Looking Back: Dorchester's Great Paving Debate Of 1979

Nothing generates as much hardened controversy in Dorchester as the question of whether to pave the streets. Years ago, the staff of the Dorchester Times discovered that firsthand. 

In 2007, one reader told us that he lived through the last "paving push" and saw it nearly tear apart the town. He added: "I hope before you drag this issue through the mud that you have done your homework. You seem to be a big pusher of improvement, but not once have I heard how to pay for it. ... It might pay for you to personally do some homework on costs before you push things. ... Learn from history."

With a challenge like that, the Times uncovered news articles from the summer of 1979, when the Lincoln Star covered Dorchester's great paving debate. Today, we are republishing one of those articles below. (The other is available here.)

The passage of time has a strange way of shedding light on matters, making it easier for new generations to see things more clearly and allowing them to chose the best way forward. What was decided more than four decades ago may not be right for today or the future. Therefore, it's worth sharing these articles, especially with those too young to remember. 

Now, let's revisit 1979 and the discussion that embroiled our community...

Lincoln Journal - July 3, 1979

Paving is Hot Topic in Dorchester

DORCHESTER – What, in a town of 630 on a warm summer’s evening, does it take to get 120 people to a village board meeting? Paving.

That was about the only thing decided here Monday night as folks got together to discuss the only topic in town hotter than the temperature inside the community center.

With the group apparently split about 2-to-1 against paving, emotions soared during the two-hour session. Yet, almost like a family spat, nobody was called anything worse than his first name – which happened repeatedly.

Technically the session was called for the routine creation of three districts involving only four blocks of paving. But most of the argument centered on the “gap paving” that Mayor Bill Moser says they board probably will order in later.

The mayor says even the gap total probably will not exceed four or five blocks, but opponents fear it will eventually checkerboard most of the town. They contend numerous older people as well as young home owners will lose their properties if the paved segments are put in.

“I lived on a farm and walked in both dirt and manure and it didn’t hurt me,” said Belva Johnson, cafe owner and outspoken opponent of the $21-per-front-foot paving. “If it wasn’t for dirt, how many farmers could have come to town and retired?”

That was one of several comments drawing applause. But so did a remark by proponent and retired farmer Hans Weber that “dirt streets don’t bring people into town.” Paving is “good for the town,” he continued. "Name me one little town around here that doesn’t have paving.”

Several others echoed Weber’s sentiments, saying it should be within their rights to have paving if desired. Approximately 30 to 40 persons stood up when asked how many persons present favor surfacing.

Two young wives, Cindy Meyers and Sally Danekas, said their families would not have moved to Dorchester had they known paving – which would be the town’s first since the 1930s – would be contemplated.

This brought a retort from businessman Dick Sehnert who asked, “Where exactly would you have moved? There’s paving in Friend and Wilber and Crete, too...”

Attorney Merritt James of Lincoln, representing the Walton Construction Co., which has the paving contract, said the firm had been “unfairly chastised” by published remarks critical of the firm’s work. Both Mrs. Johnson and Sidy Bruha said they had received requests by letter but refused to change their opinion.

“The company feels that never in 40 years of doing business has it been so unfairly attacked,” continued James. He insisted that the complaints actually derived from job specifications to which the contractor is complying.

The board unanimously approved two of the three small districts, both created by at least the 60 percent of affected property owners required by law. Because of a legal description error, the third district will have to be re-advertised.