City's plan not popular with some
This item is available in full to subscribers.
To continue reading, you will need to either log in to your subscriber account, or purchase a new subscription.
If you are a current print subscriber, you can set up a free website account and connect your subscription to it by clicking here.
If you are a digital subscriber with an active, online-only subscription then you already have an account here. Just reset your password if you've not yet logged in to your account on this new site.
Otherwise, click here to view your options for subscribing.
Please log in to continue |
In the weeks following Page City Council’s announcement of a preliminary 10-year-multimillion-dollar street revival plan, several Page area citizens have reached out to the Chronicle to voice their concerns with its proposed goals.
Citing a lack of historical precedence in keeping roads in traditionally low-income neighborhoods maintained, alongside criticizing council’s rhetoric that “gateway” roads for tourists should be prioritized, the residents implored city officials keep residential roads in mind as much as the main tourist thoroughfares.
Although still very early in its development, city council proposed budgeting upwards of $2.5 million to go toward road repairs this upcoming budget year. The first streets to receive work would likely be 10th Avenue, Coppermine Road and portions of Elm Street.
Other roads on the list to receive some kind of work in the next three years include: Scenic View Drive, a portion of North Lake Powell Boulevard, Cameron Road, Elk Road and Haul Road.
Roughly half of a $1.5 million per year allowance after the initial year — if approved and adhered to by council this summer — would come from the city’s general fund, with the other from its Highway User Revenue Fund.
Many councilors reiterated the city ought to prioritize roads that serve as gateways for tourists. Discussions over Aero Avenue, a road that was initially scheduled to receive repairs in the first year of the plan, shifted toward moving the project back.
The primary reasons, council said, were the road’s unusual width and the lack of “aesthetic appeal” of the neighboring homes.
One citizen, who asked to remain unnamed, said she believed that discussion showed a lack of awareness and concern for the average Page citizen — especially those that live in lower-income neighborhoods.