Part II: Paving Debate of 1979 Revisited

Here is part two in our look at the Dorchester paving debate of 1979. 

The following article appeared in the Lincoln Star a few days earlier than the story we published yesterday.

Lincoln Star – June 29, 1979 

Paving Draws Protests From Some in Dorchester

DORCHESTER – Putting in its first pavement since Main Street (Washington Street) was done in the 1930s, this community is deeper in controversy than concrete. 

 Anti-paving picketers have been walking the business district. Normally quiet village board meetings have drawn 40 to 50 spectators, both pros and cons. Protest signs have sprung up in at least three dozen yards. And the biggest confrontation yet appears certain at next Monday night’s board meeting. 

 At this point, only eight blocks of paving are actually scheduled and four others are just a step from formal approval. The main issue actually is the other 50 to 60 blocks of graveled streets and what the village board has in mind for them. 

State law permits the creation of “gap paving,” mostly two block segments connecting other surfaced streets, so some property owners fear that virtually the entire town will be covered. They say many residents, especially the elderly on fixed incomes, can’t afford the improvements. 

Mayor Bill Moser says the board does intend to fill all the gaps possible but that the total “wouldn’t be more than four or five blocks.” Of the five board members, only Dwain Tyser is aligned with the anti-paving group. 

“People don’t seem to understand that this paving was put in at the request of people within each district,” said Moser, a 45-year-old cafe owner. When 60 percent or more of property owners sign for the front footage, “we’re bound by law to create a district,” he said. 

According to Mayor Moser, the controversy has been building up over the past two or three years. He noted that the board has kept its word by not creating any more districts on its own since trying unsuccessfully to run six blocks of paving from Main Street to the school. 

A petition signed by 288 opponents had been presented to the board. Belva Johnson, who incidentally runs a restaurant just one door from Moser’s, has a current petition showing 124 signatures against paving compared to 15 for. 

“I counted up 89 people in this town living on Social Security or fixed incomes,” said Mrs. Johnson. “A lot of them will lose their houses unless the paving is stopped.” 

Her objections were amplified by rural mail carrier Ed Sandburn, Farmland Foods employee Bob Parham and retiree Sidy Bruha. They say an attorney has suggested either an injunction to halt the paving or a recall petition against four of the five village board members. 

Parham, 25, said his remodeled house on four lots would be hit by about $5,000 in paving assessments. Taxes also would be raised on property fronting improved streets, he noted. 

The objectors also allege “sloppiness” on the few blocks of paving already put in. And they claim the board is wrong in laying pavement without accompanying storm sewers. The board has estimated the paving cost at nearly $21 per front foot. It has also indicated that intersections, to be financed as general tax obligations, would cost about $4,900 each. 

“Just because the law says they can put in gap paving doesn’t mean it's right,” said Sandburn. “The people should have a say.” Although not as visible as the picketing opponents, spokesmen for a pro-paving group say they also will be out in force for Monday’s meeting.

Businessmen Dick Sehnert and Joe Williams claim a backing of at least 110 citizens. “It’s time somebody comes out in support of the village board,” said Sehnert, an auto body repairman. “The board shouldn’t be unfairly ridiculed and harassed when there are 124 people against paving and 110 for. 

People who want paving should have rights the same as those who don’t.” Williams, an electrician, said he believes protesters have exaggerated the situation. “There might be a small percentage of people who would be hit real hard,” he said, “but I don’t feel we should stop progress.”