Rebuttal to US95 South

[charris@uidaho.edu]

Folks,

Okay, I'll bite -- but this will be my last word rebutting on this topic (though not on 
stopping ITD!!!)

I have been concerned about the ridge since long before I moved up here -- fought 
along side of Mary Butters to reverse Palouse Country Radio's illegal building of a 
radio tower up here, then getting a permit to do so...

As for property development, as Tom Townsend noted in a DN letter a couple of 
months ago unrelated to HW95, small acreages with native grasses that provide 
habitat for deer, turkey, pheasant, and other wildlife sure does more to preserve a 
natural setting than sprawling subdivisions of houses packed in on top of one-
another and monoculture agriculture that requires spraying of banned herbicides 
and other known poisons.  

I know, I know, we all eat, and we gotta live somewhere, etc.  And that includes the 
bunch of folks who chose to buy property or settle along a major north-south 
highway.  (I looked at several of those properties when looking around to buy, and 
decided no way did I want to live near that highway.)  So I don't blame them for 
regreting a bad choice and wanting to live on a county road instead of that current 
highway.

What does bother me is the equally self-serving approach of those along the 
highway (some of whom I thought were fairly progressive folks) who have not said, 
let's find a compromise, but are ready to sacrifice the ridge.  I'd bet you dollars to 
donuts, Tim, Lisa and Dan, that a bunch of those folks, if they didn't live along 95, 
would be in opposition to 10A too.  They have to sleep with that, I don't.

But you're right, we're all pots calling the kettle black -- so excuse my unveiled 
sarcasm when I say, "What the heck, let's just pave and develop it all -- heck, 
develop Moscow to the max, and if we're lucky it'll eventually look like LA.  That's 
progress, why try to stop it?"

But if we go down that road, I'll eventually be moving on to an area that has more 
sense, that has taken the care to maintain its quality, and whose residents, more of 
their integrity.

Time will tell -- it's going to be an interesting couple of years!

Cheers,

Chuck Harris


> Finally!!!  Someone writes some common sense!!
> 
> The pristine view of Paradise Ridge hasn't been pristine since the
> houses were built on the ridge, at least not for those looking up
> toward the ridge.  If route 10A spoils the view for a couple families,
> but makes traveling safer for hundreds more, the choice is simple.
> 
> As for the native plants argument, there hasn't been native plants
> there for decades.  That ridge has been pastured, farmed, and hayed
> for many years.  I would be interested in knowing what plants and
> grasses are being considered a native.
> 
> If route 6 is the choice, busses will have to stop to pick up kids on
> a divided hiway with a speed limit of 65 mph.  This is not a
> satisfactory option.  Bus turnouts would have to be created for every
> bus stop and then as families move, new turnouts will have to be
> created.  Busses will have to enter 65mph traffic while traveling to
> the next stop, never attaining the same speed as the flow of traffic.
> 
> Route 10A will have limited accesses and the current highway will be a
> safer option for busses when all the truck and heavy traffic is
> diverted to the new highway.  Farmers moving equipment can use the old
> highway and will not slow the traffic on the new divided highway.
> 
> The argument of preserving the natural habitat and native plants of
> Paradise Ridge is a smoke screen for a few people to protect their own
> 'pristine' views. Meanwhile hundreds of others are impacted and safety
> forgotten.
> 
> Tim and Lisa Clyde
> 
> Dan Carscallen wrote:
> 
> >  
> >
> >  
> >
> > How come every time I read or hear something from somebody about the
> > proposed Route 10A, they say how "pristine" and "unspoiled" Paradise
> > Ridge is?  Do they not know that all those "native grasses" used to
> > be farm ground?  Don't they know that when Moscow was first settled
> > there wasn't a single tree on top of that ridge?  If these people
> > want to get everything back to the "way things were", then we have a
> > lot of work to do. 
> >
> >  
> >
> > I am more saddened by the number of people who have built the houses
> > on Paradise Ridge, taking away natural habitat by encroaching on it.
> >  There is far less impact on the wild creatures by a highway than by
> > people creating a suburban area.
> >
> >  
> >
> >  
> >
> 
>