05-01-2018, 04:20 PM
(This post was last modified: 05-01-2018, 04:21 PM by danbrotherston.)
There's an article posted today talking about the new ION alignment. But the reporting is....confusing...at best:
"Keifer said not running the line down Eagle Street is a big and welcome change. The proposed route, made public on Friday, has 60 fewer property impacts and 70 fewer full property buyouts."
How can there be only 60 fewer property impacts if there are 70 fewer full property buyouts...wouldn't a property buyout count as an impact?
Further, when did they state there were 70 full buyouts? I thought we didn't know the extent of the property impacts on the previous plan. This sounds like they're giving credibility to the previous, I believed not-credible, claims by the STOP LRT group that 100 homes would be demolished.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/858...on-trains/
"Keifer said not running the line down Eagle Street is a big and welcome change. The proposed route, made public on Friday, has 60 fewer property impacts and 70 fewer full property buyouts."
How can there be only 60 fewer property impacts if there are 70 fewer full property buyouts...wouldn't a property buyout count as an impact?
Further, when did they state there were 70 full buyouts? I thought we didn't know the extent of the property impacts on the previous plan. This sounds like they're giving credibility to the previous, I believed not-credible, claims by the STOP LRT group that 100 homes would be demolished.
https://www.therecord.com/news-story/858...on-trains/