To the editor:

Opponents of the 32nd Street alignment are free to disagree with Les Hannon’s opinion that the 32nd Street alignment would be in the best interests of the wetlands. However, Mike Ford, in his Feb. 27 response, made statements that I feel are disingenuous.

First, he alleges that the environmental impact statement was rigged in favor of 32nd Street. Opponents of the trafficway made similar allegations of the 1990 EIS used to build the western leg. A court found their allegations without merit and, if anything, the EIS process faced more scrutiny the second time around.

Mr. Ford is correct that the area was originally a wetland area; however, to reverse the effects of draining and farming, Baker was required to make significant changes to the property. To me, this places the Baker wetlands in the category of “restored” wetlands.

Past comments made by wetland supporters indicate that they feel that 31st Street should not have been built in the first place. Even if Mayor Highberger were successful in convincing the state to go with the 42nd Street alternative, the current trafficway opponents would shift their focus to removing 31st Street or opposing its widening.

I believe that the 32nd Street alternative would be the best solution for the Baker Wetlands and the 31st Street corridor.

Richie Kennedy,

Lawrence