Poor trade-off

To the editor:

At the public hearing on Sept. 12, I learned that the SLT on 31st Street solves many problems that have nothing to do with it. It is a “win-win” situation, as long as you ignore everything that everyone loses.

Secretary Carlson spoke about how it would help us contain development. He said that we haven’t done a very good job of “saying no to developers.” The comments of Sue Hack and Marty Kennedy, at the hearing and at numerous city commission meetings, are direct evidence of that fact. But, I don’t really think the 32nd Street alignment is the answer to our prayers.

Bob Johnson went on about how the city and county would save money by not having to deal with 31st Street. I guess it would free up county money for him to spend on corporate welfare like DCDI instead of taking care of necessary things, like roads. I was happy to hear Bob say that 31st Street shouldn’t be there in the first place, but I don’t think that an even bigger road right next door is the solution to that problem.

If 32nd Street is such a wonderful plan, then you would think it could stand on its own merits instead of being sold as the solution to unrelated issues by people who are not interested in looking past KDOT’s bribes. The plan is definitely a trade-off. You get a couple minutes of convenience in return for the permanent destruction of a sacred natural habitat.

Adam Mansfield,

Topeka