The dangerous
sidewalk closure in front of the Apex Building at 7272 Wisconsin Avenue continues to stun many, including a Twitter user who filed a 311 complaint with Montgomery County. A County inspector was sent out to investigate, and declared it was a matter in the State of Maryland's jurisdiction.
"No visible [sidewalk closure] permit or ANY pedestrian accomodations. How is this legal?" tweeted Daniel Warwick to @311MC311.
MC 311 has declared the matter "closed," to Warwick's surprise. The Montgomery County Council remains silent on the closure.
37 comments:
jurisdiction -- noun -- the extent of the power to make legal decisions and judgments
It's a state road, so it's a state matter. Case closed (literally!!).
Contacting 311 gets results. Maybe you should try it sometime.
You can also see detail by call.
datamontgomery
Even if this were a county road (which it is not), why would the Council be involved?
So, what's the state going to do about it? Did you check with them?
You can whine all day about the county being silent on something that's not their domain. Use that energy for some good.
Did you ever contact the construction company, to ask them why it is not possible to do the demolition without closing the sidewalk and one lane of traffic?
"Use that energy for some good."
I suggest being a volunteer safety patrol at that spot.
"Hold on there, Mr. Pedestrian! The roadway is not a sidewalk. Now let's see you mosey on through that crosswalk yonder, with the light, and cross the street legally. Else I'll have to give you a ticket for jaywalkin'."
I stand with Daniel Warwick.
As he said, how is this legal?
Seems to also break the sidewalk law by not saying how long it will be closed.
Police could write alot of pedestrian tickets at this spot.
This issue has no more to do with the County Council than all the "filler" articles published on the moribund Sam Eig blog have to do with Gaithersburg or any of the surrounding communities.
B A B A
B O O E Y !
I'm not sure why this is a discussion point. It's pretty simple, they need to block the sidewalk to avoid injuring pedestrians while the are TEARING DOWN the building. The builder is being smart and prudent, protecting the pedestrians.
Don't see any issue here. The response seemed appropriate.
All DPS ever does is send out an inspector to put up a sign. No one is ever cited or fined. This wasn't in their jurisdiction, but they wouldn't have done anything meaningful even if it were.
"As he said, how is this legal?"
Because the property owner has approval from the appropriate state agency? This isn't complicated. And it doesn't have anything to do with the county council, certainly.
Can the author respond to some of these points about state jurisdiction vs county? Thank you.
I live nearby-- and, yes, the sidewalk closure is inconvenient. More seriously, the developer wants to do the Apex demolition 24 hours a day, claiming that the noise would be within legal limits. I believe the management of the Mariott Residence Inn across Wisconsin Avenue disagrees.
I thought the Council passed a sidewalk law that required signage about how long the closure would be for, contact information, proper pedestrian signage, stakeholders informed, etc?
It's closed in 311 because that's for county issues. This is an MD-SHA issue. Here's the link to file a complaint there:
http://marylandsha.force.com/customercare/request_for_service
I use it to file info about potholes on state roads all the time, and they seem to get them fixed within days.
I also wonder about the county sidewalk law though -- does MD SHA not have to care about that when issuing sidewalk closure permits?
10:32am Dyer gets potholes fixed within 24 hours.
When "anonymous" can't debate facts, he goes for the personal attack every time.
I don't want to get personal too, but word is Reamer peed his pants at the end of his debate with Dyer on MyMCMedia. Reamer promptly cancelled the other scheduled debate following that one. No coinedence.
Anonymous would obviously rather talk about debates from years ago than this pedestrian disaster on Wisconsin Avenue.
8:22: Because the Council is supposed to represent us, but they haven't for a long time now. Change is coming, old sport.
"Friends of Woodmont Triangle" said:
"Anonymous would obviously rather talk about debates from years ago than this pedestrian disaster on Wisconsin Avenue."
Actually it was your fellow Sheephole "Barwood Sucks" who first mentioned the debate.
All the personal attacks against Robert Dyer won't make the streets safer for pedestrians, create a single job or small business, improve our people's gridlocked commutes or make even one neighborhood safer.
Yet Reimer's supporter still engages in the ad hominem attacks against Dyer. Put that energy to better use, my friend...it's a tremendous waste of time to spend so much of your day trolling Robert Dyer. Certainly doesn't make Reimer look good.
How is it an "ad hominem attack" to ask Robert Dyer if he had contacted the State Highway Administration to explain the closure of this state highway, or if he had contacted the developer to explain why it was necessary to request the closure of the sidewalk and one lane of traffic? (These two questions have been deleted multiple times.)
6:16PM says "All the personal attacks against Robert Dyer won't make the streets safer for pedestrians, create a single job or small business, improve our people's gridlocked commutes or make even one neighborhood safer."
Right. Neither do attacks on readers. And here's another:
Staying quiet. It doesn't make or create or improve anything either.
Make your voice heard. Or is that advice only for justice tuesdays or savewestbard?
Now Robert Dyer is using stories from his RockvilleNights blog as filler for his moribund EastMoCo blog.
5:58: You're obviously unfamiliar with the Norbeck Road area - it impacts both Rockville and Aspen Hill, old sport.
Somehow I can't picture Jay Gatsby talking about the impact of a drug rehab clinic on a suburban neighborhood, at one of his parties.
And robert ignores all the legitimate questions and only replies to this.
#DodgingDyer
Is it in the pervue of the county council to represent us in matters of the state? Wouldn't our elected state representatives be the ones supposed to represent us?
6:29: I can't either. There was still cocaine in Coca-Cola during his time. A different era, for sure, old sport.
8:08: Everyone should be doing their part.
Robert, your calling people old sport is unbecoming. When you call people old sport it makes you sound like an idiot - similar to how you sound when you talk about zombies voting for Councilman Reimer. Give it a rest.
Living in the basement of Mom's house is not quite the same as having a waterfront mansion in West Egg, LI. Also, Jay Gatsby was 32 at the time of his death.
Baba Booey!
Looks Coca-Cola stopped removed the cocaine from their drink when Gatsby was 13. I doubt that they had drug rehab clinics between 1890 and 1903.
Wrong - cocaine was in Coke until 1928.
You sound like Dwight Schrute. "false!!"
Post a Comment