Laserfiche WebLink
should be paid for. At one level was the <br />belief that all households should have these <br />services and that they be paid for by the all <br />County residents, and at another level was <br />the support for phased construction with <br />funding based on service fees and a sewer <br />and water taxing district. What seemed to <br />be agreed upon the most was that action <br />should be taken as soon as possible. The <br />residents in this area feel that they have not <br />received their fair share of public services. <br /> <br />Other services and utilities were only <br />discussed briefly if at all. There was no <br />discussion of the need for natural gas, cable <br />television or other services. <br /> <br />TRANSPORTATION ISSUES <br /> <br />Area residents expressed concern about the <br />condition of some secondary roads and <br />bridges, but for the most part the issues that <br />were raised concerned the main roads. Many <br />of these issues have been resolved, or can <br />only be resolved through the NC <br />Department of Transportation, but others fall <br />under local control. <br /> <br />Many of the bridges in the area are <br />substandard and need improvement. US 601, <br />both north and south of NC 24/27 contains <br />many potholes that need to be fixed. And <br />some of the roads that intersect or nm <br />parallel to NC 24/27 are experiencing <br />problems due to the lengthy construction <br />project on 24/27. <br /> <br />There is concern from the staff that both the <br />main highways and secondary roads be <br />protected from excessive encroachment. The <br />need for protection will be even greater as <br />NC 24/27 is improved and pressure to <br /> <br />develop along it increases. Rural areas will <br />also have greater development pressure and <br />controls will need to be put in place to <br />ensure both the integrity of the <br />transportation system and the preservation of <br />rural character. <br /> <br />Residents expressed concern in the 1991 <br />planning process that little was being done <br />to protect rail corridors for possible public <br />mass transit development. A related goal <br />was that these corridors could possibly be <br />developed for trail or bike paths to improve <br />non-motorized transportation in the area. <br /> <br />LIVABILITY ISSUES <br /> <br />Livability issues and goals are those that fall <br />into the general category of quality of life. <br />They were topics that were discussed largely <br />under the question "what are the best things <br />about the Midland area, and what are the <br />worst?" The best things entail a list of <br />things to be protected and preserved, while <br />the worst should elicit recommendations to <br />help address and correct the problems. Once <br />again these items are inextricably related to <br />the preceding issues so that some repetition <br />is impossible to avoid. <br /> <br />Most of the responses to the question of <br />what is best about this area related to the <br />people and the character of the area. Other <br />responses identified the cleanliness, low <br />crime, strong churches and attachment to <br />schools. <br /> <br />The responses to the question of what are <br />the worst things in the area, focused on <br />services. Residents cited the lack of water, <br />sewer, and other governmental services. <br />Tied directly to this were the resultant lack <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br /> <br />