Let the rest of us have gates, too
In Mr. Smith’s recent “Opinion” piece, referring to the controversy over Wyndemere streets, I have to say I agree with him wholeheartedly! When I lived for 12 years in the Washington Bottom area and needed to go to north Parkersburg, I traveled up Murdoch Avenue, then onto Emerson Avenue. Not having been raised here, I knew nothing about the so-called “shortcut” over Quincy Hill. And when I purchased a house on top of the hill, realtors, naturally, weren’t mentioning anything about the amount of traffic on that street (let alone the speed of many travelers). We who reside here on the hilltop would like nothing better than to have a “gate” at one end or the other, so the street would no longer be a “shortcut” to and from north Parkersburg, but somehow I doubt the city would approve that! (We don’t even have speed limit signs at either end, which I have been discussing recently with our district councilman…and, no, I am not naive enough to think that 25 mph signs will slow all people down, but it might give them a “mental nudge” the speed limit is not 35 or 45!)
We have small children living on the street and there is a park here that is heavily used in good weather: both good reasons to stop the excessive speeding, which a gate would do … again, we have no hope of the city approving a gate.
No, my house is not like those in Wyndemere, but that should not stop me from having the same rights as those who live there. Mr. Smith states the residents of Wyndemere contend they do not want their neighborhood to become a “cut-through” from Parkersburg to Vienna; I do not want my street to be a cut-through from south Parkersburg to north Parkersburg, but it is, and I’m sure there are many other areas/streets/neighborhoods that have the same problem. So if the city law director says that Wyndemere can have a gate at one end and that “fulfills the responsibility of public access on a public street,” then every affected area should be entitled to do the same.