Below is information that was included in FSR's Friday Flash this past week.
As an avid walker, I was really disappointed to learn that some of my favorite trails are being replaced with concrete. I'm wondering why it's being
done, who made the decision to do it, and at what cost. Aside from the
high cost of concrete, it also comes with maintenance issues, can be
very hard on knees and other joints, and it's not aesthetically
pleasing, especially when you want to get out and enjoy the beauty of
nature.
In search of some "concrete" information (Pun intended.), I contacted Peter Gertler of the SCCL Group of Informed Owners (GIO). Here is Peter's reply:
There
is inadequate drainage, hard rock, and slopes under some of the trails
which causes the asphalt to heave and break. Estimated life with asphalt
3-5 years. Estimated life with concrete at least 10 years. The Board
negotiated an agreement with Pulte wherein Pulte would contribute the
cost of asphalt and the Association would pay the difference to install
concrete on those trails.
When I asked if there was any opposition, here was his reply:
No opposition, but then there was no real opportunity to comment. The Board approved this in a private session sometime in the recent past. It is not more expensive because Pulte is fronting the base installation cost. The only thing the Association is paying is the up cost for forms. According to the report, the concrete will last 3 times longer than the asphalt.
No opposition, but then there was no real opportunity to comment. The Board approved this in a private session sometime in the recent past. It is not more expensive because Pulte is fronting the base installation cost. The only thing the Association is paying is the up cost for forms. According to the report, the concrete will last 3 times longer than the asphalt.
No comments:
Post a Comment