Laserfiche WebLink
D E C 2 c' 1986 <br />-7 <br />r <br />BOOK. 6 FA�,F- 768 <br />lighting throughout the subdivision, and he was in favor of the <br />lighting district. <br />William Davenport, Jr., 464 21st Place, S.E., a resident for <br />10 years, stated he has served on the homeowners association for <br />3 years and at least once or twice a year mention has been made <br />of establishing a lighting district. He felt that the plan put <br />together by Director Baird is a very fair in that it provides <br />collection of the taxes by the County and also addresses the <br />owners who rent out their property. He believed the residents <br />are glad that they now will be able to walk in their community <br />after dark. He urged the Board to approve the proposed <br />ordinance. <br />Mr. Davenport's comments drew a substantial amount of <br />applause from the audience. <br />Daniel Fourmont, 1900 5th Avenue, S.E., felt that Mr. <br />Ballard was in error when he said that no notice was given for <br />the latest meeting'of the homeowners association, and he pointed <br />out that they called all the block captains in the neighborhood. <br />He, himself, called 7 or 8 block captains on the south side, and <br />notified them of the items on the agenda. <br />R. E. Hungerford, 2104 4th Court, S.E., stated his <br />opposition to a street lighting district, and felt that people <br />should install coach lights.in their front yards as he and his <br />neighbors have done. <br />William Weld, 1924 6th Avenue, S.E., was in favor of the <br />street lighting district even though he and 4 other neighbors got <br />together and installed a light for which they each pay $25 a <br />year. <br />H. B. Wright, 634 24th St., S.W., believed that the <br />subdivision needs the security that will be provided by the <br />street lights, and urged the Board to adopt the proposed <br />ordinance. <br />41 <br />