526 Extension Petition opposing Alternative 10 and 36
Target:
SC DOT and commission reviewing I-526 extension
Sponsored by:
We, the collective homeowners of West Woodland Shores Road would like to voice our STRONG OPPOSITION to Alternative 10 and Alternative 36 of the SC DOT's proposal alternatives for the extension of I-526. While the construction of any extension at all may be viewed differently among our property owners, it is the unanimous position of owners among this petition that these two alternatives are EXTREMELY HARMFUL to our neighborhood and the quality of life or our residents. Below are just some of the reasons we collectively oppose these alternatives.
(*-West Woodland Shores Road Neighborhoods refers to residents, properties and neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road west of Riverland Drive)
1) Property Values - Clearly these alternatives would have a substantially negative impact on the property values of Cloudbreak Court, Stono Shores, etc, and other properties along west Woodland Shores Rd. The other options, including the originally proposed extension (alternative #1), that go through and next to the JI County Park include significantly more public land. If those options are available, why would the DOT choose to damage existing residential neighborhoods?
2) "Proposed Extension" versus "new" options - For many years, people have seen maps of Charleston with "proposed extension" of 526 cutting through James Island in and around the county park. People have had time to make decisions, specifically real estate investment decisions, based on that "vision". Property owners along Woodland Shores have purchased knowing the possibility of the extension going through James Island, but until recently it was never shown (at least for any of the people we talked to) to even be considered going through our residential neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road. Alternatives 10 and 36 were among only a couple of the 30 options previously shown in the SCDOT pamphlet and somehow are now being considered on the final list. The introduction of these "new" options that impact multiple residential neighborhoods comes across as wreckless planning and appears to show complete disregard for the properties they are affecting.
3) Noise and Quality of Life - Property owners along Woodland Shores have made real estate investment based on the quiet environment and aesthetic nature of our area. This is not an area that is near a major highway that would be an obvious possibility for major infrastructure to negatively impact our quality of life. Alternatives 10 and 36 appear to purposefully blaze a destructive path through what is currently a quiet and peaceful environment. It affects an enormous amount of homeowners and residents, many of which made an investment in this area specifically because of this quiet and peaceful environment.
4) Preserving our environment - As mentioned above, we value the natural beauty and raw nature that surrounds our communities. Having a main thoroughfare or connecting through roads would destroy the natural environment around us.
5) Additional Traffic and Congestion - Property owners along Woodland Shores already have to deal with the "cut-through" traffic along Riverland Drive between Maybank and Central Park. The addition of a major highway going through or right behind our neighborhoods is only going to add to the congestion and chaos of Riverland Drive. With such a significant thoroughfare going right through our neighborhoods, unsightly development will surely follow and further negatively impact our quality of life. Most importantly, additional through traffic (like what is proposed in option 10) would propose increased and significant danger to our young children who commonly play on what are now quiet and safe roads.
6) The Other Alternatives Make Much More Sense! - As stated in comment #1 and #2 above, the county has already publicized "proposed extension" paths in different locations than alternatives 10 and 36 and already has public space that can handle the infrastructure. So why would they instead build a highway that goes right through existing residential neighborhoods and directly impact neighborhoods and hundreds of people? It seems only negligence would allow for such an unnecessary and destructive path to be considered when much less destructive paths exist and are clearly more reasonable options.
Recommendation:
We STONGLY ENCOURAGE the DOT remove alternatives 10 and 36 from consideration. We believe alternative #1, because it was the original proposed extension that residents made their life decisions with, and because it uses already significant publicly-owned properties and negatively impacts significantly fewer residents, should be the preferred alternative to be considered by the SC DOT.
WE THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CONCERNS AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AS A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISION.
(*-West Woodland Shores Road Neighborhoods refers to residents, properties and neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road west of Riverland Drive)
1) Property Values - Clearly these alternatives would have a substantially negative impact on the property values of Cloudbreak Court, Stono Shores, etc, and other properties along west Woodland Shores Rd. The other options, including the originally proposed extension (alternative #1), that go through and next to the JI County Park include significantly more public land. If those options are available, why would the DOT choose to damage existing residential neighborhoods?
2) "Proposed Extension" versus "new" options - For many years, people have seen maps of Charleston with "proposed extension" of 526 cutting through James Island in and around the county park. People have had time to make decisions, specifically real estate investment decisions, based on that "vision". Property owners along Woodland Shores have purchased knowing the possibility of the extension going through James Island, but until recently it was never shown (at least for any of the people we talked to) to even be considered going through our residential neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road. Alternatives 10 and 36 were among only a couple of the 30 options previously shown in the SCDOT pamphlet and somehow are now being considered on the final list. The introduction of these "new" options that impact multiple residential neighborhoods comes across as wreckless planning and appears to show complete disregard for the properties they are affecting.
3) Noise and Quality of Life - Property owners along Woodland Shores have made real estate investment based on the quiet environment and aesthetic nature of our area. This is not an area that is near a major highway that would be an obvious possibility for major infrastructure to negatively impact our quality of life. Alternatives 10 and 36 appear to purposefully blaze a destructive path through what is currently a quiet and peaceful environment. It affects an enormous amount of homeowners and residents, many of which made an investment in this area specifically because of this quiet and peaceful environment.
4) Preserving our environment - As mentioned above, we value the natural beauty and raw nature that surrounds our communities. Having a main thoroughfare or connecting through roads would destroy the natural environment around us.
5) Additional Traffic and Congestion - Property owners along Woodland Shores already have to deal with the "cut-through" traffic along Riverland Drive between Maybank and Central Park. The addition of a major highway going through or right behind our neighborhoods is only going to add to the congestion and chaos of Riverland Drive. With such a significant thoroughfare going right through our neighborhoods, unsightly development will surely follow and further negatively impact our quality of life. Most importantly, additional through traffic (like what is proposed in option 10) would propose increased and significant danger to our young children who commonly play on what are now quiet and safe roads.
6) The Other Alternatives Make Much More Sense! - As stated in comment #1 and #2 above, the county has already publicized "proposed extension" paths in different locations than alternatives 10 and 36 and already has public space that can handle the infrastructure. So why would they instead build a highway that goes right through existing residential neighborhoods and directly impact neighborhoods and hundreds of people? It seems only negligence would allow for such an unnecessary and destructive path to be considered when much less destructive paths exist and are clearly more reasonable options.
Recommendation:
We STONGLY ENCOURAGE the DOT remove alternatives 10 and 36 from consideration. We believe alternative #1, because it was the original proposed extension that residents made their life decisions with, and because it uses already significant publicly-owned properties and negatively impacts significantly fewer residents, should be the preferred alternative to be considered by the SC DOT.
WE THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CONCERNS AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AS A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISION.
We, the collective homeowners of West Woodland Shores Road would like to voice our STRONG OPPOSITION to Alternative 10 and Alternative 36 of the SC DOT's proposal alternatives for the extension of I-526. While the construction of any extension at all may be viewed differently among our property owners, it is the unanimous position of owners among this petition that these two alternatives are EXTREMELY HARMFUL to our neighborhood and the quality of life or our residents. Below are just some of the reasons we collectively oppose these alternatives.
(*-West Woodland Shores Road Neighborhoods refers to residents, properties and neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road west of Riverland Drive)
1) Property Values - Clearly these alternatives would have a substantially negative impact on the property values of Cloudbreak Court, Stono Shores, etc, and other properties along west Woodland Shores Rd. The other options, including the originally proposed extension (alternative #1), that go through and next to the JI County Park include significantly more public land. If those options are available, why would the DOT choose to damage existing residential neighborhoods?
2) "Proposed Extension" versus "new" options - For many years, people have seen maps of Charleston with "proposed extension" of 526 cutting through James Island in and around the county park. People have had time to make decisions, specifically real estate investment decisions, based on that "vision". Property owners along Woodland Shores have purchased knowing the possibility of the extension going through James Island, but until recently it was never shown (at least for any of the people we talked to) to even be considered going through our residential neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road. Alternatives 10 and 36 were among only a couple of the 30 options previously shown in the SCDOT pamphlet and somehow are now being considered on the final list. The introduction of these "new" options that impact multiple residential neighborhoods comes across as wreckless planning and appears to show complete disregard for the properties they are affecting.
3) Noise and Quality of Life - Property owners along Woodland Shores have made real estate investment based on the quiet environment and aesthetic nature of our area. This is not an area that is near a major highway that would be an obvious possibility for major infrastructure to negatively impact our quality of life. Alternatives 10 and 36 appear to purposefully blaze a destructive path through what is currently a quiet and peaceful environment. It affects an enormous amount of homeowners and residents, many of which made an investment in this area specifically because of this quiet and peaceful environment.
4) Preserving our environment - As mentioned above, we value the natural beauty and raw nature that surrounds our communities. Having a main thoroughfare or connecting through roads would destroy the natural environment around us.
5) Additional Traffic and Congestion - Property owners along Woodland Shores already have to deal with the "cut-through" traffic along Riverland Drive between Maybank and Central Park. The addition of a major highway going through or right behind our neighborhoods is only going to add to the congestion and chaos of Riverland Drive. With such a significant thoroughfare going right through our neighborhoods, unsightly development will surely follow and further negatively impact our quality of life. Most importantly, additional through traffic (like what is proposed in option 10) would propose increased and significant danger to our young children who commonly play on what are now quiet and safe roads.
6) The Other Alternatives Make Much More Sense! - As stated in comment #1 and #2 above, the county has already publicized "proposed extension" paths in different locations than alternatives 10 and 36 and already has public space that can handle the infrastructure. So why would they instead build a highway that goes right through existing residential neighborhoods and directly impact neighborhoods and hundreds of people? It seems only negligence would allow for such an unnecessary and destructive path to be considered when much less destructive paths exist and are clearly more reasonable options.
Recommendation:
We STONGLY ENCOURAGE the DOT remove alternatives 10 and 36 from consideration. We believe alternative #1, because it was the original proposed extension that residents made their life decisions with, and because it uses already significant publicly-owned properties and negatively impacts significantly fewer residents, should be the preferred alternative to be considered by the SC DOT.
WE THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CONCERNS AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AS A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISION.
(*-West Woodland Shores Road Neighborhoods refers to residents, properties and neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road west of Riverland Drive)
1) Property Values - Clearly these alternatives would have a substantially negative impact on the property values of Cloudbreak Court, Stono Shores, etc, and other properties along west Woodland Shores Rd. The other options, including the originally proposed extension (alternative #1), that go through and next to the JI County Park include significantly more public land. If those options are available, why would the DOT choose to damage existing residential neighborhoods?
2) "Proposed Extension" versus "new" options - For many years, people have seen maps of Charleston with "proposed extension" of 526 cutting through James Island in and around the county park. People have had time to make decisions, specifically real estate investment decisions, based on that "vision". Property owners along Woodland Shores have purchased knowing the possibility of the extension going through James Island, but until recently it was never shown (at least for any of the people we talked to) to even be considered going through our residential neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road. Alternatives 10 and 36 were among only a couple of the 30 options previously shown in the SCDOT pamphlet and somehow are now being considered on the final list. The introduction of these "new" options that impact multiple residential neighborhoods comes across as wreckless planning and appears to show complete disregard for the properties they are affecting.
3) Noise and Quality of Life - Property owners along Woodland Shores have made real estate investment based on the quiet environment and aesthetic nature of our area. This is not an area that is near a major highway that would be an obvious possibility for major infrastructure to negatively impact our quality of life. Alternatives 10 and 36 appear to purposefully blaze a destructive path through what is currently a quiet and peaceful environment. It affects an enormous amount of homeowners and residents, many of which made an investment in this area specifically because of this quiet and peaceful environment.
4) Preserving our environment - As mentioned above, we value the natural beauty and raw nature that surrounds our communities. Having a main thoroughfare or connecting through roads would destroy the natural environment around us.
5) Additional Traffic and Congestion - Property owners along Woodland Shores already have to deal with the "cut-through" traffic along Riverland Drive between Maybank and Central Park. The addition of a major highway going through or right behind our neighborhoods is only going to add to the congestion and chaos of Riverland Drive. With such a significant thoroughfare going right through our neighborhoods, unsightly development will surely follow and further negatively impact our quality of life. Most importantly, additional through traffic (like what is proposed in option 10) would propose increased and significant danger to our young children who commonly play on what are now quiet and safe roads.
6) The Other Alternatives Make Much More Sense! - As stated in comment #1 and #2 above, the county has already publicized "proposed extension" paths in different locations than alternatives 10 and 36 and already has public space that can handle the infrastructure. So why would they instead build a highway that goes right through existing residential neighborhoods and directly impact neighborhoods and hundreds of people? It seems only negligence would allow for such an unnecessary and destructive path to be considered when much less destructive paths exist and are clearly more reasonable options.
Recommendation:
We STONGLY ENCOURAGE the DOT remove alternatives 10 and 36 from consideration. We believe alternative #1, because it was the original proposed extension that residents made their life decisions with, and because it uses already significant publicly-owned properties and negatively impacts significantly fewer residents, should be the preferred alternative to be considered by the SC DOT.
WE THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CONCERNS AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AS A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISION.
We, the collective homeowners of West Woodland Shores Road would like to voice our STRONG OPPOSITION to Alternative 10 and Alternative 36 of the SC DOT's proposal alternatives for the extension of I-526. While the construction of any extension at all may be viewed differently among our property owners, it is the unanimous position of owners among this petition that these two alternatives are EXTREMELY HARMFUL to our neighborhood and the quality of life or our residents. Below are just some of the reasons we collectively oppose these alternatives.
(*-West Woodland Shores Road Neighborhoods refers to residents, properties and neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road west of Riverland Drive)
1) Property Values - Clearly these alternatives would have a substantially negative impact on the property values of Cloudbreak Court, Stono Shores, etc, and other properties along west Woodland Shores Rd. The other options, including the originally proposed extension (alternative #1), that go through and next to the JI County Park include significantly more public land. If those options are available, why would the DOT choose to damage existing residential neighborhoods?
2) "Proposed Extension" versus "new" options - For many years, people have seen maps of Charleston with "proposed extension" of 526 cutting through James Island in and around the county park. People have had time to make decisions, specifically real estate investment decisions, based on that "vision". Property owners along Woodland Shores have purchased knowing the possibility of the extension going through James Island, but until recently it was never shown (at least for any of the people we talked to) to even be considered going through our residential neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road. Alternatives 10 and 36 were among only a couple of the 30 options previously shown in the SCDOT pamphlet and somehow are now being considered on the final list. The introduction of these "new" options that impact multiple residential neighborhoods comes across as wreckless planning and appears to show complete disregard for the properties they are affecting.
3) Noise and Quality of Life - Property owners along Woodland Shores have made real estate investment based on the quiet environment and aesthetic nature of our area. This is not an area that is near a major highway that would be an obvious possibility for major infrastructure to negatively impact our quality of life. Alternatives 10 and 36 appear to purposefully blaze a destructive path through what is currently a quiet and peaceful environment. It affects an enormous amount of homeowners and residents, many of which made an investment in this area specifically because of this quiet and peaceful environment.
4) Preserving our environment - As mentioned above, we value the natural beauty and raw nature that surrounds our communities. Having a main thoroughfare or connecting through roads would destroy the natural environment around us.
5) Additional Traffic and Congestion - Property owners along Woodland Shores already have to deal with the "cut-through" traffic along Riverland Drive between Maybank and Central Park. The addition of a major highway going through or right behind our neighborhoods is only going to add to the congestion and chaos of Riverland Drive. With such a significant thoroughfare going right through our neighborhoods, unsightly development will surely follow and further negatively impact our quality of life. Most importantly, additional through traffic (like what is proposed in option 10) would propose increased and significant danger to our young children who commonly play on what are now quiet and safe roads.
6) The Other Alternatives Make Much More Sense! - As stated in comment #1 and #2 above, the county has already publicized "proposed extension" paths in different locations than alternatives 10 and 36 and already has public space that can handle the infrastructure. So why would they instead build a highway that goes right through existing residential neighborhoods and directly impact neighborhoods and hundreds of people? It seems only negligence would allow for such an unnecessary and destructive path to be considered when much less destructive paths exist and are clearly more reasonable options.
Recommendation:
We STONGLY ENCOURAGE the DOT remove alternatives 10 and 36 from consideration. We believe alternative #1, because it was the original proposed extension that residents made their life decisions with, and because it uses already significant publicly-owned properties and negatively impacts significantly fewer residents, should be the preferred alternative to be considered by the SC DOT.
WE THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CONCERNS AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AS A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISION.
(*-West Woodland Shores Road Neighborhoods refers to residents, properties and neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road west of Riverland Drive)
1) Property Values - Clearly these alternatives would have a substantially negative impact on the property values of Cloudbreak Court, Stono Shores, etc, and other properties along west Woodland Shores Rd. The other options, including the originally proposed extension (alternative #1), that go through and next to the JI County Park include significantly more public land. If those options are available, why would the DOT choose to damage existing residential neighborhoods?
2) "Proposed Extension" versus "new" options - For many years, people have seen maps of Charleston with "proposed extension" of 526 cutting through James Island in and around the county park. People have had time to make decisions, specifically real estate investment decisions, based on that "vision". Property owners along Woodland Shores have purchased knowing the possibility of the extension going through James Island, but until recently it was never shown (at least for any of the people we talked to) to even be considered going through our residential neighborhoods along Woodland Shores Road. Alternatives 10 and 36 were among only a couple of the 30 options previously shown in the SCDOT pamphlet and somehow are now being considered on the final list. The introduction of these "new" options that impact multiple residential neighborhoods comes across as wreckless planning and appears to show complete disregard for the properties they are affecting.
3) Noise and Quality of Life - Property owners along Woodland Shores have made real estate investment based on the quiet environment and aesthetic nature of our area. This is not an area that is near a major highway that would be an obvious possibility for major infrastructure to negatively impact our quality of life. Alternatives 10 and 36 appear to purposefully blaze a destructive path through what is currently a quiet and peaceful environment. It affects an enormous amount of homeowners and residents, many of which made an investment in this area specifically because of this quiet and peaceful environment.
4) Preserving our environment - As mentioned above, we value the natural beauty and raw nature that surrounds our communities. Having a main thoroughfare or connecting through roads would destroy the natural environment around us.
5) Additional Traffic and Congestion - Property owners along Woodland Shores already have to deal with the "cut-through" traffic along Riverland Drive between Maybank and Central Park. The addition of a major highway going through or right behind our neighborhoods is only going to add to the congestion and chaos of Riverland Drive. With such a significant thoroughfare going right through our neighborhoods, unsightly development will surely follow and further negatively impact our quality of life. Most importantly, additional through traffic (like what is proposed in option 10) would propose increased and significant danger to our young children who commonly play on what are now quiet and safe roads.
6) The Other Alternatives Make Much More Sense! - As stated in comment #1 and #2 above, the county has already publicized "proposed extension" paths in different locations than alternatives 10 and 36 and already has public space that can handle the infrastructure. So why would they instead build a highway that goes right through existing residential neighborhoods and directly impact neighborhoods and hundreds of people? It seems only negligence would allow for such an unnecessary and destructive path to be considered when much less destructive paths exist and are clearly more reasonable options.
Recommendation:
We STONGLY ENCOURAGE the DOT remove alternatives 10 and 36 from consideration. We believe alternative #1, because it was the original proposed extension that residents made their life decisions with, and because it uses already significant publicly-owned properties and negatively impacts significantly fewer residents, should be the preferred alternative to be considered by the SC DOT.
WE THANK YOU FOR HEARING OUR CONCERNS AND HOPE THAT YOU WILL TAKE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE AS A PRIMARY CONSIDERATION WHEN MAKING YOUR DECISION.
We signed the "526 Extension Petition opposing Alternative 10 and 36" petition!
# 85:
11:37 pm PDT, Jun 13,
Ari Kolman, Canada
I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted.
I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted. I知 sickened and disgusted.
# 84:
12:26 pm PDT, Jun 9,
David Prince, South Carolina
# 83:
5:56 pm PDT, Jun 7,
Jason Prince, South Carolina
# 82:
9:20 am PDT, May 28,
Riley Mullen, South Carolina
# 81:
9:20 am PDT, May 28,
Riley Mullen, South Carolina
# 80:
9:20 am PDT, May 28,
Michael Linder, South Carolina
# 79:
10:32 am PDT, May 27,
Name not displayed, South Carolina
# 77:
7:15 am PDT, May 14,
James Davidson, South Carolina
# 76:
7:16 am PDT, May 13,
Terrell McCollum, Georgia
# 75:
7:03 am PDT, May 13,
Kristen McCollum, South Carolina
This proposal is not what was originally intended and will significantly hurt my brother's property value and will impact his family.
This proposal is not what was originally intended and will significantly hurt my brother's property value and will impact his family.
# 74:
1:52 pm PDT, May 12,
ALPHA WI, Germany
# 73:
10:48 am PDT, May 12,
Drew Farmer, South Carolina
# 72:
10:11 am PDT, May 12,
Randolph Davis, South Carolina
# 71:
9:32 am PDT, May 12,
Patricia Robinson, South Carolina
# 70:
6:47 am PDT, May 12,
Kay Farr, South Carolina
This is greatly diminish my family's quality of life.
This is greatly diminish my family's quality of life.
# 69:
11:45 am PDT, May 11,
Name not displayed, South Carolina
# 68:
6:57 am PDT, May 11,
Name not displayed, South Carolina
# 67:
4:42 pm PDT, May 10,
Leslie Robinson, South Carolina
When we bought our house we chose the Woodland Shores area based on the originally proposed I526 extension plans that did not include alt. 10 or 36. These options significantly impact the property values and quality of life of all the residents in this area. Alt. 1 does not displace families and makes use of already publicly owed land, it makes the most sense.
When we bought our house we chose the Woodland Shores area based on the originally proposed I526 extension plans that did not include alt. 10 or 36. These options significantly impact the property values and quality of life of all the residents in this area. Alt. 1 does not displace families and makes use of already publicly owed land, it makes the most sense.
# 66:
1:24 pm PDT, May 10,
Carlos Lamar, South Carolina
After looking carefully at the alternatives for !526 extension it is apparent that alternative 8 or 11A are the most reasonable choices and will effect negatively the least number of people. These two would probably would be the most economical. Thanks, Carlos Lamar
After looking carefully at the alternatives for !526 extension it is apparent that alternative 8 or 11A are the most reasonable choices and will effect negatively the least number of people. These two would probably would be the most economical. Thanks, Carlos Lamar
# 65:
6:09 am PDT, May 10,
Name not displayed, South Carolina
Don't lower our property value and decrease our value of life just to save a few minutes travel time!
Don't lower our property value and decrease our value of life just to save a few minutes travel time!
# 64:
6:02 am PDT, May 10,
Name not displayed, South Carolina
Quality of life does not mean getting from one place to another in a few minutes.
Quality of life does not mean getting from one place to another in a few minutes.
# 63:
6:48 pm PDT, May 8,
Vivian Zini, Virginia
# 62:
3:49 pm PDT, May 7,
Ariel Bandara, California
# 61:
1:55 pm PDT, May 7,
Billy Seeger, South Carolina
I am completely against having 526 run over my neighborhood. I would rather move than live under a highway, and I will. This is not something that should be looked at lightly. I moved to my neighborhood because there was NO through traffic, it's quiet, and has a great community feel with all neighbors. If 526 were to run through our neighborhood it would completely dismantle all of these key elements. If there is no other way possible, I say the city should buy out any property that will be affected at a good price to the owner. Then I will find another quiet place to live. If I didn't mind traffic along with the rest of the problems involved I would have moved down-town. Again I am totaly against having 526 run through our neighborhood.
I am completely against having 526 run over my neighborhood. I would rather move than live under a highway, and I will. This is not something that should be looked at lightly. I moved to my neighborhood because there was NO through traffic, it's quiet, and has a great community feel with all neighbors. If 526 were to run through our neighborhood it would completely dismantle all of these key elements. If there is no other way possible, I say the city should buy out any property that will be affected at a good price to the owner. Then I will find another quiet place to live. If I didn't mind traffic along with the rest of the problems involved I would have moved down-town. Again I am totaly against having 526 run through our neighborhood.
# 60:
10:46 am PDT, May 7,
Michelle Chamlee, South Carolina
# 59:
10:39 am PDT, May 7,
Pam Boland, Georgia
# 58:
7:29 am PDT, May 7,
Charles Groetsch, South Carolina
Quality of life is more important than getting to the mall in a few minutes less time. Will more concrete make Charleston a more desirable place to live or visit?
Quality of life is more important than getting to the mall in a few minutes less time. Will more concrete make Charleston a more desirable place to live or visit?
# 57:
7:08 pm PDT, May 6,
Scott Carnley, South Carolina
# 56:
7:07 pm PDT, May 6,
Heather Norton, South Carolina
# 55:
6:12 pm PDT, May 6,
Patty Stover, South Carolina
I strongly oppose alternative 10. Please don't upset our quiet and peaceful neighborhood with this plan. We have already seen a lot of development on Woodland Shores and this would only add to more traffic and noise we don't need.
I strongly oppose alternative 10. Please don't upset our quiet and peaceful neighborhood with this plan. We have already seen a lot of development on Woodland Shores and this would only add to more traffic and noise we don't need.
# 54:
5:10 pm PDT, May 6,
Name not displayed, South Carolina
# 53:
5:06 pm PDT, May 6,
Mariah Alexander, South Carolina
My family and neighborhood is strongly opposed to alternative 10 and alternative 36. These will dramatically decrease the family essence, comfort, and safety of these neighborhoods. We would have never bought a house in this area if we knew there would be a major roadway behind it. We shouldn't have to suffer the decrease in value of our home because of this plan. In addition, the beautiful nature behind our homes should not be tore down but preserved.
My family and neighborhood is strongly opposed to alternative 10 and alternative 36. These will dramatically decrease the family essence, comfort, and safety of these neighborhoods. We would have never bought a house in this area if we knew there would be a major roadway behind it. We shouldn't have to suffer the decrease in value of our home because of this plan. In addition, the beautiful nature behind our homes should not be tore down but preserved.
# 52:
5:02 pm PDT, May 6,
Linda Munch Wilson, South Carolina
# 51:
5:00 pm PDT, May 6,
Gerald Almond, South Carolina
Use option one Dont ruin our property value or our neighborhoods
Use option one Dont ruin our property value or our neighborhoods
