Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ of Paris <br /> <br />Stud~ of Lake Crook <br /> <br />March, 2001- <br /> <br />certainly not on emotion. There are 'certain to be some persons not pleased with the <br />recommendations herein but these recommendations will be based on what the consultant <br />considers to be sound principles of development. <br /> <br />1.4 <br /> <br />PUBLIC PARTICIPATION <br /> <br />1.4.1 Pub Ii e Hearings. Certainly the pub lie has been kept we 11 informed on this subject. If they <br />are not so infonned then they have failed to listen to the radio, read the newspaper, open their <br />water bills, or attend one of the two public meetings set aside for citizen input. Approximately <br />two hundred persons attended the first public hearing held in November, 2000 and over three <br />hundred attended the second hearing held in February, 2001. Every citizen wanting the <br />opportunity was given the chance to step to the microphone and voice his or her sentiments <br />concerning Lake Crook. Individuals were represented. Hunting, shooting, and wildlife groups <br />were present. And economic development supporters, builders and developers were also present. <br /> <br />1.4.2 S ta ff parti ci pa ti 0 D. City 0 f Paris staff were instrumental in pro viding the consultant with <br />backgro und data. The City Atto mey' S office provided deeds and histo rical info rma tio n on Lake <br />Crook. The engineering department furIÚshed water and sewer data and aerial photographs. The <br />police chief furnished infonnation on police efforts to monitor the existing park land and relevant <br />historical data on criminal activity in the vicinity. Public works provided maintenance and <br />development data pertaining to the ongoing efforts to improve the public park on the south <br />shores. And finally, the city manager's office sent out surveys to 9900 citizens and the city <br />manager's secretary tabulated the results. <br /> <br />1.4.3 <br /> <br />Comments and Interviews. The consultant was able to conduct brief but beneficial <br />interviews in person, via e-mail or on the telephone with several parties including the <br />Dallas Off Road Bicycling Association, the Wild Turkey Federation; representatives of <br />Archers for Christ, Paris Gun Club and Maxey Rifle and Black powder Club; several <br />local Paris home builders and developers; Realtors; and neighbors of Lake Crook. <br /> <br />1.4.4 Surveys. A survey was developed and mailed to 9900 residential water customers seeking <br />their comments on the use of Lake Crook and 1,473 responded for a response rate of 14.91%, <br />c usto mary £0 r this type 0 f survey. None 0 £ tho se surveyed lived in apartments since they are not <br />directly billed for water. Some of the questions came ITom the consultant and others ITom <br />members ofthe staff. The survey, although it contained fairly straight forward language, became <br />an opportunity for many people to vent on everything from Lake Crook to trash collection in the <br />city. The following summarizes each of the questions in the survey: <br /> <br />Qllestion: Given tile clloice behVeen tile two following options do YOll favor <br />development of the property for picnicking, camping, hiking and similar recreational <br />purposes OR do favor pres ervati on oft he land as a n at ural park in a 1/10 re II n distil rbed <br />condition? <br /> <br />1,381 persons responded to this question with 80.3% favoring development of the <br />land for recreational use over preservation as a natural park. Some side-bar <br /> <br />Page 4 of .45 <br />