User:Wmcouche/sandbox/eminentdomainstpete

Title: I-275

Section Outline:

Route description

• Southern Terminus to St. Petersburg

• St. Petersburg

• Tampa
• Lane configurations

History

• Initial construction in Tampa
• Controversy and repeated delays in Pinellas
  • I will be adding my new section into this part of the article
• Reconstruction and later changes
• Other improvements
• Naming of the highway

In popular culture

Services

Exit list

See also

References

Wiki I-275 Section (Copied from I-275 page, no intent to claim ownership of the writing)

Around 1970, plans for the extension of I-75 into Pinellas County began. However, the first round of local opposition would lead to the eventual (and repeated) delays of I-75 through St. Petersburg. The first setback was led by 4th Street business owners and residents who demanded that construction on I-75 be stopped, since the bridge was already funneling unwanted traffic into the corridor. It has since seen many unforeseen business and residential booms, due to the building of this bridge. At the same time, construction began on I-75 from Roosevelt Boulevard to about 38th Avenue North. By this time, I-4 was truncated to "Malfunction Junction," allowing the I-75 designation take over the freeway from the junction to 4th Street North. This segment was opened to traffic in 1973, with the gap between Roosevelt and 9th Street filled in a few years later. Around this time, I-75 was resigned I-275, and after some more local opposition, I-275 was constructed to meander down to 5th Avenue N, near downtown St. Petersburg, in 1975. The original plans called for I-75 to end in Tampa One of the largest setbacks for I-275 occurred in the mid-1970s when it was proposed to go through southwest St. Petersburg towards the Sunshine Skyway Bridge. Heavy community opposition delayed construction for several years. Eventually, numerous homes and businesses were torn down and several churches were relocated. Financial burdens through this part of the project caused further delays. However, I-375 opened partially to traffic in 1979, with full operation by 1981, and I-175 opened up in 1980.

With both downtown feeders now open, I-275 was extended to 28th Street South. However, another round of community revolts delayed the segment of I-275 between 28th Street South and 22nd Avenue South. In spite of the delay, the stretch was built by 1981. Exit 20 was configured for an anticipated westward expansion to a planned Pinellas Beltway. A freeway revolt killed many of Pinellas County's freeways during the 1970s, and repeatedly delayed the construction of I-275. In addition, the Summit Venture disaster on May 9, 1980, during which the freighter Summit Venture took down one of the two spans of the Sunshine Skyway and killed 35 people, reduced a portion of I-275 to two lanes until the opening of the present bridge in April 1987.

In 1982, the segment between 22nd Avenue South and 39th Avenue South was opened to traffic. The Pinellas Bayway/US 19 interchange, opened to traffic in 1983-84, is inverted for about half a mile. The reason for this configuration is unknown; however, to this day, traffic continues to flow smoothly through the interchange with very little congestion. At about the same time this interchange opened, I-275 was completed from the Sunshine Skyway Bridge to the southern terminus with I-75 in Manatee County.

When the new Sunshine Skyway Bridge opened in 1987, the final link of I-275, between US 19 and the bridge, was completed and opened to traffic.

The underlined paragraph will be replaced with the two paragraphs below. The other alternative is to add the two paragraphs just below the underlined paragraph.

I-275 First Draft--Will

This will be replace a small paragraph in the Controversy and repeated delays section of the I-275 article

The construction of I-275 over nearly a 50 year period between 1970 and 2016 uprooted many Black families in the Methodist Town, Gas Plant and Twenty-Second Street neighborhoods. These practices of eminent domain by the St. Petersburg government helped to shut down small companies in these neighborhoods, and sustained White businesses that were located more centrally.^[1] Families in the Gas Plant neighborhood were assured good jobs at Tropicana Field to help ease the burden of moving. During the 1970s, the government removed 285 buildings and 500 families to help build the interstate which cost $11.3 million.^[2] The widespread demolition included 10 African American churches.^[3] The families in the bulldozed Gas Plant neighborhood were guaranteed cheaper homes and 600 new jobs by the city, but these offers were never delivered.^[4]

Many members in the affected neighborhoods found the actions taken by the government to be very controversial. In 1977 Mr. Chester James was appointed by the city government as the representative from Methodist Town to vote on the future development plans of his neighborhood. However, the city's unclear plans led him to vote in favor of evicting 377 families (including his own) from the neighborhood.^[1] There is also contention about the location of I-275 in Southwest St. Petersburg, as its current placement is very similar to that of the 1935 segregation initiative perimeter^[4].

Sources:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26384876?seq=25#metadata_info_tab_contents

https://digital.usfsp.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4057&context=fac_publications

Where Have All the Mangoes Gone?

https://www.aaroads.com/florida/pinellas/

https://www.cltampa.com/arts-entertainment/culture/article/20979173/city-wilds-gas-plant-imagining-a-lost-neighborhood

https://digital.usfsp.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1219&context=honorstheses

I-175 First Draft (Jack)

The I-175 road in St.Petersburg, Florida covers a near 1.5 mile radius. It extends from the northern side of Tropicana field to the intersection of 4th Street and 5th Ave South. Throughout its middle there are exits on 6th street, 8th street, and 9th street North. There is no exit past the baseball stadium, as the interstate then merges to become I-375 past the landmark. Similar to I-275, the building of the I-175 in 1970 was postponed due to local protest. It took until April of 1980 to complete the process due to the local dissatisfaction (mainly within the African-American community at the time). I-175 put a border in place between low and high-income housing. This made transportation for years (until further highway construction took place) in St.Petersburg much more difficult for the low-income communities.

I-275 Reflections (Will):

The I-275 Wiki article seems to have had a lot of work put into it. There are seven sections of legitimate information that are covered in great detail. The one thing that needs to be done to the article is in regards to the citations. Although the page has a reference list at the bottom of the page, it appears that there is a lack of in text citations. This was mentioned a lot in the training so I am surprised it has been overlooked in the talk page. The page is followed by three different groups that are in Tampa Bay. There is a lot of discussion and feedback within the articles talk page which further highlights there has been a lot of work done with this article. The major issue in the article is its organization. Much of the talk page emphasizes the confusing layout and how it needs to be altered to make it more cohesive. I think adding a piece of Eminent Domain will help provide greater understanding for readers. I think that my draft has a good reference list, especially for how short it is. All of the sources I chose provide great unbiased information that I have incorporated. The only thing I could add would be further testimony to how the government tricked people into moving away. I am not sure any further graphics will help enhance my section of the article. There are already a lot of images within the current article and adding more would only add to the layout issues.

I-175 Reflections (Jack):

The I-175 Wiki article sufficed in explaining the geographical design of the interstate, but did not go very in depth when explaining the "local opposition" that took place throughout a delayed construction. The page works well for those looking into the highway's layout for directional purposes. This is understandable of course, as Wiki pages are put in place to define vaguely rather than inform greatly. I however, believe a few more inclusions of what the building of I-175 meant for the community at the time should be included.

Plans:

Jack- Write two paragraphs on I-175

Will- Write two paragraphs on I-275

Ciaran

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way? - You do a good job of expanding on what the article already has.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?- I wouldn't change anything.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? - I think it is already written well and does not require any improvements.
4. Is the new content’s length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?- From what I can see it does not seem to be unnecessary. It seems that due to its importance the length is good.
5. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.- The article does a good job of remaining neutral during the sections.
6. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?- All the sources seem to be reliable newspapers or journals.
7. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! - You guys have a lot of details that you guys do a good job of smoothly transitioning too.

Jaleesa 1.) First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way? - The article does well in expanding on the information that I believe is much needed in the history/ controversy of highways.

2.) What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? - I enjoy what is written. I like the idea of replacing the underlines paragraph with the two paragraphs under it. I think it flows better and gives more needed and to date information.

3.) What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? - I like what has been done. Just making sure everything flows together well.

4.) Is the new content’s length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? - I think the length works well. Nothing seems unnecessary.

5.) Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. -The changes do not focus on negatives or positives. I think it works.

6.) Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? - they seem to be connected to reliable sources such as journal articles.

7.) Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! - I think the amount of information and references sited are really good to make your changes strong and my group could really use that in our own!

Alina

1. First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way? The article does a great job of expanding on the highways and the cause of so many black people losing their homes.
2. What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement? I dont think it needs any improvements because replacing the two lines that were underlined with two paragraphs to expand the information.
3. What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? Ensuring the whole article flows well which is does a good job of already.
4. Is the new content’s length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? From what I read, it does not look like anything is unnecessary and the length seems great for its importance.
5. Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. Although what is written is sad, the article does a great job at remaining neutral.
6. Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? The sources are reliable as they are newspaper articles and journal articles.
7. Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know! There is a good use of many reliable sources that my article could use more of but is hard to find since its a subject not written about much

Hannah Clarke

1.    First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?

I think you guys conveyed the information in a very concise manner. I also think the way that you wrote/organized the information fits into the already existing article.

2.    What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

When you say “one of the biggest controversies” you’re imputing your own opinion/bias. Also, just to make it more to the point I would say “During the 1970s” and remove the “In total” part altogether. I personally think it flows a little better.

3.    What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article?

I think it would be really helpful to include a picture to be able to show where the neighborhoods are in relation to each other and I-275.

4.    Is the new content’s length equal to its importance to the article's subject? Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic?

You could expand on what the externalities of the cheaper, reconstructed neighborhoods were. For example, a huge loss of community. You could use the bunch of newspaper articles we read in the being of the year to explain what the cheaper houses were like-I remember there was one explaining this. It talked about like everything breaking and them not being able to afford repairs.

5.    Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic.

I think it says really neutral. I’d just change the “biggest controversy” part…or was that something Chester James said?

6.    Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors?

From the reference list, they all seem like reputable sources. Yay.

7.    Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!

It looks like you didn’t overuse a certain article too much. Your information is well spread out over your three different sources. In ours we use articles 1 and 2 a bit too much which is something we should change.

Robert Deane

First, what does the article do well? Is there anything from your review that impressed you? Any turn of phrase that describes the subject in a clear way?

What changes would you suggest the author apply to the article? Why would those changes be an improvement?

What's the most important thing the author could do to improve the article? I think that besides a little bit of leading language there are no major issues.

Is the new content’s length equal to its imprtance to the article's subject?. Are there sections in the article that seem unnecessary? Is anything off-topic? All of the information seems to be very clear, and factual.

Does the article focus too much on negative or positive information? Remember, neutral doesn't mean "the best positive light" or "the worst, most critical light." It means a clear reflection of various aspects of a topic. I don't really know if there is much positive to the information here, the only possible "positive" things coming from this is increased commerce but there is no real way to track that so I think it's fine.

Are most statements in the article connected to a reliable source, such as textbooks and journal articles? Or do they rely on blogs or self-published authors? All of the references seemed to be good to me.

Did you notice anything about the article you reviewed that could be applicable to your own article? Let them know!