence of those using the trails adds to the security of those who live there? They might spot a person with ill intent.
The issue of rails to trails is of interest to me, as my family (not I) enjoys biking. So, anything that adds bike paths is a definite yes in my household.
A word on property rights: I do not recall what the outcome was, if there was one, on the issue of right of way easements versus the purchase of right of way by the railroads. Generally, when an easement is granted, it (the right to use the property over which the easement is granted) reverts to the titleholder once the use ceases; if the right of way was purchased, then the railroad owns the property, and can permit any use it wishes thereon, including bike trails, for example; or could convey the right of way to the city, e.g., and it may permit the trails. Does anyone know what the outcome of this debate was several years ago?
Thanks, JR. I was thinking the same thing. The bike path isn’t going to be bigger than the railway right of way was . . .
Also, VT, it’s my recollection that Congress realized that as railroads abandoned lines, that it would cost TRILLIONS to ever get the right-of-ways back again.
Which is where the rails-to-trails legislation came from to begin with.
Unfortunately, states are interposing themselves to stop federal law, it looks like.
The big ag lobby and Farm Bureau are predictably 100 percent against it. They don’t seem to mind the little Kansas towns drying up and blowing away as residents seek amenities like bike paths . . .
Capn, thanks; however, regarding the states’ interposing themselves, I seem to recall from the federal legislation you brought back into my fading memory that it only permitted the conversion of rails to trails, and did not (as it could not) affect issues of property rights under state law.
Yup, that sounds right, VT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_trails
This link shows Kansas as having NO rail to trail lines.
That probably isn’t exactly accurate, but it would be in keeping with our status as the state with the least parkland.
They can just put in pedestrian bridges across the main roads.
Yah! I don’t see how the Rail to Trail cuts across anybody’s front lawn. You are going to have to explain that.
Joe – we are in agreement here. In our discussions about river access the security issue came up; I think we concluded that our presence will actually improve it. Also will improve the litter issue for reasons given above.
Another aspect of rails/trails is that it is rail-banking. Since the right-of-ways are maintained they would be easier to revert back to rail than if they were chopped up.
Why does it need to be such a problem?It is just another form of transportation that is using the pathway of an old system.It has to be better than trains; it is cleaner, less noisy than trains.It will help the bicyclist, keeping them off the streets giving them better ability to get from point A to point B and be better for the children to ride their bikes on.If I had a bike path just outside of my backyard, I would be on it every chance that I could get.Bicycling is one the best ways to stay healthy.
I have jogged a number of these trails in Colorado. They are truly wonderful.
In my community the situation is a little different than in Wichita – because the proposed trail led eleven miles from one town to another through (mostly farmland) but some very pretty countryside. The blacktop road that connects these two towns is narrow and bikes are often dangerously squeezed to the edge by passing motorists. Jogging is absolutely out of the question. I have to run on the back roads, and that’s not the safest place since a jogger is often all alone with a passing vehicle and not a house in sight.
I agree with the poster who said these are being implemented in higher-dollar housing developments. This is a good thing.
If you ever get a chance to visit the ski resorts in Colorado – check out the many jogging paths.