Letter: Winchester Road battle has been lengthy
Regarding the editorial on May 10, whoever the author was of that article needs to get better informed on all of the particulars before he or she writes in the newspaper.
More than 10 years ago, myself and others who lived along the Winchester Road went to the city council trying to get the paving done so you see this is no new matter that just came up in the last year.
This has been a lengthy battle with the City of Eudora to get the road paved. I personally worked hard with the city council trying to get the city to pave this road, at which time the township owned half of the Winchester Road and was willing to give that to the city and help with some of the finance; but the City would not budge on that idea, indeed if they had, they would certainly have saved a lot of money for everyone.
Your article stating residents being asked to give up a few feet of land that they were not happy about that, well for your info, they were not that upset about the few feet of ground which, for your info, the few feet is (15 feet), as they are about years of growth of trees that could be lost.
Also for everyone's information, when Winchester Road was put in on the east side there was a 50 foot easement just for widening this road. When asking the city about the 50 feet to the east to be used for the 15 feet they need for the road, the city stated they put in the utilities and would cost too many dollars to move and would be much cheaper to go to the west side. That is understandable, but don't you think if the city was doing an appropriate job of placing the utilities lines knowing there was a 50 ft. easement for widening of the road? Why would you place those utilities lines that close to the existing road? There should had been more than enough feet to spare for the 15 feet needed by the City.
These are the reasons why the people along Winchester Road were not too pleased about with the city when asked for the 15 ft. easement on the West side. When the city has the 50 ft. easement on the East side with more open land with fewer homes or trees.
Again coming back to another statement your article made pertaining to reasons for paving the road was getting rid of dust, flying rocks, pot holes, damage to cars and the increased of property values, well those words mean nothing compared to what really is the real reason. I and others were fighting for trying to get the road paved and the word is S-A-F-E-T-Y. I do think that those residents know all about the need, width, curvature, priority and cost of the road that they didn't need to read your statement in the paper.