[Chazz]

Originally Posted by JohnM

Could you please provide the basis or authority for this statement?

Although just an "advisory opinion," the Florida State Attorney General's written opinion I mentioned a few messages above (click on the link that I cited) seems to support Collection6. Although it doesn't make a distinction between commercial or residential traffic, it supports the rights of the public to travel on public streets.

[carolynpage]

Again, I posted a blog :dontknow: Did not read this on going one on Oak Forest Dr.

I too sympathize with residents of this street, but we bought in TV not Oak Forest! So live with it. Get police involved in ticketing speeder, do not change the street to no though way.

Again I agree if this happens then this will open a BIG CAN OF WORMS. :

[JohnM]

Originally Posted by Chazz

Although just an "advisory opinion," the Florida State Attorney General's written opinion I mentioned a few messages above (click on the link that I cited) seems to support Collection6. Although it doesn't make a distinction between commercial or residential traffic, it supports the rights of the public to travel on public streets.

I read the FAG Opinion and I agree that it supports the right of the "public" to travel on public streets. Since it does not distinguish between commercial and residential traffic, I would argue that the "public" includes both residential and commercial traffic, i.e., it is inclusive not exclusive; also, the signs posted do not distinguish between residential and commercial traffic.

FWIW, one of the concerns expressed by Commissioner Mast is how can the county issue a ticket merely for the offense of driving on a "public" street.

My. $.02...

John

[Hancle704]

I moved this over from another thread.


It is interesting how this has evolved.

I am amazed that a public road that has been maintained by the County with funds received from gas tax can now be closed to the public and turned into a private road. Does this mean that residents of Oak Forest Drive will now be responsible for maintenance and repair of their private road?

I wonder why similar steps haven't been taken to restrict through traffic from travel on Morse Blvd between the gate at CR 466 and the gate at North Morse near the Circle?

Unlike the rest of Morse Blvd south of CR 466, this road was originally planned and built to just handle traffic into residential villages. Since development was started and completed south of CR 466, it has become a main north-south artery carrying far more traffic than it was built for, not to mention the problem residents have to deal with every year, when Winter residents return. Then folks must wait for extended periods to enter and exit residential streets. The "traffic problem" has been studied and restudied for years and last year the Board of County Commissioners had traffic lights installed at Morse-Rio Grande intersection replacing the three way stop signs that had been there for years. This "solution" has failed to solve the traffic problems during the peak winter months. Little by little, Morse Blvd in this area is breaking apart and with heavy rains resulting in more broken pavement and numerous pot holes.

The County Commissioners did another study and now they are looking at a range of possible solutions and the costs. One Commissioner's "solution" calls for dropping speed limit to 20 MPH and merging all traffic (autos, trucks, golf course mowers, bicycles and golf carts) into a single lane of traffic. The explanation given by this Commissioner, is that this reduced speed limit will discourage folks from driving on this route. Surprised me that this same Commissioner didn't think to allow the road to completely break apart, leave the pot holes unfilled and become a dirt road once again, that would really discourage folks.

Now it seems that all that is necessary, is to post a No Through Traffic Sign at each end of Morse with a smaller fine and points assessed supplemental sign, for violating the traffic device (sign) This would solve the problem in no time at all, at a very small cost.

The fines raised from violators would probably be enough to keep the Sheriff's Dept. funded without any need to reduce expenses.

[Sidney Lanier]

Back to my now obviously very real concern about this issue opening a can of worms because of its effect on the rest of TV, even with the Oak Forest residents feeling they have a legitimate enough complaint that they were able to convince the powers-that-be to put up the signs....

I read yesterday about the BOCC meeting tonight. If enough residents show up there (unfortunately we're up north at the moment, which is why I asked if someone could post the outcomes of the meeting) with similar issues about their particular streets in TV, that might be enough incentive for the commissioners to revisit the issue.

Look at how many threads are on two forums about this issue, how many people have posted on these threads, and how much research people have been willing to do because it's perceived as important enough!

Thanks to all, and Tal, thanks for the map!

[JohnM]

Originally Posted by Sidney Lanier

I read yesterday about the BOCC meeting tonight. If enough residents show up there ... with similar issues about their particular streets in TV, that might be enough incentive for the commissioners to revisit the issue.

Commissioners Mast and Gilpin have indicated an interest in revisiting the issue. I do not know how the other 3 feel, but only 1 more is needed for a majority...

John

[JohnM]

From Commissioner Gilpin this morning:

" I will be making a motion to remove the signs at tonight’s BOCC meeting at 5:00pm Colony Cottage Rec. Center. Please attend if you have time "


FYI...

John

[collection6]

Deputies do not have the authority to check and issue summons based on where you reside. These are public streets. They can, and should issue speeding tickets. Obviously, Cliff likes to try and rile up people. Villagers, use your commom sense, you may legally drive on any public street in the villages. You should drive safely and at the legal speed limit on all streets, not just on Cliffs street!

[JohnM]

Originally Posted by collection6

Deputies do not have the authority to check and issue summons based on where you reside. These are public streets. They can, and should issue speeding tickets.

I agree with you, but why risk a ticket and having to argue the point before a judge when the signs can come down eliminating the issue:

From Commissioner Gilpinthis morning:

"I will be making a motion to remove the signs at tonight’s BOCC meeting at 5:00pm Colony Cottage Rec. Center. Please attend if you have time..."


John

Originally Posted by JohnM

From Commissioner Gilpin this morning:

" I will be making a motion to remove the signs at tonight’s BOCC meeting at 5:00pm Colony Cottage Rec. Center. Please attend if you have time "


FYI...

John

Good to hear JohnM.

[Sidney Lanier]

Cliff, there's been a lot of concern about the implications of the residents (of which I can only assume you are one) of Oak Forest having been able to interest the county commissioners in making the street essentially private. There has been much research on the subject, and much information shared through the threads. I myself conceded that evidently the residents do feel they have a legitimate gripe and who are the rest of us to judge. My real concern has to do with the precedent of making one street out of HUNDREDS in TV into a more or less private road.

HOWEVER, I have read all the threads about this issue, and while I have seen lots of observations made and information shared, I have not seen an offensive and insulting comment until your last post. I am not suggesting that you are not entitled to your opinions on the issue, or that you should not be unhappy with those who disagree with you and with this decision. But you demean yourself and your position, and you lose credibility, by describing those who disagree as "1% with loud mouths and very little brains."

IMHO....

[tony removed that post.]

[Chazz]

I agree with Mr. Lanier. Up until the most recent reply by Cliff, I felt that most of the posts here were well thought out and respectful. We can have vastly differing opinions without the need to descend to insults.

[downeaster]

Two wrongs do not make a right but collection6 did accuse cliff of 'trying to rile things up". Unfortunately cliff rose to the bait and hit back.
Sidney Lanier is correct in his observation.
So, before this thread hits the slippery slope, lets all agree to disagree but respect others' opinions.
This is the most civil forum I have ever been a part of. (Isn't there a rule about ending a sentence with a preposition?) I sincerely hope it stays that way.

DC

[collection6]

Up until today this has been a general discussion between opposing points of view but now the originator of this discussion has chosen to get vicious in both his language and insults. Perhaps the moderator should ask him to not post anything if he can't control his temper and language.

[Sidney Lanier]

downeaster: In really formal English it's considered incorrect to end a sentence a preposition with.

'-)

However, it is so common in everyday usage that it's reached the point that "This is the most civil forum I have ever been a part of" is not only considered correct, but it would certainly sound awkward to have said "This is the most civil forum of which I have ever been a part." Agreed?

(Sorry Topicop, just answering downeaster's question....)