“Ultimately, the decision of where Mill St. goes is in the hands of voters. Without an affirmative vote, the plan won’t happen.”
– Oxford Village President Steve Allen

“You’re giving people the right to vote on something that really isn’t affecting them. . .It affects us. It affects us economically. It affects us personally.” – Sandy Troutwine
of 42 E. Burdick St.

I write this column not as editor of The Oxford Leader, but as an Oxford Village resident who will be voting “NO” in the Tuesday, Aug. 5 special election.
In this election, village voters will be asked for their permission to sell a 3,555-square-foot portion of S. Mill St. between 32 and 36 E. Burdick St.
If voters approve, that portion of S. Mill St. will be abandoned and the street will be moved to the east and rerouted through 38 E. Burdick St.
That puts the street right next door to Sam and Sandy Troutwine’s house at 42 E. Burdick.
Instead of having a quiet house and peaceful old barn for a neighbor to the west, the Troutwines would be living next door to a busy, noisy side-street.
The Troutwines expressed their concerns that such a move would devalue their home of 23 years and eliminate the privacy currently afforded to them by their backyard and their outdoor deck facing 38 E. Burdick St.
Now, I understand why the Oxford Community Development Authority (OCDA) wants to move S. Mill St. The first reason is pedestrian safety.
Officials don’t want S. Mill St. running through the new southeast parking quadrant, dividing it into east and west halves.
They believe forcing pedestrians who park in the eastern portion of the lot to cross S. Mill St. poses a safety hazard to them.
I can definitely see the OCDA’s point here, however, I think pedestrian safety could be increased on S. Mill St. exactly where it is by lowering the speed limit from 25 miles-per-hour to 15 or even 10 mph (which council has the authority to do). I also think pedestrian crosswalks could be installed complete with signs that say, “Stop for pedestrian traffic.”
The second reason – which I believe is the main reason – for the proposed street move is to increase the lot sizes for 32 and 36 E. Burdick, which are owned by the OCDA.
If voters give permission to sell that portion of S. Mill St. and the village agrees to vacate it, half of the former street will be added to 32 E. Burdick and the other half to 36 E. Burdick.
The OCDA believes increasing the sizes of the parcels will increase their commercial development potential and make them easier to sell.
In other words, the OCDA will be able to maximize their return on investment. Unfortunately, maximizing the OCDA’s investment will be at the expense of the Troutwine’s biggest investment, their home.
Placing a busy street such as S. Mill St. next door to the Troutwine’s house will increase its “external obsolence,” which in turn leads to decreased value.
The Troutwines are victims of so-called Progress.
The couple has acknowledged they’re most likely going to lose this battle and pretty much resigned themselves to the fact that S. Mill St. will someday be their new neighbor. I and my little old vote have not.
I cannot, in good conscience, vote to devalue another man’s property, especially that of a fellow resident and neighbor.
The Troutwines have invested 23 years worth of money and sweat into their home. Who am I to take some of that away with one mark on a ballot?
I cannot, in good conscience, vote to take away another man’s privacy, especially that of a fellow resident and neighbor.
The Troutwines enjoy the current peace, quiet and tranquility their backyard deck affords them.
At the June 24 council meeting, Sandy called it their “sanctuary.”
Who am I to take that away this couple’s “sanctuary” with one mark on a ballot?
I cannot, in good conscience, vote to deprive another man of his rights, especially that of a fellow resident and neighbor.
I could easily rationalize that since I live on Park St., the Aug. 5 vote really doesn’t directly impact me, therefore I can vote “yes” and not give it another thought. But that rationalization would be wrong.
Whenever you vote to diminish or take away the rights of others, you’re voting to lessen your own rights.
Whatever government and a majority of voters can take away from one, they can eventually take away from all, they can take away from you.
It’s easy to vote with the majority on an issue that impacts someone else, but what happens when the issue concerns you and suddenly you’re no longer in the majority?
What happens when the comfort and safety of the majority becomes the tyranny of the majority?
It reminds me of what the great 19th century Southern legislator John Randolph once said, “None but the people can forge their own chains.”
Given all the above reasons, I will be voting “NO” on Tuesday, Aug. 5.
But, it’s not a “negative” vote against the OCDA, as some defensive local officials will undoubtedly accuse me of.
It’s a positive vote to protect the Troutwines’ rights, my rights and your rights.
I’m voting my conscience.
I urge you to vote yours.