Jump to content



Photo

Common sense


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 20 February 2015 - 05:56 AM

Looks like we are showing some...

 

http://www.newsandtr...c1ee0c914c.html

 

 

The proposed connector road between the River Ridge Commerce Center and Clark Regional Airport appears to have lost the support of the Clark County Commissioners and county redevelopment commission.


  • Tina likes this

#2 Oldgoat

Oldgoat

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 20 February 2015 - 09:46 AM

It would be great to see State Road 60 extended from the airport to SR 62. Perhaps it could be a joint state / county project. That said, if we can't pay for it, we shouldn't do it.  Gotta quit spending money we don't have.


  • IntegrityMatters and Tina like this

#3 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 20 February 2015 - 10:35 AM

I take it to mean that we can thank commissioner Glover for this.  Airport Rd was Perkins & Galligan's baby.  Now that Perkins has been replaced with Glover, common sense is prevailing.



#4 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 20 February 2015 - 11:15 AM

Actually Tina, Jack and I have been talking of this for some time. After talking to some of the residents in that area and after the touring around the area we all came up with the same conclusion. All three commissioners understand that there is an abundance of privately owned land ready for anykind of development. We do not feel that the absence of the Airport connector road will adversely effect Economic Development in this area.

#5 Not Super But Honest Mike

Not Super But Honest Mike

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,711 posts

Posted 20 February 2015 - 11:24 AM

I'm not a fan of the airport or spending tax dollars on the airport.........but I do see the benefit of tying the airport to RiverRidge .  With the lack of finances by the county, and not having the ability to put together a working budget for the county, I would hope the county does not invest any funds for the road. On the other hand, I hope TG can find the funds (and yes, I know they are tax dollars) to get the road constructed.

.


  • IntegrityMatters likes this

#6 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 20 February 2015 - 11:34 AM

Was the $500k spent or just allocated?  http://www.newsandtr...19bb2963f4.html

 

Actually Tina, Jack and I have been talking of this for some time. After talking to some of the residents in that area and after the touring around the area we all came up with the same conclusion. All three commissioners understand that there is an abundance of privately owned land ready for anykind of development. We do not feel that the absence of the Airport connector road will adversely effect Economic Development in this area.

That's the case for most any "government funded" economic development.  Let private development lead instead of risking taxpayer money.

In any event, I'm glad Airport Rd is off the table for now.  

 

And for clarification, I simply pointed out that Perkins was pushing hard for Airport Rd.  I'm glad, for now, the discussion is off the table.  Any further offense you took was your own burden.



#7 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 20 February 2015 - 12:14 PM

Oh, no offense taken Tina, Just putting out the facts. Sorry if it sounded that way.
  • Tina likes this

#8 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 20 February 2015 - 01:09 PM

Old goat, one of the reasons we are having to put the Connector rd on the back burner is because of the state, municipality, port, and River Ridge joint project on the heavy haul rd. There is no more project money free until at least 2018. We can not wait until then to capitalize on the economic development caused by the east end bridge.

Private developers will see the value of developing in these areas and will provide the spark that continues the progress. In my opinion It is not governments job to create this type of development. It is governments job to create an environment that does not hinder private companies from making major investments in this area.
  • Oldgoat likes this

#9 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 20 February 2015 - 01:32 PM

Private developers will see the value of developing in these areas and will provide the spark that continues the progress. In my opinion It is not governments job to create this type of development. It is governments job to create an environment that does not hinder private companies from making major investments in this area.

:goodpost:  Now THAT's common sense!  :thumbsup:

 

(just honest curiosity: is that area TIF'd?  If not, please don't.)


Edited by Tina, 20 February 2015 - 01:33 PM.

  • Oldgoat likes this

#10 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 20 February 2015 - 02:05 PM

The area of the connector rd is not tif'd. Most all of it is in Jeffersonville. I have absolutely no desire to create anymore TIF's in the county. We have at least 2 that need to be abolished.
  • Oldgoat and Tina like this

#11 Matt

Matt

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 312 posts

Posted 20 February 2015 - 05:29 PM

Don't we already have a connecter road? Its called I265!!!!! Goes straight from the airport to River Ridge AND the Port. You simply go to I65 which is 1/2 mile away, go south and pick up I265. Why did this road ever make it this far?

#12 RStephenson

RStephenson

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 476 posts

Posted 20 February 2015 - 05:41 PM

And that is another reason that the road is not a priority. Once construction is completed the airport will be approximately 10 min away from River Ridge. It is a ready close to Sellersburg.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users