Has anyone been following this story? The Chonicle has an article today, (and has had several stories in past several weeks):

Move to fix troublesome Clarkston Road takes next step

As I see it, it's a pretty crappy situation, from both sides. The county pays a disproportionate amount of maintenace on a road that services only a few, but the committee's proposal is that the homeowners pay an extra bill each year that they didn't sign on for when they originally bought their home. (Through the creation of a Rural Improvement District)

Ultimately, I do think that the committee's recommendation is the most reasonable course to take in order to get back on the right track, as it seems to be a fair balance of placing a larger chunk of the costs on those who live there, yet it brings the overall level of subsidization in line with what we all pay towards the basic road services we benefit from.

On a personal note, I live in the W. Durston district, which had a $20,000 levy on all homeowners to pay for the upgrade costs to Durston Road in 2007/08 - an upgrade that I believe is disproportionately beneficial to the entire city, more than it is to just us. So with that in mind, I say push the Clarkston Road proposal through, and free up some of the county road budget to pay for things that benefit the majority, not the minority. I would add that I think the county should be sure to insert language that allows them to adjust the annual payment based on the actual costs of ongoing maintenance, so that the overall percentage of funding received from the Rural Improvement District doesn't decrease as costs inevitably rise over the years.