vision2020
[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index]

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