It’s still there, the crosswalk on Camp Arrowhead Road. Since March 2020 I have written many letters about it pointing out the safety hazard it presents. I’m not the only one who is concerned as the residents of Marsh Farm Estates have spoken out about it as well, starting in 2019. A petition to remove it, available on the Sussex 2030 website, has registered 368 signatures to date, 48 from MFE. The site has videos of cars speeding by the crosswalk with people trying to cross. There is a photo of one of the warning signs flattened! Since December, DelDOT has said it must stay. There have been accidents on the infamous S-bend. There will be more, and the developer has all but invited residents to walk across a dangerous patch of road, a public road I might add. No amount of tree cutting or additional blinking lights will make a difference.
While I have harped on the safety aspect of this crosswalk, there is another issue that must be considered. Developers have discovered how much they can save by building multisite complexes, with all amenities on one side. To facilitate homeowners’ use of amenities, developers want crosswalks across public roads, that’s right, public roads, serving private communities. Roads that I pay for, you pay for, roads that are used by anyone who travels in the vicinity.
These roads and crosswalks will have to be maintained by the state, using taxpayer funds. In the case of the Camp Arrowhead crosswalk, all this to accommodate 15 homes! Is this a reasonable use of taxpayer funds and is it reasonable to inconvenience hundreds of drivers who have to stop, if we are lucky, at a crosswalk for but 15 homes? Is the public allowed to comment on these crosswalks? Do the residents who supposedly are served by it get a say? No to both questions.
There are other multi-site communities on Sussex public roads now and no doubt more will come. The new Scenic Manor development on Mulberry Knoll will have such a crosswalk. There is a new crosswalk on Route 24, a heavily trafficked, publiclly funded road. There is a new signal light there that was definitely needed for traffic purposes, but drivers will be also forced to stop for residents who are not shopping, not going to public places, they just want to go from one private development to another.
Not all crosswalks are bad; those in cities are necessities; I can understand them on Route 1 to allow people to safely get from one shopping area to another, one restaurant to another, places of public gatherings. But to accommodate a developer of homes, on private property, when the developer just wants a crosswalk to save money, a great deal of money? Should that be the sole justification for a crosswalk? I don’t think so.
I have asked Sussex County Council and Sussex Planning and Zoning more than once to think twice before approving these multi-site developments. If the county does approve these types of developments, require above ground passages or tunnels, a safe way to get from one side to another and a means that will not inconvenience the public that has nothing to gain from the developments. Since developers are saving a bundle by not building additional amenities, paying for safe passages should be a condition of doing business. It’s that simple!
-
A letter to the editor expresses a reader's opinion and, as such, is not reflective of the editorial opinions of this newspaper.
To submit a letter to the editor for publishing, send an email to viewpoints@capegazette.com. All letters are considered at the discretion of the newsroom and published as space allows. Due to the large volume of submissions, we cannot acknowledge receipt of each submission. Letters must include a phone number and address for verification. Keep letters to 400 words or fewer. We reserve the right to edit for content or length. Letters should be responsive to issues addressed in the Cape Gazette rather than content from other publications or media. Letters should focus on local issues, not national topics or personalities. Only one letter per author will be published every 30 days regarding a particular topic. Authors may submit a second letter within that time period if it pertains to a different issue. Letters may not be critical of personalities or specific businesses. Criticism of public figures is permissible. Endorsement letters for political candidates are no longer accepted. Letters must be the author’s original work, and may not be generated by artificial intelligence tools. Templates, form letters and letters containing language similar to other submissions will not be published.
