SLT controversy grips County Commission / LJWorld.com

Archive for Thursday, October 11, 2007

October 11, 2007

SLT decision must be made soon

Twenty years of planning - but nothing to show for it. Now, the South Lawrence Trafficway gets one more chance at compromise. Enlarge video

A letter from Douglas County Administrator Craig Weinaug responding to questions from a federal highway official about the South Lawrence Trafficway drew mostly criticism Wednesday night.

One of the critics was County Commissioner Charles Jones.

"I feel that the letter was poorly crafted," Jones said. He said he thinks the letter left out some important factors the Federal Highway Administration should consider as it ponders the best route for the SLT.

Weinaug's letter had not yet been mailed and was put on the commission's agenda for discussion. But there will be no change in the letter. Jones and Commissioners Bob Johnson and Jere McElhaney agreed that Weinaug was responding to questions put to him as county administrator. Commissioners did not receive the letter and were not asked to respond.

Johnson said he wished the letter to Weinaug from J. Michael Bowen, a division engineer with Federal Highway Administration, had been sent to him so he could have expressed his own preference for a 32nd Street route for the SLT. But he noted that wasn't what the highway administration wanted.

"It asked specific questions to the planning staff," Johnson said. "It's an administrative piece of paper. I'm not a planner."

McElhaney agreed with Johnson. And he disagreed with Jones' criticism of Weinaug's responses, saying he thought the responses were appropriate.

But Jones noted that the Kansas Department of Transportation had "modeled the impact" that different routes of the SLT would have on area roads, including 23rd Street. A 42nd Street route was found to have a more favorable overall impact. And a 32nd Street route would cause more traffic problems on south Iowa Street.

Jones said he was considering sending his own letter to the highway administration.

At least 30 people appeared at the commission meeting and many of them expressed their opinions about the long-running SLT controversy. Some of them said their concerns had been raised before but they intended to keep on talking about them.

Many of those concerns still center on the 32nd Street alignment's disruption of the Baker Wetlands. Many of the Haskell Indian Nations University staff, students and supporters have long opposed disturbing the wetlands.

"Any alignment that goes through the wetlands is basically a desecration," said Dan Wildcat, a professor of American Indian Studies at Haskell.

Wildcat and others said the wetlands are valuable for environmental and biological studies and as a preservation of green space.

"A lot of universities would like to have what we have," Wildcat said.

The highway would ruin the wetlands as a wildlife habitat, said Mike Caron, executive director of the Save the Wetlands organization.

Others, such as Laura Ruth and Stan Ross, also said the 42nd Street route would be more in line with the county's future growth patterns. It would also be a better fit for dealing with expected increases in traffic because of a planned intermodal transportation center at Gardner, they said.The last leg of the SLT, which would connect U.S. Highway 59 to Kansas Highway 10 east of Lawrence, has been in limbo for more than 10 years. The Federal Highway Administration is currently studying the effects the proposed SLT routes would have. It also is studying the effect a "no build" decision would have.

Discussion

LJWorld.com doesn't necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post.
Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.

11 October 2007
at 6:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nucleardude (Anonymous) says…

It is sad that Haskell representatives and temporary residents (students) have been responsible for the delay of another important part of the growth of Lawrence for 15+ years. “The wetlands are sacred grounds”; give me a break. It is swampland that will be dramatically increased in size with some fabulous features to improve the use of the area. If those of you, who are ignorant of the promise of the future of the wetlands, would just travel the SLT. If you would observe, with an open mind, the wetlands that have sprung up on there own along the course of the current trafficway. The SLT has not destroyed the wetlands. The wildlife along the trafficway has not been affected. It is time to move on. Haskell representatives have already cost the city and county millions of dollars. Even the excuses of the medicine wheel and worship area were developed after the SLT project was started. I don't doubt years ago the worship areas existed, but the current Haskell population began using the area again for the wrong reasons. I would be curious to know over the years how many indigenous peoples actually use the area and the wetlands on a daily basis. Then compare that to the impact on the county by continued delays on the 32nd street trafficway. It is no wonder Haskell doesn't get the support you would expect in a community such as Lawrence. They continue feeling like they are owed something from hundreds of years ago that them and none of us had anything to do with. Get over Columbus and get over the SLT. You have hurt the community for far too long. I only hope the city and county representatives do not worry about hurting your feelings and do what is right for the community as a whole. Build the SLT on the 32nd street alignment and make good on the promise of expanded wetlands and a visitor center.
11 October 2007
at 6:47 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Oracle_of_Rhode (Anonymous) says…

Leave the wetlands alone. The pave-everything crowd would chop down the last tree on God's green Earth to make way for yet another Applebees or Midas. It's pathological destruction. It's brain dead.
11 October 2007
at 6:55 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

Amen nukedude. Though you will soon be labeled a racist by the swamp lover society.

32nd or 42nd…just decide and build it.
11 October 2007
at 7:37 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nucleardude (Anonymous) says…

I have some friends who are native american who agree the centuries old past is the past. Let's move on and do what is best for everyone. Pathological destruction? huh? Who's brain dead. Find a real cause like curing cancer, muscular dystrophy or any number of catastrophic and debilitating illnesses and diseases. If only the small number of the vocal opposition would put their efforts into worthwhile causes; wow, what a difference you could make in something really important.
11 October 2007
at 8:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“I have some friends who are native american who agree the centuries old past is the past.”

Gee, that definitely elects you as official spokesperson for Native Americans, even though nearly all of those who have any opinion on this disagree with your very shallow and self-serving assessment.

Here's an idea for all you racists— take up a collection, and buy out Haskell completely. I'm sure that if they could, they'd put as much distance between themselve and you a**holes as possible.
11 October 2007
at 8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

I love the smell of freshly-lain asphalt over swampland.
11 October 2007
at 8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Godot (Anonymous) says…

Using the words “sacred” and “desecrate” invalidates Haskell's argument against the 31st street route. Religion cannot enter into the equation where governmental decisions are concerned; just ask the ACLU.

11 October 2007
at 8:36 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kshiker (Anonymous) says…

Thanks Bozo for the first inappropriate play of the racist card today. I'm sure it will be the first of several hundred! I could give two craps about the race of people who are involved in this dispute. Most of the public spokespeople are in fact white hippies. I despise all of you regardless of your race.

This development has been held up for way too long with these frivolous ownership and environmental disputes. The 32nd Street Alignment is clearly the most viable alternative for the SLT. Build it already!!!
11 October 2007
at 8:57 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sunshine_noise (Anonymous) says…

Such discontent from you nucleardude. I disagree though I the Indians saved this town not held it back. To much change, too much growth is addictive and will distroy. You should live back East in DC and the surrounding suburbs. They are so crowded and still they keep building. There are no room on the roads for cars and they have no clue how to fix it. I'd rather not see it built. AND I've seen lots of people enjoying the natural setting in that area on a daily basis. You need to get out more. Stop complaining and start embracing the natural earth God loaned to us. Perhaps you'll begin to understand the real beauty of it instead of wanting to dig it up and cover it with more concrete and blocks.
11 October 2007
at 9:07 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

kshiker—

As I said— if you don't like being labeled a racist, then stop being one.
11 October 2007
at 9:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

sunshine_noise (Anonymous) says…

kshiker look how long it has been for the government to actually apologize to the Indian people for the genocide of their people. Take a look at Wounded Knee - a BIG apology is way overdue on this. That wasn't a war it was murder - yet those soldiers received the highest accommodation given to soldiers for killing children, pregnant women, babies and unarmed men. All they wanted to do is go to their sacred land to pray. Talk about racisism. So I don't think the stall in building on the SLT has been that long in comparison. Think about it.
11 October 2007
at 9:16 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rancho (Anonymous) says…

I remember when the wetlands were dry, before they dammed it up. Why do you think there are so many dead trees in the wetlands. Ever notice the 10 foot high dike along Louisianna south of 31st street? The current wetland is manmade. They can make it again and bigger. There is LOTS of water coming down the Naismith ditch/nature trail. Just a matter of where to direct it.
I remember at the beginning of this dispute, reading that the county already had an easement for 4 lanes on 31st from Louisianna to Haskell and they were using that as a bargainning point. Can someone go to the Courthouse and check it out? It would make Mr. Planning look pretty stupid.
11 October 2007
at 9:25 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

“I remember at the beginning of this dispute, reading that the county already had an easement for 4 lanes on 31st from Louisianna to Haskell and they were using that as a bargainning point.”

I remember reading the same thing in the LJW a long time ago, Rancho, but I have not been able to find the article yet. It is something that stuck in my head because it seemed strange that they did have this big of an easement and did not use it.
11 October 2007
at 10:09 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Thats_messed_up (Anonymous) says…

Build the SLT at 32nd NOW!!!! Rancho is right all the dead trees in the “wetlands” prove they haven't been wet forever! Go back to bed hippies.
11 October 2007
at 10:30 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

wild cat says. “A lot of universities would like to have what we have,” . excuse me? that isn't university property is it??? So what he should have said was ” A lot of university's would like to have the access we have and the control we have over county and state property”.

11 October 2007
at 10:45 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Wordsmith (Anonymous) says…

aauuuughh!
Has everyone forgotten that KDOT and the city and county planners all agree that the trafficway will NOT change the traffic problems on 23rd street? Here's a thought that should be seriously considered: Condemn the former Farmland property and build an interchange there. Pony up the money and build another bridge across the Kaw and connect with I-70 between Lawrence and Eudora! Surely the “developers” could put in their strip malls and whatevers east of town and everyone can be (moderately) happy.
11 October 2007
at 10:48 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

SettingTheRecordStraight (Anonymous) says…

When bozo plays the race card, scenebooster is quick to play the religion card.
11 October 2007
at 11:39 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

It's interesting, but bozo is the one who is making his decisions based on race, but he calls everyone else who is making a colorblind decision about a highway a racist.
11 October 2007
at 12:17 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

Wordsmith - Trucks and a lot of commuters need a way to go south and west out of town. An I-70 connector is no solution at all. We need a connection from K10 to 59 Highway. As for traffic on 23rd, the studies too narrowly defined 23rd. Look at all the new business and residences on 23rd East of Haskell. It absolutely would take traffic out of this area.
11 October 2007
at 12:29 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

nucleardude (Anonymous) says…

I normally don't look at the comments on line since they are usually based on the ignorance and stupidity of bloggers like bozo who tend to have a difficult time with meaningful intelligent and substantial dialogue. It is always interesting the rare times I check to see what comments there are it is usually the same old bozo making reference to racism and negative comments at others. It is even more interesting how appropriate the screen name is an obvious match for both definitions especially number 2. Too bad I am stooping to his level for one blog. My apologies to all.

bo*zo (bz)
n. pl. bo*zos Slang
1. A fellow; a guy.

2. A dunce; a fool.

––––––––––––––––––––––––––—

[Origin unknown.]
11 October 2007
at 12:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Baille (Anonymous) says…

The 42nd street alignment with the long-proposed changes to 23rd would be best for all involved and makes the most sense - except for those pro-cancer pavers who are in line to get a big payday for the 31/32 alignment.

KDOT needs to get on board. Too much short-sighted thinking is what caused this mess, the congestion of 23rd and the dearth of single-family housing south and east of campus. We need to start taking a longer view of changes to our community - those of us who actually live here anyway.
11 October 2007
at 12:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

What is the real reason people don't want the SLT. It has nothing to do with the wetlands, any reasonable person can see that. Is it just wanting to stop progress itself?
11 October 2007
at 12:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Baille (Anonymous) says…

I have not seen anyone argue that there should be no SLT. That is a strawman argument. Much of the community adamantly opposes the 31/32 alignment. It is the Wetlands and the impact that would have on the community, the impact it would have on Haskell, and the impact it would have on detrimental, cancerous growth south of Lawrence.

There are better long-term proposals that would meet our needs much better and not include the divisiveness the 31/32 alignment has and will cause.

Why do people want to pave the Wetlands, piss off Haskell, and screw up south Lawrence? To relieve congestion on 23rd is all I hear - and yet the 31/32 alignment will not do that.

No one I know or who I have seen posting here wants to stop “progress” or stop growth. Again, strawman argument. Growth needs to occuring such a way that it does not hurt our community as it has in the past. Not wanting cancer does not equal not wanting to grow.

11 October 2007
at 12:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

“Find a real cause like curing cancer, muscular dystrophy or any number of catastrophic and debilitating illnesses and diseases. If only the small number of the vocal opposition would put their efforts into worthwhile causes; wow, what a difference you could make in something really important.”

I guess in your value system preserving greenspace from ruin by the pave everything crowd is not a “worthwhile” cause. But wouldn't finding a cure for cancer & all these other diseases just result in more humans cluttering up the world? Many would find that a less than worthwhile endeavor.
11 October 2007
at 1:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

scott3460 (Anonymous) says…

“What is the real reason people don't want the SLT. It has nothing to do with the wetlands, any reasonable person can see that. Is it just wanting to stop progress itself?”

What is the real reason people want the SLT through the wetlands rather than a south of the river route? It has nothing to do with anything but selfiishness. They want a road that they think will relieve their traffic experience (which, note, the existing portion of the SLT has clearly NOT done on either 6th or the 23rd Parkway) and they want to pay the least amount of taxes possible for the road. They don't care about any other considerations and just want their own way. If anyone objects and raises other considerations, these people shout them down with charges of being obstructionists and being against “progress.” Yet who is acting like the spoiled brat that MUST have it their own way, or else?
11 October 2007
at 1:16 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

See that's the thing Baille, it won't “pave the wetlands”! Talk about a straw man argument! Doesn't anyone know that the project will move the man-made wetlands (I know they were there before, but the current wetlands are man-made) and will increase the size of them. How is the growth cancerous?
11 October 2007
at 1:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

Baille (Anonymous) says:
I have not seen anyone argue that there should be no SLT.
=========================================================================
I guess you have trouble with reading comprehension then! Bozo has always argued that we don't “need” the SLT we just “want” it. The Oracle of (No) Rhode(s) states “We have too many roads already” in his/her utopian world. Merrill constantly cuts and pastes that we do not need an SLT unless we take it out to 458(!) Little Miss Sunshine states “Stop complaining and start embracing the natural earth”. Not to mention all of the “No SLT” signs seen at the Corps meetings. Yes, indeed nothing like the spirit of compromise.
11 October 2007
at 1:36 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“What is the real reason people don't want the SLT. It has nothing to do with the wetlands, any reasonable person can see that. Is it just wanting to stop progress itself?”

It's only your denial of the racism involved and your obsession with convenience that prevents you from accepting that the reasons have been well explained, ad nauseum. But since you place no value on environmental concerns, and have no respect for the heritage of the Indian peoples for whom Haskell was established, it's no wonder you can't accept those explanations at face value.
11 October 2007
at 1:45 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Baille (Anonymous) says…

“It won't “pave the wetlands”

Yes, it will. The wetlands that naturally occur at that area - that were there before it was converetd into farmland and that was restored once we got smart - will be gone. Paved over in large measure, destroyed in whole.

“Doesn't anyone know that the project will move the man-made wetlands (I know they were there before, but the current wetlands are man-made) and will increase the size of them.”

Sure. It's in the proposals, but there is not study showing if these will offer the equivalnet protection of the wetlands or what effect the created wetlands will have on the drainage area. And if it so easy, let's add some more wetlands/greenspace with the 42nd street alignment. Just there will be created some additional wet land, doesn't change the fact that the 31/32 alignment is bad for our community.

“How is the growth cancerous?”

We can expect the growth around the 31/32 alignment to follow the growth of west Lawrence with unlimited little subdivision, crappy little strip malls, and retail centers that spring up along the fringe of the town. This invariably leads to city center decay, which in our case is aking to shooting our community in the head.

“I guess you have trouble with reading comprehension then! Bozo has always argued that we don't “need” the SLT we just “want” it. The Oracle of (No) Rhode(s) states “We have too many roads already” in his/her utopian world.”

Really? That is one explanation. Another is that I didn't read those posts. Would something less global make you feel better? How about: “Many (if not most) of the opponents to the 31/32 alignment, in my experience as a Lawrence resident for nearly 20 years, aren't opposed to the idea of an SLT - just its location and any tendency to create a commercial/residntial center around its interchanges.”
11 October 2007
at 2:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

Baille - I don't know if I feel better but I agree with your last sentence. I do think you are mistaken if you think a 32nd Street alignment would be the worst for allowing “cancerous” growth. I actually think this closer alignment would somewhat stifle growth. A 42nd Street alignment would leave a bigger footprint and open up more growth potential. And, just to be clear, I will re-state my position - decide on a route and build it. I don't care if it is 32nd or 42nd or a skybridge in between.
11 October 2007
at 2:51 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Baille (Anonymous) says…

That's why I am a proponent of controlling growth around the 42nd street interchanges with zoning regulations and enlarging the green footprint of the now existing wetlands as part of the project. I am also a proponent of changing 23rd as has been recommended for so very long to increase the flow of traffic and reduce congestion. The 42 alignment is not by itself a magic bullet.

I think the skyway might be a it much, but I am sure the Mats fans out there would appreciate the allusion.

11 October 2007
at 3:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

I have said it befoer and I guess I need to say it again, during my high school years the wetlands were solid ground when Mary and I used to go parking out there to make out. Nuttin but a field made for lovin. I remember it well, we would drive out into the “wet lands” in my 55 chevy. We would park and anticipate the sound of the zippered pantsnake to show its head.
11 October 2007
at 3:37 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

blue73harley (Anonymous) says…

Consumer1 - now THAT is wildlife.
11 October 2007
at 3:40 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Baille (Anonymous) says…

Ah, 4th Grade. Metaphorically lost and alone in a never-ending field of rhetorical devices. Deafened by the endless cacophony of multisyllabic protestations. Weary of the hubris and the pretentions both external and internal. I am in desperate need to end the prolonged procrastination of the past few days. The field is yours. You have won. Take us into our glorious future of Olathe-hood. Lead us into the decay and stagnation of the New Suburbanism. The future is yours, 4th Grade. Pave it over with strip malls, convenience stores, and payday loan outlets. Vive le bitume enfer!
11 October 2007
at 3:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

Baille: “Paved over in large measure, destroyed in whole.”
Well, I don't think 13% would equate to being paved over in large measure or destroyed in whole. Only 77 of the current 573 acres would be used for the SLT. And as for what leads to city center decay, we'll have to disagree on that. I think that decay is caused by the city center itself. You have to make it attractive for people to live, work, and shop there, otherwise can you blame them for wanting something else? The city center is driving people away, the crappy strip malls and subdivisions are not drawing them away.
11 October 2007
at 4:03 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tuschkahouma (Anonymous) says…

It's fairly obvious that there are no biologists on this posts other than the dunces who want
to collect the daily roadkill of animals from this road and take them home to cook for dinner.
Prior to the creation of Clinton Lake between 1974 and 1980, there were wetlands all along
the Wakarusa Valley southwest of Lawrence. Clinton lake flooded the wetlands to the southwest
of town. The BIA ordered Native students at Haskell Institute to lay down tile and build drainage
dikes in a vain attempt to make these wetlands arable farmland. Prior to the creation of Clinton
lake, the Wakarusa would flood up and over what is now 31st street. The BIA officials who
thought that the wetlands would make good farm land make about as much sense as the
traffic officials and dimwits who think that re-destroying these wetlands for a Wal-Mart
truck highway is a good idea. This road is no longer about fixing traffic problems. It
is a symbol of an immigrant culture's denial of their destructive footprint upon this
land and it's indigenous peoples. Keep accusing us of playing the race card. You're
the ones who refuse to acknowledge your racist attitudes behind the support of this
road project. We've seen this behavoir, our parents have seen this behavior, our
grandparents have seen this behavior, and their parents have seen this behavior
since the 1850's. It's palatable bigotry in the form of denying and attacking the
victims of this project who stand up to you.
11 October 2007
at 4:04 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

consumer1 (Anonymous) says…

Baille, that was poetry in motion. I applaud you. I also just wish we could all meet someplace in the middle to achieve the goals that benefit all of us. I don't want the wet lands paved over, but I do want a by pass. Why can't we find middle ground? ( that is not wet)?
11 October 2007
at 4:08 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

Vive le marecage puant!
11 October 2007
at 4:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

tuschkahouma—show me that Haskell is suing Baker to regain title to the land. Otherwise, your arguments make absolutely no sense.

11 October 2007
at 4:31 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

monkeyspunk (Anonymous) says…

Thats some fancy formatting there tuschkahoma.

Maybe someone has some info on this, but is the majority of traffic on 23rd Street generated by Kansas City commuters? If it is, how would a bypass help the situation any? People on the West side of Lawrence are still going to use 23rd to get out of town if they are headed toward OP or Olathe. Why go all the way around 10 or 20 blocks?

Looking at a map of Lawrence, one would think that a bypass in that area would serve no real purpose. Lawrence needs more East-West roads that are 4 lane and are thoroughfares (sp?).
At the moment we have 23rd and 6th as the best ways to get from West to East and back again, with 15th helping in the West. For the amount of traffic that needs to get from West to East, we need more wide avenues across town.

Screw the SLT. We need to enhance the streets we have now to handle more traffic. Widen a bunch of the East-West streets. Do it now before it costs too much to do it in the future. Can 19th be somehow extended west through West Campus? Can 15th be widened and improved to handle more traffic from Iowa to Mass? Why haven't we widened 9th yet west of Emery?

Sometimes I wonder if the SLT is just some distraction to keep us at each others throats in order to distract us from changes the city should make when it comes to traffic, future and present.
11 October 2007
at 4:42 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tuschkahouma (Anonymous) says…

The Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation asked that the wetlands be transferred back to them
four years ago. Remember, Mr. uneducated, this was congressionally appropriated land
with indian monies paying for it a century ago. Read the law I quoted before you call something
ludicrous.
11 October 2007
at 4:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

lunacydetector (Anonymous) says…

since so many bad things happened at haskell and the young indian children with their re-education into the white man's world 100 years ago, why not petition haskell and the federal government to move haskell to another part of the county. give haskell someplace nice to move their campus. not some barren uninhabitable place like the indians got hosed on with their reservation lands, but someplace nice. then haskell could turn its campus into a gigantic casino extravaganza.

they would be able to put the nightmare of a 100 years ago behind them and become super rich in the process.

problem solved.
11 October 2007
at 4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Don't forget county roads exposed to new development will need more and more tax dollars for major improvements. How many roads can taxpayers afford?

It has been suggested that a trafficway and a bypass be built due to future development south of the river. Why do that? That is not wise use of tax dollars much of which likley will come from Douglas County taxpayers. Roads require expensive maintenance. 23rd Street will become full responsibility of Lawrence taxpayers. 23rd street will remain congested as developers build more homes thus more cars. 32nd street route will prove to be a waste of money for which I cannot support.

The local real estate/development community makes tons of money courtesy of the 32nd route and taxpayer dollars.

1985—The Chamber of Commerce Transportation Committee,county commissioners,developers and other interested parties convened a non public meeting to discuss a different plan over and above the recommended SOR route thus the obsolete 32nd trafficway plan surfaces.

In 1971 the State Highway Commission recommended a BYPASS for Lawrence to be built south of the Wakie river with absolutely no effect on the wetlands… NOT a trafficway. The bypass is far more practical for future highway demands. Douglas County needs a bypass NOT a trafficway.

Why not agree on a south-of-the-river bypass and forget the obsolete trafficway concept? Spend tax dollars on a more practical application. Introduce appropriate plans designed to meet future needs, a plan that could bring Johnson, Douglas and Leavenworth counties together as partners thus saving Lawrence/Douglas county taxpayers millions. This requires bridges across the river. All three counties would benefit, thus would assist funding the project. A project such as this was introduced to the city commission recently by Leavenworth officials.

Actually eliminating the expansion of a SOR then diverting traffic to I-70
off K-10 would save local taxpayers huge sums of money. All of the above would still be accomplished.

Don't forget county roads exposed to new development will need more and more tax dollars for major improvements. How many roads can taxpayers afford?

Don't forget county roads exposed to new development will need more and more tax dollars for major improvements. North Lawrence will need new roads. West 6th at the SLT will need new roads. SE Lawrence will need more new roads.

How many roads can Lawrence/Douglas County taxpayers afford?

How much can taxpayers afford to relocate existing business in the way of a 32nd street route?
11 October 2007
at 4:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tuschkahouma (Anonymous) says…

gee, another uneducated historian. The immigrants of this country and their government
have moved tribes all over this country. Munsee Delaware people start out on Long Island,
New York, and wind up near Pomona, Kansas, by way of Ohio, Michigan, Ontario, Canada,
and Wisconsin. We're not moving, your road is. Secondly, the Haskell campus has absolutely
nothing to do with casino locations. It has to do with your government footing your rental
bill for the occupation of our lands by way of treaties, which are held to the highest law of the
land, except by American immigrants, as proved by the total lack of treaty honoring that
has taken place since 1778 when the first treaty was signed between the United States
Government and the Delaware Tribe. So much for an American education.
11 October 2007
at 4:58 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

tuschkahouma—is there any litigation pending? You keep spouting about the law, if the law is so obviously on your side, why hasn't anyone brought a case? Don't keep talking about your legal case if no one is bringing it.

Monkeyspunk—apparantly you've never driven 31st street. That is where the SLT would go, and if you drive 31st during rush hour you'll see for yourself what the SLT would do.
11 October 2007
at 5:01 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

tuschkahouma—”We're not moving, your road is”

That's what this is really all about for tuschkahouma, getting back at whitey. This road belongs just as much to the people at Haskell as it does to everyone else. It isn't a road for white people, so it's not “our” road.
11 October 2007
at 5:14 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

merrill (Anonymous) says…

Actually eliminating the expansion of a SOR then diverting traffic to I-70
off K-10 would save local taxpayers huge sums of money. Perhaps Leavenworth,Douglas and JOCO would consider a partnership thus saving Douglas count taxpayers even more money.

AND the commissioners want to build a interchange at 1750 rd…..so where's the money?

Tax increases are not heavily favored last I heard. The anti economic growth machine aka the real estate/development industry have indicated they will file a lawsuit if they don't get their way about destroying the wetlands:

Sprawl Costs Us All

Corporate Subsidies

In poll after poll, Americans express overwhelming support for protecting green space. Yet, year after year, we pay developers to pave over these precious places. Not only do we lose key habitat, storm buffers and natural places to recreate and relax, but we're paying for it through higher taxes. In 1998, voters passed 70 percent of a record 240 smart-growth initiatives on state and local ballots. That year, voters also approved over $7.5 billion in new funding to protect open space. And this trend shows no signs of dying out: In March, California voters approved the biggest open-space bond measure in state history.

Many Americans would be shocked then to learn that as we fight to protect these precious open spaces, millions and perhaps billions of dollars are being given out by state and local governments to encourage their destruction. Why? Because state and local governments are playing a cynical shell game of incentives to lure development to their region.

It works like this: Big corporations promise towns and cities development projects that will create lots of jobs. All the community has to do is pony up some money in the form of undeveloped land, tax discounts, sweetheart utility deals, massive road projects or even straight cash. And, since most communities feverishly compete against each other in this giveaway game, companies shop around for the best deal.

More on the matter:
http://sierraclub.org/sprawl/report00…

11 October 2007
at 5:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tuschkahouma (Anonymous) says…

it's not really about getting “whitey” unless it means making “whitey” abide by his own laws,
which he either doesn't like to or doesn't want to do. Secondly, there's enough
environmental law against this road on solid ground that the land claim situation
is an ace in the hole that probably won't be necessary.
11 October 2007
at 6:23 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

Your ace in the hole? Wow, that land must be really sacred to you.
11 October 2007
at 7:43 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“Wow, that land must be really sacred to you.”

Gee, you're catching on. Not that I expect it to affect your indifference (the politest description possible.)
11 October 2007
at 7:57 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

Just_another_bozo—sarcasm buddy, he doesn't give a crap about that land. You've been had.
11 October 2007
at 9:22 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

ralphralph (Anonymous) says…

Build the SLT.
11 October 2007
at 10:07 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

storm (Anonymous) says…

The cure for many illnesses are found in plants. The wetlands have plants. The cure for cancer may be in those plants.
11 October 2007
at 10:13 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“First of all, it's none of Haskell's business. It doesn't own the property. Baker University does, and it has signed off on the 32nd Street proposal. 'Nuf said.”

For racists like you, probably so.
11 October 2007
at 10:20 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

Rationalanimal (Anonymous) says…

It is understandable why the Baker Wetlands is the Holy Grail for the Lawrence socialist crowd. After years and years and years of devoting millions to opposing, stone-walling, litigation, and obstructing this, it feels like you paid for and built the Baker Wetlands. Its how US sportsmen feel about the billions of dollars we have put into developing millions of acres of wildlife habitat. Why if somebody wanted to put a road through and pave those millions of acres, I'd be TO'd myself.

11 October 2007
at 10:32 p.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

budwhysir (Anonymous) says…

I can see the concern for SLT, there seems to be alot of them around town now adays. I find that this debate comes and goes, it will be a hot topic for a while. The thing I dont understand is that there are restrictions for SLT'S (such long trucks). Maybe I am misunderstanding the issue but even though I see alot of them, it doesnt upset me
12 October 2007
at 8:18 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

northtown (Anonymous) says…

Just go to Lake Perry,bring back a bucket full of zebra muzzells and dump them in the wetlands.
That would solve this problem and stop this stupid fight….
Just wake up and forget the whole stupid thing,and i am not for protetcing the manmade wetlands,just tired of your morons fighting over nothing……………
12 October 2007
at 8:24 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

“And the biggest race baiter on this forum says nothing about the reality of the ownership. Typical. Pathetic, but typical.”

The reality is that Haskell exists because white supremacists like you didn't recognize the ownership of the entire country by the indigenous peoples who have been here for thousands of years, and Haskell was one of the paltry “payments” the Great White Father gave them in exchange.

But of course, really important people like you have been chipping away at their campus for decades, and the Haskell Wetlands is one of those pieces chipped away at a time when Indians had no control or influence over what the BIA did with their land.

But as long as you get what you want from it, you'll cling to a self-serving legal fiction till your pitiful dying days.
12 October 2007
at 8:26 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

And what you want as much as pavement is a signal to the Injuns and hippies to keep in their place.
12 October 2007
at 9:27 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

biggunz (Anonymous) says…

Bozo says:
“For racists like you, probably so.”
“Here's an idea for all you racists”
“As I said- if you don't like being labeled a racist, then stop being one.”
“white supremacists like you…”

Clearly you're a racist d*ck. Close the hole in your face already. Everyone's sick of people like you constantly trying to play the race card and cry about what you think you deserve or how you get screwed by the man. Call your brothers Al and Jesse, they're the only ones that give a sh*t. Racism IS alive a well, and you promote it.
12 October 2007
at 10:21 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…

My, aren't you defensive, biggunz.

You know, say what you will about the KKK and Aryan Nation, but at least they are honest about their racism.
12 October 2007
at 10:44 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

kansas778 (Anonymous) says…

bozo—what if it was the other way around? what if Haskell was all for the SLT and Baker was dead-set against it. Would that change your opinion? It wouldn't change mine, because my opinion is not based on race.
12 October 2007
at 11:15 a.m.

Suggest removal

Permalink

tuschkahouma (Anonymous) says…

we're of many peoples from this land. You destroy our worship area and act callous about
it and that's racist.enough said.