vision2020
Re: US highway 95 discussion
If your comments aren't personal attacks, then none are.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tim W. Clyde" <tclyde@moscow.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 10:37 PM
Subject: US highway 95 discussion
> This discussion is being reduced to personal attacks, but that's not
> what this is about. The first things I'm addressing here are safety,
> the so called 'native' plants, and the view.
>
> As for the safety issue, the choice is a no brainer. Route 10A is by
> far better. On 10A the accesses can be limited, the building can be
> controlled. Access roads can be added when population calls for it.
>
> On the environment and the view, the people who have pushed roads in and
> have built houses have already destroyed that. For us who have lived
> here for a long time, the houses on the ridge are an eye sore! It makes
> me laugh that the people building the houses on the ridge had no problem
> digging up the ground for their foundations and roads, but when someone
> wants to do something for the good of the majority, then the
> environmental sh#@ hits the fan.
>
> And then there is the native plants argument. Since the entire ridge
> has been farmed or hayed or pastured in the not so distant past, the
> native plants were gone long ago. If they have somehow survived, isn't
> it possible they are strong enough and determined enough to take over
> the road banks and flourish again?
>
> If Route 6 is chosen, maybe all those who lose homes and businesses
> should relocate to Paradise Ridge. Since individual homes are seem
> somehow pallatable, that would be a compromise worth looking into.
>
> Tim Clyde
>
>
>
>
Back to TOC