A large group of local residents — nearly 40 strong — showed up at the City Hall Auditorium to share their collective opposition to the resolution and what it may mean for the future of the city.
In the end, no such resolution was adopted and any stance on the matter by the Council was temporarily postponed. The board’s decision to hold off on adopting the resolution came after more than an hour of resident after resident approaching the lectern to speak of their disapproval of not only the project, but city officials’ consideration of supporting it.
A similar resolution in favor of the project has previously been adopted by the City Council in years past. Although not obligated because the matter was not part of a public hearing, Mayor Lew Starling allowed everyone wishing to speak to the matter to do so during Tuesday’s meeting.
Each spoke of the negative effects they believed the project would have on the city of Clinton and urged Council members to reconsider any endorsement of a project they said would drive Clinton into the ground — quite literally.
The route of the N.C. 24 four-laning is at the heart of the disapproval.
Traffic congestion would be a significant problem, and the economic boom that would be the supposed trade-off for the increased traffic would not come, those in opposition said.
“To attempt to bring that road down there (Sunset Avenue) is going to be a huge detriment,” said former Sen. Lauch Faircloth, a resident of Beaman Street and former Secretary of Transportation for North Carolina’s DOT. “It’s a ludicrous way to bypass to I-40. You’re bringing it through the most congested place in Clinton. I don’t see any benefit from it. That’s a big part of your tax base and you’re going to devastate it.”
Faircloth turned to the audience of people behind him and invited anyone in favor of the project to speak. No one did.
Ted Lockerman, another proponent of an alternate N.C. 24 route, said traffic would bottleneck once it reaches Clinton.
“I think what the DOT is doing will cause unbelievable traffic jams in the city of Clinton,” said Lockerman. “How anyone can say that this will increase the safety of citizens in Clinton is mind boggling. Traffic will quadruple out there.”
He noted a petition opposing the project was sent to DOT with more than 1,000 signatures on it.
“I certainly believe Clinton and Sampson County are entitled to more than the worst possible path they could give us,” Lockerman remarked. “Any place is better than what they are proposing. I would just ask how the board can say citizens are not entitled to something better than the worst DOT can give us.”
In essence, the current project proposed a four-lane roadway on N.C. 24 from Cumberland County to Interstate 40 near Warsaw, divided by a median, with interchanges constructed at major crossroads.
In Sampson County, smaller municipalities will be bypassed from the west before returning to the existing roadbed east of Bonnetsville to Coharie Drive. From Coharie Drive to Faircloth Freeway, the existing roadbed will be used, following Faircloth Freeway from Sunset Avenue to Tram Road.
The DOT has said the purpose of the project is to improve safety and quality of travel between I-95 and I-40, as well as bring increased economic development in the N.C. 24 study area.
More than 30 years in the making
Prior to public comment Tuesday, Clinton city manager John Connet gave a brief history lesson on the project and then read the resolution up for possible adoption.
The project, he said, goes back to at least 1972 with former city officials noting discussions of a possible bypass all the way back to the early 1940s. In the past, local residents have participated in letter-writing campaigns and similar resolutions have been adopted by the City Council in favor of the N.C. 24 widening project.
The proposed project “is exactly what the city of Clinton and Sampson County have requested,” Connet noted. “There’s one more hurdle (for DOT) to cross before the final draft of the Environmental Impact Statement, which is as far as they’ve ever gotten. Opposition would indefinitely delay, if not kill, the project completely.”
Reading from the resolution, Connet said the city has sought the four-laning of N.C. 24 since the mid 1980s to enhance the “economic vitality of our community” and increase the safety of its citizens. With funding available to complete the project and an Environmental Impact Statement approved that utilizes “the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative,” the city requests DOT move forward with the N.C. 24 Transportation Project without delay, Connet read.
No boom, more traffic
Residents at Tuesday’s meeting said the perceived economic vitality would be non-existent.
Faircloth predicted a 50 percent decline in retail business. Clinton resident Pat Green pointed to similar DOT projects in the Wilmington area, notably Monkey Junction, that have promised bigger, booming businesses and not delivered.
“I am not against Highway 24; I think it would be great,” said Green. “I just ask you, ‘At what price is progress?’”
Still more residents simply echoed the headaches — and safety hazards — increased traffic would bring.
Tim Ameen, pastor at Immanuel Baptist Church on Sunset Avenue, will see the current path run straight through his church, lopping off a side where the adult male parishioners hold Bible study. He said it has been estimated that 50 trucks would be going by there each day, in close proximity to the church property.
“I’m just waiting to see how some of those big rigs can make those turns,” said Ameen. “I don’t think they can. It’s not safe or advisable.”
If given the ever-present option of “this or nothing?,” Ameen urged Council members to choose the latter.
“It’s a nightmare now; you cannot believe what it will be if they do this,” Roseboro Highway resident Betty Lou Griffith said of safety hazards on a larger roadway. “It doesn’t take a genius to know that having this is going to cause more accidents than what’s already there. You can’t always go by the environmental study. Common sense has a say over some of our paid professionals. I would hate to see the city of Clinton make an endorsement of the plan as it is currently presented.””
Jeff Heath, a resident of Coharie Drive, pointed to the present state of Sunset Avenue (N.C. 24) and the number of wrecks that occur every day. That would only get worse with the DOT project, he said.
“How in the world anyone can say this will be safer, I can’t fathom,” Heath remarked. “You are putting more traffic on our most traveled road.”
Heath noted the recent reduction of the speed limit on Sunset Avenue to 35 mph, approved by DOT last year because of the spike in wrecks and fatalities on the stretch of road in recent years.
“If you support this resolution,” Heath implored, “you are in essence saying an increase in traffic accidents and an increase in traffic fatalities is an acceptable trade-off for a bad road, just because we’ve been talking about this for 30 years.”
Faircloth went one further.
“I would like to request that the city of Clinton, instead of rolling over and saying what a wonderful idea it is, take it back to DOT and say we want better,” remarked Faircloth, who was optimistic that a new Highway Commission administration would be receptive to concerns.
No action for now
Once there were no more requests to speak, Starling asked for Council to give its input. Councilman Steve Stefanovich told those in attendance that no one on the board has taken the matter lightly.
“I’m just a car salesman, so I can’t begin to know where a road should go or how it should be built,” Stefanovich said. However, contrary to opposition locally, experts for the project have said that the current path is “exactly the place this should go,” Stefanovich noted.
“Frankly mayor, I’m not sure if we should go on or postpone this until next month,” he said. “They make some valid points.”
During brief Council discussion, Starling halted yet another request from the audience to speak to the matter after receiving countless others.
“I want to conclude it in some fashion,” the mayor said. “I’m going to have to stop it. We’ve heard about enough. I’m going to have to stop it.”
After minimal input from the City Council, Starling had the matter postponed.
“I’m not sure there is a consensus,” he said, requesting that Connet and city staff do what they could to address residents’ concerns. “At my discretion, we’re not going to take any action.”
Chris Berendt can be reached at 910-592-8137, ext. 121, or by email at sicrime@intrstar.net.
Post a Comment
