Archive for Wednesday, November 7, 2007
Local fight promised against SLT in wetlands
Environmentalists say federal decision hasn’t lessened their resolve
November 7, 2007
Advertisement
Battle for Baker Wetlands begins
The Battle for the Baker Wetlands is about to begin. A federal decision paves the way to finally fund the completion of the South Lawrence Trafficway - but it may also open the door to litigation. Enlarge video
South Lawrence Trafficway: 32nd and 42nd St. options
Let the trench-digging begin.
One day after federal regulators took a major step in approving a project to build the South Lawrence Trafficway through the Baker Wetlands, preparations already were under way Wednesday to convert the wetlands into a battleground.
“I can tell you that the environmental community and the Haskell community are as committed as ever to protecting the wetlands and not losing one square inch of the wetlands to highway construction,” said Bob Eye, a Lawrence resident who serves as an attorney for the Wetlands Preservation Organization.
Threats of a lawsuit over the decision by the Federal Highway Administration to allow a 32nd Street route for the uncompleted bypass project are not a surprise. Eye and his group successfully halted the project in federal court in the 1990s.
“You’d have to be foolish to think that a lawsuit won’t be filed,” said Douglas County Commissioner Bob Johnson, a supporter of completing the road through the wetlands.
But Johnson said the Federal Highway Administration’s rulings this week bolster the project’s legal standing. The decision represents another federal agency that believes completing the road through the wetlands is the most “prudent and feasible” option available. In 2003, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers also reached that conclusion.
Technically, the Federal Highway Administration took two actions this week. First, the department agreed to adopt the Environmental Impact Statement that was approved by the Corps of Engineers in 2003. It looks at the environmental impact the road would have on adjacent property. Regulators also adopted a report called a 4(f) evaluation, which looks at whether the road would affect the historical and cultural value of adjacent property.
Both reports found that the wetland route — known as a 32nd Street alignment — was better than a 42nd Street route that would avoid the wetlands by going south of the Wakarusa River.
Support for route
Among the reasons the regulators gave for supporting the wetland route:
• The wetland route does the best job of routing regional traffic around the city and taking some local traffic off of streets such as 23rd and 31st streets and Haskell Avenue. In total, the report estimates that the 32nd Street route will result in 240 fewer vehicle accidents during a 20-year period than the 42nd Street route.
• The wetland route will cost less to construct. The 32nd Street route is estimated to cost $147.9 million to complete. The 42nd Street option is estimated at $166.9 million.
• Traffic on Haskell Avenue will increase significantly if the road is built south of the Wakarusa River. The report estimates — based on traffic models — that traffic on Haskell would be 4,200 cars per day greater with a 42nd Street route than a 32nd Street route.
• The 32nd Street route — the route that would run the road through the wetlands — would actually provide a net benefit to the wetlands area. That’s because state transportation leaders already have committed to do a significant mitigation project if the road is built on 32nd Street.
The package includes moving Haskell Avenue east and Louisiana Street west from their current locations to provide a natural buffer area for the wetlands. The buffer area would be converted into man-made wetlands. The buffer area also would house a 10,000-square-foot wetland and educational center run by Baker University. Baker also would be provided an annuity designed to fund future maintenance of the wetlands. Campgrounds and parking sites to make the wetlands more accessible also would be located in the buffer area.
The project also includes noise walls designed to shelter the wetlands from the road.
Opponents not happy
The mitigation package has not impressed opponents of the project. Michael Caron, executive director of the Save the Wakarusa Wetlands Organization, said the mitigation package won’t make up for having multiple lanes of traffic run through the environmentally sensitive area. He said there will be too much light, noise, air and water pollution from the project.
“There will still be some life left in the wetlands, but it will be the equivalent of pigeons, rats and cockroaches that survive any disaster,” Caron said.
Eye said he’s confident his group will find several legal arguments to make to challenge the Federal Highway’s rulings. The main one, he said, is that the regulators didn’t make a good-faith effort to identify a prudent route south of the Wakarusa River. Eye contends the 42nd Street route was chosen by regulators to study because they knew it wouldn’t compare well to the 32nd Street route.
“It was an intellectually dishonest process,” Eye said.
Doug Hecox, a spokesman with the Federal Highway Administration, said that wasn’t accurate.
“It is a difficult process, and we know there will be a number of people who disagree with the conclusion,” Hecox said. “But we want them to understand that it is not a conclusion that was arrived at lightly.”
Lawmakers’ praise
The rulings were drawing praise from several members of the state’s congressional delegation. U.S. Sens. Pat Roberts and Sam Brownback and Rep. Todd Tiahrt released a joint statement Wednesday expressing optimism that the project could begin moving forward again.
They said the project “is critical for safety and the economic development of the Kansas Technology Corridor. We must look to the future and make this investment to help create the bioscience and high-tech corridor from Manhattan to Topeka to Lawrence to Kansas City.”
The federal support is expected to be critical for the project. Once the Federal Highway Administration issues the final Record of Decision — expected to happen in about 30 days — the project will become eligible for federal funding. Federal and state funding — which likely will be sought as part of a new comprehensive transportation plan for the state — is expected to pay for the bulk of the project.
7 November 2007 at 11:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
situveux1 (Anonymous) says…
Build it already!
7 November 2007 at 11:25 p.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bangaranggerg (Anonymous) says…
Please don't feed the Trolls Ljworld. The people opposing this at this point are really reaching.
8 November 2007 at 2:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
lounger (Anonymous) says…
Leave the wetlands alone. Do you people have any Idea what it cost to reconstruct wetlands? Let alone the Idea of reconstruction doesnt always work. Best left alone these wetlands—do not touch or evil spirits will enter your being and suck up your soul. So please go away and let the beautiful land and the amazing creatures be…..
8 November 2007 at 3:26 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
manus_flexibilis (Anonymous) says…
use the funding to bring home our fellow americans?
8 November 2007 at 3:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KS (Anonymous) says…
Let the pavers roll. This is a disgrace to our town that it has not been built yet.
8 November 2007 at 5:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…
Hands off the wetlands, asphalt humpers.
8 November 2007 at 5:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
moveforward (Anonymous) says…
lounger says…
Leave the wetlands alone. Do you people have any Idea what it cost to reconstruct wetlands?
Yes, from the first time they were built. These are manmade wetlands (such a silly fashion back in the day)
spywell says…
Everyone should get a good look at this… bla bla
A revisionist history lesson is not terribly helpful or just.
Quit wasting out time and so many resources. Build the road. Build roads proactively. Think about the future and plan for it. What Lawrence does not need is obstructionist that fight good things, just for sport or out of their own frustration. Be productive and stop living in the 'anti' world.
8 November 2007 at 5:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bowhunter99 (Anonymous) says…
Opponents will complain at any options… They were all on the 42nd street bandwagon and now that option is a bad one as well… they just want to stop progress…
Merrill should be stopping by soon w/ his mindless copy and paste and agree with oracle about nonsense…
Let's build it … They've already came…
8 November 2007 at 5:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
ridinthefence (Anonymous) says…
NOT ridinthefence on this one folks! LOOK at the need people! Listen to the residents of Douglas County for heavens sake and build it!
8 November 2007 at 5:51 a.m.
Permalink
northtown (Anonymous) says…
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
8 November 2007 at 6:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
cms (Anonymous) says…
Every article written should preceed the words Baker wetlands with manmade. Manmade Baker wetlands.
8 November 2007 at 6:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
There is a long American tradition at stake here. When the percieved needs of white people come up against the interests of Indians, Indians always lose. So in addition to the desire for paving the wetlands with “progress,” the tradition of white people always getting what they want from Indians needs to be upheld. Otherwise, it could set an awful precedent, and there are millions of acres of Indian lands that white people will want to “take back” some day.
8 November 2007 at 6:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Jean1183 (Anonymous) says…
Build it NOW!
8 November 2007 at 6:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
oldvet (Anonymous) says…
Just a replay of WalMart… An expensive lawsuit that will drain our taxes and that will be lost in the end and the road will be built… Let's only hope a judge says it is the same old thing and throws it out before we spend a ton of money for a foregone conclusion… Let's get it built!
8 November 2007 at 6:05 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
dmcclain (Anonymous) says…
The most factual and best information in all of the above is the fact; “these are manmade wetlands.”
I have visited other areas of the USA that have built roads through wetlands, and when done right have actually helped the wetlands prosper.
Wake up and help get this done right, rather than fighting to promote people moving out and leaving the town to die from deterioration due to infighting.
8 November 2007 at 6:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
topekan7 (Anonymous) says…
This isn't news.
8 November 2007 at 6:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
Bob Eye = just another reason lawyers have the reputation of pond scum or in this case swamp scum.
Build it.
8 November 2007 at 6:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
“Let the trench-digging begin.”
Is the LJW asking us to start draining the swamp?
8 November 2007 at 6:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
It is really to early for all this need more coffee. If it is figured out while I get awake send out a news flash.
8 November 2007 at 6:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
Obviously, blueharley, your lack of integrity makes it hard for you to recognize it in others.
8 November 2007 at 6:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
bozo - I bet you admire Al Sharpton too! LOL!
8 November 2007 at 6:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
What does Al Sharpton have to do with this?
8 November 2007 at 7:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logrithmic (Anonymous) says…
There's nothing “legal” about this truckway.
1) Illegal bonds without a referendum issued at the startup in 1987 - overturned in court in 1990 due to a lawsuit by a brave and courageous Les Blevins.
2) Slanted coverage by news media leading up to the 1990 referendum.
3) Haskell's supposed giveaway of the wetlands in the 1950s to Baker (Haskell at the time was controlled by government bureaucrats - not by Native Americans. The Indian Community was never consulted).
4) Over inflated prices paid to landowners for easements through their property. Actual cost for eastern leg is twice the cost of the estimates sold to the public prior to the vote.
5) A bridge is erected across Iowa Street PRIOR to knowing where the eastern leg of the highway will go.
On and on… Lies and lies, non-legal or extra-legal maneuvering….
Greed knows no bounds.
8 November 2007 at 7:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
It is a manmade wetland, and a bad one at that.
Haskell does not own the property. The idea this land is somehow “sacred” has
never been established.
Funds are available to make a bigger, better, wetlands that could actually
function as a wetland.
The only thing opposing this, is a highly motivated small group that has
no legal recourse, or a viable reason for saving this “wetland”.
Build the road.
8 November 2007 at 7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
northtown (Anonymous) says…
Yes manmade,My wife and I own a wetland,two counties south of here,natural wetland,he creek runs thru the center of it,it is over twice the size of this one.Will not tell the location of i,because i do want you know it all destroying it,it is beautiful,no muskrats or geese in it,deer and coyetes ,red fox an the high ends of it.Live willow trees,not full of dead trees or litter,some beaver do live in it,down next to the creek.
We maintain it some,have to pick some litter out of it after it floods these days and times,and we go and do it,spend time enjoying it,people destroy natural wonders .It has been in our family for over 80 years now…
No levys around it,or clogged drainage pipes so it will work,no canals running thru it,except the creek,Nice natural prarie and wetlands,the pararie flood during the spring,if it rains alot..
You folks needs to see a real one,no walkway ,wooden one buildt into it,you walk where you can,you can fish in ours,next to the creek,any fish in the Baker wetlands???
Should hear the frogs sing at night in ours,so loud it would frighten most of you Lawrence morons!!!Turtles enjoy long lives there,it is a natural wonder,no gas line in it either!!!!
The one here is nothing,nothing sacred,was farm ground,i don't understand??This city?needs the road,buld it and shut up!!!!!!!!!!Enough is Enough,Oh the endangered frog still lives in ours!!!Some have it made,not a mud hole full of silt and dead trees and trash..Look and Think before you leap!!!!!!!Sorry old farmers can't spell!!!
8 November 2007 at 7:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
tenstring (Anonymous) says…
Once again, developers shaft the people and our heritage for the alleged cost-effective path. As Spywell notes above, long-term thinking is not being employed here. It rarely is when it comes to people trying to ramrod something down our throats. This problem could have been solved decades ago with a forward-looking route south of the Wakarusa. If the developer interests would back off on having to ruin this wetland for reasons that defy logic, a sensible alternative route would be found.
What is becoming blatantly obvious is that the people making important decisions don't weigh long-term considerations. As can be seen by the comments above, supporters of bulldozing the wetland are typically shoot-from-the-hip types who think that “long-term” is the drive to the liquor store — or, in the case of developers, the drive to the bank. I like the idea that my grandson can take his grandson to the wetland to see birds and animals in the wild that they're not going to see anywhere else. We should be thinking at least in terms of our grandchildrens' grandchildren if not further. I see damn little evidence of that among these money whores.
8 November 2007 at 7:21 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
doc1 (Anonymous) says…
I can't wait for the day when they start building this thing. These retarded protestors will lose in court. Only after they've wasted our tax dollars. I have an idea. Track all these oponents down who keep wasting our time and make their lives suffer. Make them lose at least the the amount of tax dollars they've wasted. These Lawrence protestors are bringing out the evil side of me. hahahahahahaha just wait
8 November 2007 at 7:22 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“It is a manmade wetland, and a bad one at that.”
Repetition of that mantra will not make it so.
“Haskell does not own the property.”
Only if you consider its theft as a legitimate way to transfer ownership.
“The idea this land is somehow “sacred” has
never been established.”
It is sacred to those who hold it sacred. That you choose not recognize that is purely a matter of convenience to justify the theft and destruction of the Haskell Wetlands.
8 November 2007 at 7:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Track all these oponents down who keep wasting our time and make their lives suffer.”
Petty is as petty does.
8 November 2007 at 7:24 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
The so-called “endangered” frog, lives a lot of places…
I doubt that you could find one in the Baker wetlands
8 November 2007 at 7:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Eride (Anonymous) says…
Wait a minute… the wetlands are man made… and the city will be creating more wetland space than will be taken away by this project? Exactly WHY are these people still complaining? We aren't talking about REAL wetlands here. These are fake wetlands that can be created anywhere which isn't the same situation as that road.
Fighting for decades over one road because of fake wetlands? Ridiculous.
8 November 2007 at 7:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
bd (Anonymous) says…
git'er done
8 November 2007 at 7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
Bozo..
It doesnt matter if you agree with it or not, the land transfer was legal.
It was done deal way before you were born, get over it.
I believe Native Americans were screwed a whole lot of ways; this is not
one of them.
Its not a functioning wetland. Its a mudhole. The only thing it is missing
is a couple old cars and junked refrigerators.
Somehow, we managed to bilk the feds out of money to build a better one.
Take it!!!
8 November 2007 at 7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
blue73harley (Anonymous) says…
bozo - I'll spell it out for you Bob Eye = Al Sharpton = will fight against “social injustice” (as long as it means $ and media frenzy). Both love playing the race card as do you.
8 November 2007 at 7:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
Oh yeah! and we get a badly needed road too!
8 November 2007 at 7:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Informed (Anonymous) says…
Build the road! Stop the blood letting of money, in the form of lawsuits.
I wonder… If the city had simply allowed Wal-Mart to build and not spent so much of our money in legal fees, would our streets be in better condition because we would have had money to repair them? Would we, maybe, even have some sort of library expansion on the table? (Note: I'm against a new library and most of the proposals out there, but follow me here. I'm talking about having more money available in the budget because it was not swallowed up in legal fees.)
Do the city and county budgets for 2008—2015 (at this rate) include a sufficient line item for legal fees spent on this? It's apparent that the majority of Lawrence residents favor finishing the “road to nowhere”. Finish it.
8 November 2007 at 7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
kansasbrandon (Anonymous) says…
Just build it already. In every poll the ljworld has run a vast majority of people just want this project done. Why do a few whiners get in the way of what is desired by a vast majority of people?
8 November 2007 at 7:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
blueharley— I know Bob Eye (you obviously don't) and he's no Al Sharpton.
Macheath— your spinning this to justify what you want is nauseating.
8 November 2007 at 7:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
craigers (Anonymous) says…
One thing for certain when you see an article about the SLT is that Bozo will be out in force screaming racism. Bozo your posts are entertaining. Thanks.
8 November 2007 at 7:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous) says…
“There is a long American tradition at stake here. When the percieved needs of white people come up against the interests of Indians, Indians always lose.”
Since there is no evidence to back up this claim in regards to the wetlands, this makes jabotb a liar. A complete liar. Provide some evidence. What? You can't? Then shut up and stop lying, liar.
8 November 2007 at 7:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Since there is no evidence to back up this claim in regards to the wetlands, this makes jabotb a liar. A complete liar. Provide some evidence. What? You can't? Then shut up and stop lying, liar.”
You should get help, defender. Your scizophrenic rants with yourself are a sign of serious problems.
8 November 2007 at 7:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“One thing for certain when you see an article about the SLT is that Bozo will be out in force screaming racism. Bozo your posts are entertaining. Thanks.”
I just calls 'em like I sees 'em. Too bad you have convenience-colored glasses on, or you'd see it, too.
8 November 2007 at 8:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
monkeyhawk (Anonymous) says…
Mr. Johnson could file his own lawsuit just as Morrison did when anticipating the loon parade against the approved Kansas casinos.
boozo hates the white man - here lies the true racism. The boozos also hate the rich, but gladly accept all the free handouts they provide in the way of tax dollars to fight ludicrous, loser lawsuits and anything else the rich can give them to enhance their otherwise droll, uninspired lives.
8 November 2007 at 8:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
no still need more coffee still waiting for news flash.
8 November 2007 at 8:16 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
TheYetiSpeaks (Anonymous) says…
Woohoo! Lets party like its 1969!
8 November 2007 at 8:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
My, aren't you defensive this morning, monkeyhawk.
8 November 2007 at 8:25 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
deskboy04 (Anonymous) says…
This project will provide needed jobs to unemployed college students.
8 November 2007 at 8:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
ok how about forgetting the SLT an just steal the casino away from wyndott and put it in the wetlands instead?
Still need more coffee.
8 November 2007 at 8:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justfornow (Anonymous) says…
MacHeath (Anonymous) says…
Its not a functioning wetland. Its a mudhole. The only thing it is missing
is a couple old cars and junked refrigerators.
If you walk down the gravel road, past the gas line area you will see your old car parts and junked appliances, maybe the sacred dump will finally be cleaned up, another positive.
8 November 2007 at 8:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
KS (Anonymous) says…
I believe in majority rule! Do it!
8 November 2007 at 8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“If you walk down the gravel road, past the gas line area you will see your old car parts and junked appliances, maybe the sacred dump will finally be cleaned up, another positive.”
I'll lay you odds that it's mostly “white” trash.
8 November 2007 at 8:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fraublucher (Anonymous) says…
I know how to make you wet.
8 November 2007 at 8:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“I know how to make you wet.”
You're a tease.
8 November 2007 at 8:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
justfornow (Anonymous) says…
I'll lay you odds that it's mostly “white” trash.
I'm not gonna say it…… but i'll lay odds that most who are opposing the SLT have never been, including bozo.
If is land is so sacred why wasn't this cleaned up years ago?
8 November 2007 at 8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
fetch (Anonymous) says…
“It is sacred to those who hold it sacred. That you choose not recognize that is purely a matter of convenience to justify the theft and destruction. . .”
I just cant wait to get my sacred street and alley easements back!! mmmm and might be babies buried there too!
8 November 2007 at 8:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
salad (Anonymous) says…
This road is one of the few examples in history when the natives get to stick it to “whitey”. I love watchin' him squeal about his precious little road! Let the lawsuits flow like a MIGHTY river!!!!
8 November 2007 at 9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“If is land is so sacred why wasn't this cleaned up years ago?”
A more pertinent question is why your family dumped all their crap their in the first place?
8 November 2007 at 9:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
merrill (Anonymous) says…
Tax dollar projects and their ultimate cost citizen taxpayers. New roads only stimulate further increases in taxes, user fees etc etc courtesy of the anti economic growth machine aka real estate/development/Chamber of Commerce executives. 25 years of expanding the tax base that has resulted in a negative impact aka property tax increases way over and above inflation, older infrastructure ignored still yet, cost of community services soar with no means to cover the cost has produced increased user fees and inflated property taxes.
Real estate industry executives are asking for YOUR tax dollars:
Oread Inn
North Lawrence Project
New Roadway Projects( Bypass,31st extension/31st ,North Lawrence)
USD 497 not necessary high dollar plans for sports activities
I-70/Le Competon Industrial Site
Farmland Industrial Site
County Road Improvements
Questionable Dicephera Deal
More schools,fire departments,law enforcement,stop signs,traffic lights,traffic calming devices and the list goes on and on and on.
*After all, expansion projects merely bring on additional cost of community services
expenses aka the many hidden costs of growth = increased taxes, increased water and sewer user fees etc etc. All new infrastructure requires money for maintenance and installation.
All of the above are the hidden cost to the taxpayers that accompany most road projects. Road projects paid by the taxpayers subsidize enormous profits of the real estate industry executives … the culprits behind this fiasco.
How much is convenience worth?
8 November 2007 at 9:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
MattressMan (Anonymous) says…
bozo says “I'll lay you odds that it's mostly “white” trash”, not saying there isn't “white” trash in there but when I was growing up it was known as the Haskell dump.
For the people that think it is hard to establish a wetland have a look east of Haskell St. just south of the industrial area at 31st and Haskell. It was not all that long ago that area was being farmed.
South of the river there is an actual cemetary(I say actual because it is fact as there are headstones and markers not just theory) just west of Haskell St. tucked back in the woods. There is other history south of the river as well, Oregon trail areas, Blantons Bridge, Quantrills trail out of the area, the Meares (sp) family farmstead etc. So the BAKER wetlands if saved would put probably more significant historic sites at risk south of the river.
Build it!
8 November 2007 at 9:31 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
” but when I was growing up it was known as the Haskell dump.”
Not the Baker dump? You mean Haskell owned it? Imagine that.
8 November 2007 at 9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Bowhunter99 (Anonymous) says…
Haskell doesn't own the property. period. Bozo: stop with your nonsense about 'rightfulness' or some other b**s*T lines…
it's not sacred…. it's just a swamp. a MAN made one….
8 November 2007 at 9:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
b3 (Anonymous) says…
Hopefully a few of the smelly hippies around town will get bulldozed too while they are out protesting the SLT. Its a win-win deal, we get the road and lose the losers.
8 November 2007 at 9:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
“Haskell doesn't own the property.”
That's what happens when the thieves write the laws.
8 November 2007 at 9:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
No amount of coffee is going to make this thread any better. Just build a casino and be done with it. all the the people will have something new to debate about. Just think of all the road ways and logistic nightmare everyone could come up with on that plan.
8 November 2007 at 9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
farmgal (Anonymous) says…
If the BIA hadn't of gifted this land to Baker U. in the 1st place, it would still be in the hands of Haskell. Bad move on the part of the BIA.
8 November 2007 at 10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
mommaeffortx2 (Anonymous) says…
how about we just do away with all the stuff on 23rd and just make that a 6 lane road compleatly shut down 31st and make Iowa a even bigger mess. Just throwing idea out there, thought I would give this one a shot no one like tha casino one so….
8 November 2007 at 10:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
JOEHAWK (Anonymous) says…
All the legal claims have all failed in court. The haskell transfer, the frog, the sacred wetlands, etc. These people have no honor and are just poor losers. The whine coming from these losers is deafening but will not change things. You lost get over it! Spend your energy and my tax money somewhere else and let this go, it's over.
Build it
8 November 2007 at 10:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
logicsound04 (Anonymous) says…
Lots of nonsensical comments on here.
The people in favor of the 32nd street route complain about the extra cost of this project that is being caused by the opposition.
The people in favor also talk about how we can just re-construct the wetlands, since they were manmade in the first place. This seems like it would cost money above and beyond the 42nd street route, which would leave the (original) wetlands intact.
Though the people who sit here and rabble rouse about the 32nd street route (“build it now!” and other such nonsense) would like to give the impresssion that opposition to this construction is just petty obstruction, I have yet to see anyone directly oppose the 42nd street route. Except, of course, for the ones who want the 32nd street route “built NOW!”.
Someone please explain to me why the 42nd street route (one that would satisfy both sides) is unacceptable? The people who want the trafficway completed “NOW” would get their bypass, the people who want to protect the wetlands would get their habitat preservation.
If the relatively small increase in driving time is the primary concern with the 42nd street route, it seems like a minor concession to make so that both parties have an acceptable solution. Are we really assuming that commuters will say “Well, I want to avoid 23rd street, but the trafficway stretches all the way out to 42nd street, so I'll just stay on 23rd. Oh well.”? That seems like a paper tiger of an argument to me.
But as usual on this forum, we don't ever get to the discussion of the complexity of this issue because simpletons are happy to reduce their arguments to mindless claims of “build it now” and “obstructionists” and “hippies suck” and “make the opposition suffer”.
To wrap up, I find it interesting that the reason the project was not completed in the first place (when the other leg was originally constructed) was because of poor planning by the project's advocates. The city originally need federal funding to afford the project, and so began the first stage, hoping that the halfway completed trafficway would put pressure on the feds to approve the east leg. Unfortunately, they ignored the fact that one requirement for federal money is to conduct an environmental impact study. Originally, the project did not meet the requirements because of the impact the road would've had on the wetlands (manmade or not, they are now part of the environment). I find it interesting that now, all of a sudden, the same route will NOT have said impact.
8 November 2007 at 10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
Permalink
Defender (Anonymous)