WHO OWNS THE ROADS?

Councilor Mapp has repeatedly asked why the State is not responsible for South Ave?
There has not been to my knowledge a presentation of the agreement between the City and the State about this highway.

Somewheres in the not too distant past I think it was mentioned that the State maintained West Front Street as well as Plainfield Ave north of 5th St. Is that true?

We have been told that the agreement is somewheres but we have never been shown it. Last Monday night Corporation Counsel Williamson in the absence of Administrator Dashield mention a possible date of 1928 or at least several decades ago when the agreement took effect.

Since in my antiquity I seem to recall that it was after WWII That the concept to make 4th and 5th streets one way streets was enacted. I believe that a deal was made with the State at the time for that stretch of Highway to become a city responsibility because the State would not otherwise permit the diversion of traffic.

Route 28 is a State Highway. In Plainfield it has always run Eastbound from the Dunellen City line along West Front St. to Plainfield Ave Then it goes south to West Fifth Street and turns east to the Fanwood City line. Along the stretch the street becomes East 5th St. and then South Ave.

To go westbound the route is the reverse along South Ave, East 5th St to Roosevelt Ave.The next section is a deviation from the original highway. At Roosevelt it goes North one block to the 4th St. extension turns left to East and then West 4th St to Plainfield Ave , turning North along the original route.

Incidentally; Plainfield Ave south of 5th St. is a County Road.

We have had too much beating about the bush. No more I believes. Let us know the facts. Let us also not continue to cover over the failures and errors which were the responsibility of the city that led to the substandard construction of that portion of South Ave.

Let us not forget that the city made a million dollar error in the reconstruction of North Ave during the same period, an error we tax payers ate.


Hurt feelings: Last night at the public participation portion of the Council meeting I asked two questions and received no reply to either. #1 Who is responsible for Plainfield Ave and West Front Street?; #2 This was complex and that may be why it was ignored. If the building has not received its Certificate of occupancy can the Condos be sold for occupancy? If they are granted a CO is the rest of the building still 'under construction" and exempt from taxes? If A completed building but empty free from taxation why would not a landlord of a vacant commercial property be exempt?

I think those questions deserve an answer, don't you?