Cheer Facility
July 28, 2016 at 4:25 p.m.
By -
I'm writing in response to the cover story in Tuesday's edition regarding the approval of a new recreational facility in an industrial park.
As an employee working in the same industrial park in which this recreational facility will be located, I'd like to take the opportunity to bring a few points to light that were overlooked in your article.
First and foremost is the location within the industrial park. The recently approved location is at the sole entrance to the industrial park. As mentioned in the article, Tim Sammons had previously purchased a different property also within the park and had already received the appropriate amendment required to open his indoor recreational facility. This property is located near the rear of the industrial park on the east end of Executive Drive. However, for whatever reason, and none was given in the article, Mr. Sammons deemed it unsuitable. Personally, I wouldn't have purchased the property, nor the amendment, for a location that was "not suitable", but I digress.
As mentioned, I work in this industrial park. As a personal witness to the daily traffic flow within the park, I fear that information was withheld from the decision-making process. There is an offsite educational facility in the park in the addition to a half dozen businesses or more. Over the last year or so, I've seen the speeds in which many a car travels increase significantly. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these cars are traveling in excess of 60 miles per hour. Additionally, large semis, box trucks and construction equipment are constantly in motion throughout the industrial park.
Again, the recreational facility will be located at the sole entrance to this industrial park and all of this is commotion. Likewise, the back side of the new facility drops off into a gravel pit, whereas the alternative property that Mr. Sammons had purchased backs up to a wooded area. Also, there are no street lights within the industrial park or illuminating the entrance, exit. The sole entrance is especially dark during evening hours.
I don't want to accuse anyone's child of misbehaving or defying authority, but who's going to be responsible for the children, students and or siblings of the students that wander into the road, around to the back side of the building, or onto neighboring properties?
We've all heard the same old song and dance about the children being our future, and keeping with that thought process, nobody wants to deny any child the opportunity for organized and constructive activities. My question is why must it be located at the sole entrance for an active industrial park that offers no lighting at the entrance or throughout the park? What's wrong with the much quieter location at the east end of the industrial park? I don't begrudge anyone for adding a new building to the community, but how many vacant buildings with large parking lots are currently sitting vacant in the Warsaw area?
God forbid any of these children get hurt outside of training in their new facility, but in my opinion, there were many other options available to Mr. Sammons that would of met his requirements for an indoor recreational facility and incorporated a lot more safety concerns for everyone involved.
Christopher Gadsden
Warsaw[[In-content Ad]]
I'm writing in response to the cover story in Tuesday's edition regarding the approval of a new recreational facility in an industrial park.
As an employee working in the same industrial park in which this recreational facility will be located, I'd like to take the opportunity to bring a few points to light that were overlooked in your article.
First and foremost is the location within the industrial park. The recently approved location is at the sole entrance to the industrial park. As mentioned in the article, Tim Sammons had previously purchased a different property also within the park and had already received the appropriate amendment required to open his indoor recreational facility. This property is located near the rear of the industrial park on the east end of Executive Drive. However, for whatever reason, and none was given in the article, Mr. Sammons deemed it unsuitable. Personally, I wouldn't have purchased the property, nor the amendment, for a location that was "not suitable", but I digress.
As mentioned, I work in this industrial park. As a personal witness to the daily traffic flow within the park, I fear that information was withheld from the decision-making process. There is an offsite educational facility in the park in the addition to a half dozen businesses or more. Over the last year or so, I've seen the speeds in which many a car travels increase significantly. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these cars are traveling in excess of 60 miles per hour. Additionally, large semis, box trucks and construction equipment are constantly in motion throughout the industrial park.
Again, the recreational facility will be located at the sole entrance to this industrial park and all of this is commotion. Likewise, the back side of the new facility drops off into a gravel pit, whereas the alternative property that Mr. Sammons had purchased backs up to a wooded area. Also, there are no street lights within the industrial park or illuminating the entrance, exit. The sole entrance is especially dark during evening hours.
I don't want to accuse anyone's child of misbehaving or defying authority, but who's going to be responsible for the children, students and or siblings of the students that wander into the road, around to the back side of the building, or onto neighboring properties?
We've all heard the same old song and dance about the children being our future, and keeping with that thought process, nobody wants to deny any child the opportunity for organized and constructive activities. My question is why must it be located at the sole entrance for an active industrial park that offers no lighting at the entrance or throughout the park? What's wrong with the much quieter location at the east end of the industrial park? I don't begrudge anyone for adding a new building to the community, but how many vacant buildings with large parking lots are currently sitting vacant in the Warsaw area?
God forbid any of these children get hurt outside of training in their new facility, but in my opinion, there were many other options available to Mr. Sammons that would of met his requirements for an indoor recreational facility and incorporated a lot more safety concerns for everyone involved.
Christopher Gadsden
Warsaw[[In-content Ad]]
Have a news tip? Email [email protected] or Call/Text 360-922-3092