that can be observed from PHR.
Peekskill Hollow Road and historic sites.
Peekskill Hollow Road and historic sites.
Several
years ago an ad hoc committee was formed consisting of residents of
Peekskill
Hollow Road to discuss the rebuilding of this road from Oregon Corners
to Rt.
301. The federal government had offered an 11 million dollar matching
grant to
renovate the road. In the grant proposal, the county had referred to
Peekskill
Hollow Road as a WANDERING COW PATH in dire need of reconstruction in
order for
it to provide “more efficient commuting between Peekskill
and Route 301” .(!) The newly
designed road would be
straightened, widened, and flattened, and
would alleviate the traffic from Rt.6 going through Carmel and
Mahopac.
Because the county justified such changes by stating that in its
present state
Peekskill Hollow Road was a serious safety hazard, we looked into its
accident
history and found that safety was not an issue-- and never was--
according to
the sheriff’s department, which keeps track of accidents. The redesign
would
result in residents living along PHR facing a highway, similar to Route
6, with
their property values diminished, along with their own safety and
comfort.
Click here to see the original
grant application
We were relatively successful in putting a stop to this project through
public
meetings and petitions where the residents of PHR and others voiced
their
opinion. It became quite clear to the county executive that this
project did
not find any support from the residents of Putnam Valley or Kent.
County Executive
Bob Bondi and the county highway supervisor promised that the project
would be
abandoned—completely. A petition signed by about 450 people both in the
towns
of Kent and Putnam Valley had been convincing enough—or so we thought.
Things were quiet for a couple of years. When asked periodically, the county highway department would deny that there was any activity on the Peekskill Hollow Road project. Eventually, however, it became evident that the county had no intention of abandoning their desire to redesign PHR. They resumed their “safety” argument, and asserted that Oregon Corners and Adam’s Corners needed restructuring for traffic management as well. They announced a public meeting at which the NYS Department of Transportation and a consultant to Putnam Valley town board presented in detail the plan to straighten and widen the road from Oregon Corners to Adams Corners. This was the first we heard of the resumption of the project since we had been assured that it was a closed issue. Clearly, assurances that there was no longer any work being done on the project had been a smokescreen—deliberate deception.
Further misleading us, our own county legislator, Sam Oliverio, referred to the project, as detailed at that public meeting, as a “done deal”—despite the fact that, again, public objection was strong, and that the County had not proceeded legally to get to the point they were now at.
A
committee of the Friends of Peekskill Hollow Road FOIL’d the County
records on
the project, and were again met with obstructive stonewalling
tactics—not only
from the County Highway Department, but also by the Putnam Valley Town
Supervisor, Bob Tendy. It was only when
we FOIL’d directly to the NYS DOT that we were able to view the project
plans.
By that time, however, we had missed a critical deadline for protesting. These plans make it quite clear that the
project had never been abandoned, but that it had actually been
expanded.
(These documents are available now in the Putnam Valley Library and
from the
Putnam Valley Residents Coalition. A summary of the scope of the
project
follows this article.)
At the moment, the first part of the
project is underway, despite evidence that the County did not proceed
legally
–especially where environmental issues are involved. The County
Legislator did
not allow public comment on this circumvention.
As described in the DOT documents, several properties along PHR have
been
defined as coming under Eminent Domain: these property owners are now
faced
with having part of their property being incorporated in the road
project. The plan also describes a major
disruption
of Oregon Corners, with 4 lanes being planned for that area—wiping out
parking
for existing businesses, and threatening three creeks which provide
drinking
water for both Putnam Valley and Peekskill.( Note that the County has
NEVER
made the case that traffic at that location is a serious concern. The proposed changes at Lovers’ Lane are
equally dramatic, and similarly unsupportable. The Putnam County Bank
is being
permitted to build at Oregon Corners on the basis of LOW traffic
volume!)
It must also be noted that this is a MATCHING grant, i.e., the local taxpayer must put up the money first, and then the State “promises” to repay it. Many localities are now finding that their State governments are unable to repay, and they have found themselves with huge encumbrances. The current economic climate suggests that this will be an increasing trend. More insult to such injury is the fact that the NEED for this project has never been established. It is PURE PORK at worst, and, at best (?), an imposition of the State’s design for blacktopping the metropolitan area to suit its own ideas about how traffic should flow. On the local level, this project is supported by developers and those who feed at their troughs. A wide, straight road makes the kind of development they envision more feasible. A widened, straightened road allows sewers…hence, the disregard for the effect of project runoff on our local drinking water sources.
Lots to think about.
Friends of Peekskill Hollow Road, and the PV Residents Coalition will keep you informed. But, we need you to do your part as well. Read the project documents, the essence of which can be found below. Come to our meetings; speak out at town meetings. It worked before…it can work again. We can protect this beautiful road—OUR road which is the very soul of our towns. Our website: www.fopgr08.com
A letter from the Putnam Valley Residents Coalition (a not for profit organization)
I shall
be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence
Two roads diverged in a wood
And I took the one less traveled by
And that has made all the difference
Robert
Frost
Dear friends and neighbors in Putnam Valley,
This message is about the future of Peekskill Hollow Road.
In June of 2008 a “FINAL PLAN” for the Peekskill Hollow Road Design Project for Improvements was released by the County. This design plan does not reflect the input of concerned residents who attended numerous planning meetings asking for protection and preservation of the road. In fact, it contradicts much of what had been vigorously defended. The impact of the road change will extend from Oregon Corners to Adams Corners. The original plans nearly seven years ago called for widening the entire length of the road from Oregon Corners to Route 301 near the Kent border, however, in a statement made in April 2007, Jean Shanahan, regional director of the Mid-Hudson South Transportation Coordinating Committee said that work was still under consideration.
Among the more egregious aspects of the current plan:
- the reclassification of Peekskill Hollow Road from a rural connector road to “Urban Minor Arterial”
- four foot shoulders on both sides of the road (increasing the width of the road by eight feet – an absolute contradiction to assurances from our County Legislator Sam Oliverio (published in the North County News May 2007) that “Any road widening will be limited to two to three feet on each side, eliminating the possibility of condemnation of private property”
- 47
Right of Way
Acquisitions (strip takings) to accommodate widening the road
- a new
road speed of
50 mph
- a project cost of $8
Million
The
Friends of
Peekskill Hollow Road, an ad hoc citizens group was formed to protect
this
scenic roadway from “improvements” that would degrade the cultural
landscape,
increase traffic flow or encourage speeding. They have been diligent in
monitoring the project and we are grateful for their thorough research
and
documentation. PVRC is pleased to assist in spreading the word and will
be
posting information on our website and in wide-cast emails to our
membership as
it becomes
available. There are several things that you can do:
Educate
yourself
- The Final
Report on Peekskill Hollow Road and all maps are
available for review at the Putnam Valley Library
- Go to www:putnamvalleyresidents.com all documents and maps related to Peekskill Hollow Road are available under current and proposed developments
Talk to your neighbors
- Contact those you know who live on Peekskill Hollow Road.
- Send this email to a friend
Write or call your elected officials
Putnam County Legislator – Sam Oliverio
NYS Assembly – Sandy Galef
NYS Senate - Vincent Leibell
Congressman John Hall
A full list of contact information for elected and governmental officials directly related to this project can be found on the PVRC website. www.putnamvalleyresidents.com
Get involved
Contact: fophr@fopgr08.com
We urge residents of Putnam Valley who value the rural character of the town to protect our most prominent roadway. Inappropriate development of this gently winding road would be an irreplaceable loss. Like the historic buildings, stone walls, streams and cemeteries that run beside this historic former cowpath, the Peekskill Hollow Road itself reveals aspects of our county’s origin and development that once destroyed can never return.
The intent
of this website is to make the readers aware of the actual changes that
are planned to change Peekskill Hollow Rd.We
felt that the best way of doing this is by showing photos of the
expected results based on the planning by the county. It should be
understood that all we can do is by example, so we have chosen
photographs and graffics that will closely resemble the results
of this project in the making. The graffics are time
consuming and will take some time to get.
Contrary to the general believe the issues of Peekskill Hollow Road are still with us .
Though we had a great response of Mr. Tamagna and
Mr.
Oliverio, our county legislators, the resolution to put the decisions
to stop
work on Peekskill Hollow road on paper and signed by the Putnam Count
Legislators has not happened yet. We have been assured that it was as
good as
done. We are waiting with greatest anticipation.
What is happening meanwhile.
The historic designation of Peekskill Hollow Road is dependent on both the Putnam Valley as well as the Kent Town Council and also has not been resolved.
Mr. Tendy, the town supervisor, in principle is
for it but
has so far not put in motion the required paperwork for this to happen
and it has
all the appearances that he is stalling.. We will keep reminding him
when the
issue comes up for the town board. It
is of great importance that anyone who is interested / concerned
with issues relating to Peekskill Hollow Road should be
present at the town Board meetings. It is also of great importance that
both
the County legislators as well as the Town board realize that this
issue is
still alive and that residents have not forgotten about it. We know, we
have
been at it since 2001.
At the county legislation meeting on 8/25/2009 the
issue of
Peekskill Hollow road was discussed and it became quite evident that
the County
administrator Mr. Bondy has not been very helpful to the Peekskill
Hollow Road
issues.( Resolution
#155
of 2009). He is of the opinion that phase one should have been left
intact and
that the changes from Oregon Corners to Adams Corners should continue.
This
means widening of the road, removal of stone walls, removal of trees
and the
taking of land through eminent domain.
The county legislators were of the opinion that no moneys
are available for compensation of land
taken by eminent domain ($500000) and therefore it was assumed that
this would stop the project from advancing.
Because the county claimed to have spend close to a million
dollars in redesigning this stretch of the road, abandoning the project
due to public outcry, the federal
government
will not reimburse the cost. The problem here is that the friends of
Peekskill
Hollow Road were promised in 2004 by
Mr.Bondi
and the county highway department that the project was canceled and
except
regular maintenance no rebuilding was planned. It has become clear that
irregardless of promises made this was
not the case.
In order for the County Legislators to get a grasp of moneys
spend they will investigate the real cost of this development. To get a
Historic Designation is has become clear to the county legislators that
both
the towns of Kent and Putnam Valley have to cooperate on this issue .
It was
not clear how this will be done..
An interesting development is taking place at
Pudding Street
. The Taconic Parkway commission has determined that an overpass is
needed here
and has started to do test borings.The concern is the design of this
overpass. If egress and
ingress from the Taconic Parkway to Pudding Street is compromised then
any access to that road will be through Wicopy Road and Peekskill
Hollow
Road
from and to the Parkway. It is
therefore of
great importance that the residents of both Roaring Brook as well as
Peekskill
Hollow Rd. know what this design will look like. It should have direct
access
to the TP, the overpass should be a copy of the Brian Pond overpass.
***************************************************************************************************
Dear Friends and
Neighbors,
The PV
work session last Wednesday clearly did not reflect the will and desire
of the residents of
An attempt
was made to send a simple letter to the Putnam County Legislature
supporting historic protection for PHR based on the Town of
This was not the first time that Mr. Tendy has done his best to muck up
the efforts to protect our road and residential communities; these
efforts should be respected, not demeaned, ridiculed and sabotaged as
Mr Tendy has done repeatedly. It seems Mr Tendy is more interested in
“development” and widening and straightening our road than the safety
of those living along PHR, and preserving our communities, town and
beautiful historic road. Perhaps if Mr Tendy had stayed at the packed
meeting at the Old Carmel Courthouse when over 125 residents showed up
to demand an end to this unnecessary project that threatens to our way
of life and real safety, instead of leaving early right after speaking,
he would have a better idea of the level of intense opposition to this
idiot destructive project and waste of time and resources. The people
have spoken on this issue, and the meeting at the courthouse, the 65 or
so people who showed up at a PV Town Board meeting, and over 350
signatures on petitions, show that clearly.
The intent of Legislators
Thank you
for all your work and please forward this to interested parties and
call like-minded friends and neighbors. I’ll see you there! Vic
Putnam Valley Supervisor
Putnam County Legislator
Rich Othmer putcoleg@putnamcountyny.gov
225
8690 show
support
for
his
efforts
to protect PHR
Please email back with
outlines of how your calls and emails went.
************************************************************************************
Description:
PUTNAM
VALLEY
TOWN
BOARD
WEDNESDAY
SEPTEMBER 16, 2009
6:30 P.M.
DEPARTMENT REPORTS
7:00 P.M.
1. Pledge of
Allegiance
2.
Supervisor¹s Opening Comments
3. Authorize
District Clerk To Bid Out District Garbage
4.
Authorize District Clerk to Bid Out Transfer Station
5.
Discussion
of
Appointment
of
a
Manager and
Define the Job Responsibilities
6. Peekskill Hollow Rd/Resolution/County Letter
7.
8.
9.
Approval
of
Town
Board
Minutes
10.
Adopt
Negative
Declaration
for
Proposed
Wood
Boiler Law
11.
Adopt
Proposed
Wood
Boiler
Law
12.
Discussion
of
Proposed
Septic
Maintenance
Law
13.
Discussion
of
Proposed
Phosphate
Fertilizer
Ban
This project began with a request to congress in 1998 for federal funds to “renovate” PHR --from Oregon Corners all the way to Rt 301. That original request was a fraud that continues to waste our time, resources and energies to this very day. The proponents have squandered our tax dollars on this, even AFTER the public was assured that “the people have spoken”, and “over my dead body” and “the project is dead”! -- We were lied to then and deceived, and this Zombie Boondoggle continued behind our backs and behind closed doors.
That original request falsely described PHR as “needing a major re-build” and described benefits for the project this way-- and I quote:
“The main energy, efficiency, environmental, congestion mitigation benefits will be to greatly reduce the time wasted meandering along an old paved cow path. This will save the speeding up and slowing down currently necessary, thereby saving fuel and reducing pollution.”
“The
main economic benefit will be to allow faster
commuting south to Westchester and
Most of you can tell when someone’s blowing smoke and twisting the truth beyond recognition, and these ridiculous words exemplify that.
We are told that the plans do not include - what the plans clearly state - that PHR will be widened and straightened from Oregon Corners to Adams Corners as PHASE ONE with more to come. We are also told that only PARTS of phase one will actually be done. But IF the “Final Plans” have been drastically “scaled down” -- or only parts of that plan will be done -- as some claim, where is that planning ON PAPER? We were deceived more than once before, and we will not accept any more mere words as fact now!
We are asked to approve the “renovations” from Oregon to Adams with the assurance that nothing else beyond Adams will be touched, but we who oppose this project will NOT throw our friends and neighbors who live in that section under the bus – we must protect ALL of PHR from end to end – ALL of our neighborhoods! Our integrity and unity demand nothing less! We WILL NOT abandon those residents by agreeing to any cynical and intentionally deceptive and divisive scam! IF there’s a sound reason for going ahead with Phase One, and “safety” is really the issue, then there’s reason for Phase Two and Three, but there is NONE—NO JUSTIFIABLE SAFETY -- or any other REASON —---- EXCEPT the federal dollars!
As usual when looking for an answer to why something that makes no apparent sense is being pushed by a few - behind closed doors - we should follow the money -- and political influence. This project has NO justifiable reasons except to increase the ability of those who proposed it, those who are backing and pushing it, to spend lots of money and personally gain in various ways from the process. We’ve all seen and know how that works -- and when the main proponent of this ridiculous destructive boondoggle wears two hats, there is a BASIC conflict of interest and all of the attempted justifications in favor - are doubly suspect and we cannot believe any of them.
We have been told that “the road is in desperate need of a complete re-building” and the base is deteriorating -- but old-timers tell me that a rock-crusher went along the length of PHR and laid down a thick base of stone gathered from along the road. The 1886 History of Putnam County by William Pelletreau also mentions this process and that’s why our road is in such great shape. Old Timers knew how to build things to last – hey, new construction can’t even join two pavements together without a bump to knock your alignment out.
We’ve
been
told
that
“the
road
is
unsafe” --
and “we must protect teen drivers entering and leaving the PVHS campus”
– but
the final plans for this project state that the accident record is
average – We
have been told that “the drainage is bad”, but the plans state that
“drainage
is generally functional”. None of these justifications are backed up by
the
facts-- DOT statistics -- or by their own plans. There HAVE been
several safety
related issues though, like the “Icy Pavement Zone” by
.*****
Opponents believe that car and truck traffic and speeds will increase if these needless proposals are carried out and PHR will BECOME a dangerous road – dangerous for our kids. We believe that there must be a hidden agenda if NONE of the reasons for this project are backed up by FACTS or statistics. According to DOT and county stats, unless you’re violating the law or ignoring road conditions this road IS a SAFE road! -- Every road has conditions that must be respected and when some drivers push the envelope there will unfortunately be “accidents” -- don’t blame PHR for that.
We believe that our property values will be reduced if this goes forward, and the lives of the families living along PHR will be forever changed for the worse for NO justifiable reasons.
What DO we want?
We want to KEEP PHR Safe, Rural, and Residential. These are OUR NEIGHBORHOODS -- NOT a high speed truck or commuter route!
We want
a Historic Road Preservation Law enacted,
modeled after the Town of
We want a thru-truck ban, except for local delivery, over 20,000 lbs, to keep our families and pets safe from huge speeding trucks trying to evade existing truck routes.
We want a slower single speed limit from the PVHS all the way into Oregon Corners.
We want ANY work done in the future done ONLY within the existing footprint of PHR and subject to full and open public review.
We want the Final Plans once and for all marked VOID along with the original laughable, ridiculous request for Federal money from 1998.
Many residents also oppose any out-of-scale four-lane bridges ***or unnecessary turning lanes**** at Oregon Corners that will take away business parking and increase speeds. Most residents, I believe, see Oregon Corners as a small town with slow traffic, rather than a small city and a high speed thoroughfare that will breed more accidents.
I hope that our determination shown tonight to stop ANY “phase” of this wasteful, unnecessary project will be heeded by all those who will be running for office in the fall. The voters will have a strong say in November and we WILL remember who supported this and who did not call for an end to this Zombie Boondoggle -- and it is time we put a stake through its heart once and for all!
In this economic “downturn” there are many things we may need, but this wasteful ridiculous project is NOT one of them! If there are bridges or other situations in true need, let’s repair them and use the federal money earmarked for PHR to do any proven – NEEDED -- repairs and maintenance --- otherwise leave our Historic PHR alone.
PEEKSILL HOLLOW ROAD
Here’s what the residents who live along PHR are saying
to answer the following people:
Opponents
of some aspects of the PHR Project are also concerned with safety.
Residents
however, believe that Peekskill Hollow Road (PHR) will become more
dangerous
with likely increased speeds if some of the “improvements” are carried
out.
They actually live along PHR and will bear the brunt of the increased
speeds
and danger that will result from these “improvements” that were
originally (and
still are) based on traffic flow, not safety. The statistics on
accidents show
clearly that PHR is no more dangerous than any other similar road
within NYS,
unless one is breaking the law or ignoring road conditions. The claims
that
opponents “do not care about safety” are absurd and demeaning of their
integrity. Any proven safety or maintenance issues of the bridges are
supported. If the process that got us here was open and transparent
with the
views of residents respected, and not behind closed doors, we would not
be in
this position today. Residents who live along and by PHR ask that
Legislator
Birmingham and others, who may be influenced by incomplete or
unsubstantiated
claims, examine the issues and residents concerns more thoroughly with
an open
mind; they are deserving of a fair hearing. I would hope that
Legislator
Birmingham and the others would be influenced more by the 125 plus
residents
who packed the Historic Courthouse on a weekday at 6pm to protest this
project,
rather than the opinions of a few.
Again,
opponents
of
the
stated
plans
care as much, or more, about their
families and their own safety, as well as the traveling public, as do
the
proponents of “improvements”, and to ascribe any other motive to
opponents is
misdirected. The statistics have been ignored by proponents and
replaced with
conjecture, misrepresentation and demeaning personal attacks on the
integrity
of opponents. If the traveling public is paying attention, obeying the
law,
common sense, and road conditions, PHR is proven to be average in
safety to
comparable roads, and not “unsafe”. Any road is dangerous in ice storms
or
other conditions that mandate extra caution and when proponents point
to
accidents on those days without mentioning that fact, it is deceptive
and
disingenuous. Tony, please do not write off the legitimate concerns of
residents of PHR and surrounding neighborhoods.
Sam is
concerned with the safety at the High School especially and rightly so,
and
opponents support safety as much as any. If statistics show that
turning lanes
provide more, and not less safety, residents do not object. What they
object to
are claims absent any stats to prove claims in favor of the project
solely
because “it is federal money”. They object to the higher speeds that
will
result. They object to the road being blamed for driver inattentiveness
or
flagrant violation of law and common sense. Turning lanes will not
eliminate
those aspects of “safety” and when balanced against the erosion of
neighborhood
integrity, and the fact that numerous schools in similar situations do
not have
turning lanes and do not have a safety issue, they wonder why this is
such a
special case. Perhaps the safety problem is with the drivers, and not
the road.
Residents object to being asked to support some safety issues while
their own
safety concerns and issues are ignored in favor of the “improvements”.
If there
are safety issues with the students driving to school and clogging the
road,
maybe they should be required to take the bus.
Mr
Tendy's characterization of opponents as “a small group” of
“malcontents”
“obstructionists” and people who want to “live in the past” while
“putting
people’s safety at risk” are divisive and needlessly negative, and
should be
rejected and condemned by all thoughtful people. All of these charges
are
insulting to say the least, and say more about the mindset of the
speaker than
the issues. The statement made by Supervisor Tendy that “he would be
more
convinced of their (opponents) historical concerns if they started
ripping up
the pavement and turning their homes back into summer only bungalows”
is laughable,
but also representative of his penchant for wild exaggeration, and his
MO in
dealing with public dialogue and legitimate concerns. The supervisor
makes many
claims based on opinion and personal belief, not statistics, and cites
safety
examples that violate common sense, experience, and the laws of
physics. Coming
from a guy who believes that Global Warming is a hoax, this is about
par, but
hey, that’s what he brings to the table. His ridicule of
environmentalism while
pushing “development” is disturbing for any ostensible leader.
Residents want to keep
PHR safe,
rural, and residential, and within its current footprint. These are
residential
neighborhoods, not a high speed truck or commuter route, and residents
will not
accept any unsupported claims of safety to justify spending money
wastefully on
needless “improvements” to their detriment. When residents are asked to
accept
some proposals and aspects of the project, they wonder why their
concerns and
requests on others are ignored and not put on the table by proponents
to be
discussed in a thoughtful manner. Why not?
Resident opponents want a
ban on
thru-truck traffic over 20,000 lbs or less (except local deliveries)
that use
PHR to evade the existing truck routes. Is that not a safety issue? The
proponents
do not want to support that safety proposal. Why?
Residents wonder why
telephone
poles, dangerously placed, have been allowed to remain for years with
no safety
concerns expressed or demands for moving them. Likewise some damaged
guardrails
have never been repaired. Are those not safety issues? Why have they
been
ignored?
Residents want a Historic
Road
Preservation Law passed by the towns of
Residents suspect that
there must be
a hidden agenda if few or none of the stated reasons for this project
are
backed up by facts or statistics. According to DOT and
Residents are concerned
with the
almost total lack of past basic maintenance along PHR and wonder if
that
pattern will continue with a new or rebuilt bridge or drainage. Why
should we
spend like sailors if our investment in infrastructure will be taken
for
granted and be again left to deteriorate through incompetence or common
neglect, and that is a “no-brainer”!
Bottom line? Proponents
exhibit a
strange lack of concern for “safety” when it is residents along PHR who
are
potentially put at risk in favor of traffic flow. Proponents focus on a
narrow
line fraught with hypocrisy, deception of purpose, and hidden agendas
that may
be the true reasons for their sudden concern for safety issues while
ignoring
some that have existed for years. Are there hidden benefits for
developers or
others with influence, or those who would benefit from project
spending? We
should follow the money to see what truth there might be in that
proposition.
Given the lack of objective evidence that ANYTHING should be done to Peekskill Hollow Road the question people should be asking is not Why shouldn't it be widened, etc., but Why SHOULD it! The hundreds of residents who have signed petitions to halt this project are incensed not only by the proposed changes, but also by the way in which the County has gone about pushing this project on us. The lack of transparency on this project has made it suspect from the very beginning in 2000 when the Friends of Peekskill Hollow Road first formed to beat back Sue Kelly's pork project which would have run from Oregon Corners to Route 301. Since then, for every step of the way, we have had to fight to get a look at the documents relating to this project which we were persistently assured by our elected representatives was "dead". That fact alone should make anyone suspicious of the actual motives for this project. And there are other compelling facts to consider:Opponents have demonstrated that pro-change arguments based on safety are unfounded at best, and disingenuous at worst. Accident rates simply don't support the "unsafe" contention (See Department of Transportation documents and Putnam County Sherriff's Department Traffic Accident Statistics for Peekskill Hollow Road). Nor do traffic volume statistics define PHR as a high density travel road. And research has repeatedly demonstrated that widening of roads and bridges actually INCREASES traffic volume ( and with it, accidents).
********************************************************************Those who oppose this project are not Luddites. They represent the most sophisticated, knowledgeable and involved residents of Kent and Putnam Valley. This is how they should be treated by the elected and appointed officials they pay to protect their property. When any large scale changes like the Peekskill Hollow Road project are proposed, residents should be consulted and fully informed. If any road /bridge modifications can be OBJECTIVELY justified, we will support these. But we will not be browbeaten with manipulative, self serving assertions from public servants who have forgotten who owns this road.Dr.K.O'C Hoekstra
I also find it outrageous that our local
representatives are using their bully
pulpits to go over the will of residents, keeping them in the dark and
acting
as if they know better: as if they're the visionaries, and we the
cow-path hillbillies resisting "progress."
Thank you for what you're doing! Please keep me posted, and let me know
if I
can be of help. Thank you.
Eunice Cunha
