While I was Sick

While I was ill (which is one reason I haven’t posted in a while), two Daily Gazette news articles caught my attention. The first was “Owners ordered to fix septic system / Sewage bubbled from ground at truck stop” by reporter Justin Mason on April 2nd. This was especially interesting because the McLane’s distribution facility is directly across the street and will also be served by a septic system. Resident concerns about McLane’s aired recently during the Princetown hearings begin to be viewed in a different context altogether and hopefully, will be factored into future decision-making.

The second article, “Residents say Route 7 is due for an upgrade /
DOT spokesman says studies show little need to change road” by Mr. Mason also, amplified that infrastructure in that area is increasingly becoming substandard to support existing demands let alone anticipated development.. The I-88 exchange is poised for development and undoubtedly will affect future traffic flows all the way through the 5 Corners intersection. It is naïve to think otherwise and irresponsible not to address the inadequacies beforehand.

DOT spokesman, Peter Van Keuren, aptly sums up the situation though the intent of his quote runs contrary to the point I make here. He is quoted, “some of the issues may end up being the price the area will have to pay for economic development. It’s kind of a Catch -22.”

Everything in Rotterdam when it comes to development seems to be a Catch-22. That’s because we don’t have a proper Comp Plan and we can’t as a community seem to see past the immediate dollar sign. Let’s face it; development of some kind will occur in and along that corridor. Believing otherwise is equally as naïve as believing that the current infrastructure is adequate to advance that development.

It doesn’t have to be a Catch-22. And if economic development comes at a “price” that destroys QOL, then there doesn’t seem to be a whole lot of sense behind achieving the development anyway, does there?

For those that don’t accept the simple argument above, why not turn the Catch-22 inside-out? Instead of saying, “some of the issues may end up being the price the area will have to pay for economic development” we can state, “some of the potential for economic development may have to be curtailed until adequate infrastructure can be built.” Better still, actually build the infrastructure first. In all likelihood, the result is an eventual lower “price” that we can all live with comfortably.