Re: Rebuttal to US95 South

["Dan Carscallen" <predator75@moscow.com>]

Chuck,

 

Believe me, I have no desire to have north Idaho turn into the I-5 corridor.  I seriously doubt it will.  Also, I didn't move here to enjoy this way of life, I was born here, but I appreciate all forms of progress.  Would you rather all highways stay 2-lane goat trails?  (probably)

 

What really gets me is that all these people against this realignment say this has been "sprung on them" all of a sudden.  That couldn't be further from the truth.  There have been hearings going on for the last three years.  Where were you then?  None of this has been a secret.  But now, since this is nearing finalization, everyone feels they must jump in.  There has been time for public comment, and that time has passed and the best route has been chosen.

 

Dan Carscallen

-----Original Message-----
From: charris@uidaho.edu <charris@uidaho.edu>
To: Dan Carscallen <XRPredator@dirtrider.net>
Cc: Vision2020 <vision2020@moscow.com>
Date: Sunday, June 30, 2002 10:58 AM
Subject: Re: Rebuttal to US95 South

> Chuck,
>
> I realize that some of those people who live on the current route of
> US95 seem self-serving (I personally don't live there), but can you
> say that you're not?  Would you be so adamantly opposed to the highway
> realignment if you lived on the east side of Paradise Ridge?  And
> they're not sacrificing the ridge.  The deer (and moose, foxes,
> coyotes, turkeys, etc.) will still have plenty of habitat on the
> preserved portion of Paradise ridge, as well as in the Blaine area. 

A DOT engineer told Mike Snow the traffic would "thin out the herd"?!!!

>
> As for the development issue, it all begins with people who move to
> the rural settings, then expect the same services they received when
> they lived in the more urban areas.  Most people who move to "the
> country" are ill-prepared and ill-equipped for the harsh realities
> that they encounter. 
>
> Personally, just as a member of the public, I am looking forward to a
> 4-lane North-South highway for the state of Idaho.  This is the 21st
> century, after all. 

Dan, I'd encourage you to move to the I-5 corridor south of Portland (where they
now have bumper-to-bumper traffic on a 4-laner, and will likely will be expanding to
six, knowing DOTs)... or Seattle, or LA, or wherever, since those high-speed,
developed, totally out-of-control places are your vision for the future of N. ID.  Leave
this region to those of us who want an alternative to that?!

Thanks,

Chuck


The realignment of US95 best serves the public
> interest, and that is the main concern of ITD. 
>
> But, I don't have the letters "Dr." before my name, so I guess my
> opinion is just the silly ramblings of an uneducated member of the
> public and doesn't carry as much weight.
>
> Dan Carscallen
>     -----Original Message-----
>     From: charris@uidaho.edu <charris@uidaho.edu>
>     To: Tim W. Clyde <tclyde@moscow.com>
>     Cc: Vision2020 <vision2020@moscow.com>
>     Date: Thursday, June 27, 2002 9:17 AM
>     Subject: Rebuttal to US95 South
>
>
>     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. > > > >  > > > >  > > > >
>
>
>

Dr. Chuck Harris, Professor
College of Natural Resources
University of Idaho
Moscow, ID  83844-1139
208-885-6514
FAX 208-885-6226