I am James R. Stallard, a 49-year resident of 202 South Edgewood Road
On Friday March 15 th I submitted an Open Records Request to the Director of Transportation. On Wednesday, March 20 th I received a telephone call about fulfillment of my request. I requested a copy of plans that had to have been submitted to receive the funding in the LET
AGREEMENT to alter Edgewood Road. Why the City kept plans supposedly made in the public interest hidden from the public is a mystery. Nevertheless, information in the record provided by ODOT provides some of the answer for secrecy.
I have not copied the 100-page plus record. In the interest of time, I make three points:
In the record, the city stated the “goal of the overall project is to provide a direct route from the southside of the City to the retail area and the east of the City.” Nevertheless, the city submitted
maps showing state routes now provide a way as direct, if not more direct, as the one proposed using Edgewood Road.
In the record, the City specifies that the proposed alteration of Edgewood Road “includes roadway widening, the addition of curb/gutter, storm sewer, and a shared use path….[benefiting] pedestrians, cyclists, local drivers, and non-local drivers.” It is important to note that the list of
those benefitting does not include residents of the Edgewood Road neighborhood whose properties can expect devaluation.
The record includes a map complete with survey points, elevations and the like showing reconstruction of East High Street and New Gambier Road to merge them one block east of Edgewood Road at Stevens Street. This would require demolition of one dwelling. Reconstruction of East High Street would provide a direct thoroughfare from City Square to Eastern Star Road and Upper Gilchrist Road.
It is difficult to believe that Council studied the request for funding before its submission to ODOT. Did anyone pay attention that the submission shows the Central Ohio Rural Planning Organization estimated the cost of the “connection and major widening” of “Edgewood Road from SR229 to US 36” at “7 – 10 million dollars,” an amount more than two to four times the amount of the LET AGREEMENT.
If Council did not study the details in the request for funding, it cannot understand how destructive implementation of the proposal would be. If you did study it, why did you allow an obviously destructive plan to go forward? Either way, I urge a “no” vote on Resolution 2024-23.