City Beat

by Steven Diegel

With several speakers on hand to voice support and a favorable consensus among downtown business owners, Springfield's City Council appeared receptive to a proposal to convert a one-way downtown street to two-way traffic.

The proposal would allocate $50,000 in center city funds toward the conversion of McDaniel Street into a two-way thoroughfare. The proposal originally included just the stretch between Campbell and Jefferson avenues, but supporting council members amended the measure to extend it to Kimbrough Avenue, at the request of several downtown businesses and other groups.

"There is a general consensus that this would work and could be done as an improvement to the flow of traffic along McDaniel Street," said Tom Finnie, Springfield city manager.

Those who spoke at the meeting felt the current system remained too dangerous, as motorists would often go against the designated flow of traffic to reach buildings, parking lots or other thoroughfares.

"We badly need two-way traffic on McDaniel Street," said Dudley Martin, a resident near the affected streets. Martin said he personally has spoken with many affected businesses which also agree with the plan.

Councilman Gary Gibson indicated the project may be the first of several which address traffic congestion in the downtown area. He stressed that future moves would meet careful scrutiny to avoid unnecessary expenses and changes.

Questions regarding the future status of tobacco products in the Springfield area were also settled this week, as council unanimously approved an ordinance which requires behind-the-counter sales of single packs of cigarettes and voted 6-to-1 in favor of another measure to make it illegal for minors to purchase or possess tobacco products.

City officials said the moves will make it more difficult for those under the age of 18 to obtain tobacco products, echoing the sentiments of many residents who spoke at previous meetings.

But not all council members were totally convinced of the effectiveness of the second measure, arguing that it would be impossible to properly enforce and would be largely ignored.

"I see people running red lights daily ... I see people exceeding the speed limit daily," said Councilman Charlie Denison, likening the measure to other difficult-to-enforce laws. He urged council to take alternative approaches "to try and educate rather than discipline particularly when the law itself is unenforceable."

Councilwoman Teri Hacker disagreed, however, feeling that while many would scoff at or ignore the measure today, with the proper support and enough time it could make a difference in the future.

"I don't expect this to change overnight," Hacker said. "But over the course of time, we are going to make a difference with kids in the community."

Denison remained alone in his opposition to the second ordinance, and the measure goes into effect in April.

Several zoning matters also received attention at the meeting, including one special ordinance for the city to rescind plans to develop property in Compton Hills subdivision, specifically that property which would enable the extension of Walnut Lawn Street just east of National Avenue.

Residents hoped the measure would ensure that the plot remained undeveloped, separating the neighborhood from National Avenue. Completion of the road would establish a throughway connecting Fremont Avenue, National Avenue and Kansas Expressway, creating fears of considerable traffic through the residential area.

Council members, however, contended that much could happen in the area over the next 20 or 30 years and did not wish to limit future possibilities for the city either by connecting the streets or allowing the eventual development.

"It is a tough call, but I think I would like to err on the side of the future," Hacker said.

Mayor Lee Gannaway disagreed. "I think some sense of finality ... is due to the residents and to the developer," Gannaway said. "I don't think it is going to be fair holding (this possibility) over the heads of the neighborhood."

The council voted 5-to-2 on the motion, with council members Shelia Wright, Denison, Gibson, Conrad Griggs and Hacker in favor, and Gannaway and Russell Rhodes opposed.

City officials did assure residents that no plans existed for the property in the near future. A substitute resolution was also introduced which will be addressed in the future.

[[In-content Ad]]