Archive for Friday, October 12, 2007

SLT in wetlands urged for traffic reasons

Going south won’t help congestion on 23rd and 31st, engineer says

October 12, 2007

Advertisement

Transportation 2030 committee looks at traffic jams

A group of transportation planners brainstorm ways to reduce congestion on Lawrence streets. Enlarge video

The community likely will get less bang for its buck if it builds the final leg of the South Lawrence Trafficway south of the Wakarusa River, a traffic consultant hired by the city and county said Thursday.

Instead, building the road through the Baker Wetlands - north of the Wakarusa River - will do more to alleviate traffic congestion on 23rd and 31st Streets, said Jim Tobaben, a traffic engineer with Lenexa-based Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas.

"If you move it south of the river, you will see less of a benefit," Tobaben told members of the Transportation 2030 committee, which are working to create a long-range transportation plan for the county. "More traffic will stay on 23rd Street."

Tobaben presented preliminary traffic models that showed by 2030 that a wetland route for the trafficway would take 35 percent of the projected traffic off of the portion of 23rd Street that is west of Haskell Avenue. A route south of the river would take 28 percent of the projected traffic off of the same stretch of road.

The difference was less pronounced for other sections of 23rd Street, however. A wetland route would reduce projected traffic volumes by 11 percent on the portion of 23rd Street between Haskell and Louisiana. Under a south-of-the-river plan, it would reduce volumes by 7 percent.

Tobaben said the models show that fewer residents would use a route south of the river, which means they would continue to use 23rd or 31st streets.

For some transportation planners, though, the difference between the north and south routes wasn't much, given the amount of controversy building the road through the wetlands would create.

"It seems pretty marginal," said Grant Eichhorn, chairman of the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission. Eichhorn has been trying to revive a plan to build the trafficway south of the Wakarusa River in exchange for expanding the current 31st Street.

The committee, though, didn't take any position on whether to endorse a wetland route or a south-of-the-river route for the trafficway. But members said they will before year's end.

That's when the Transportation 2030 plan is due to be turned into federal officials. Whichever route is left off the plan will be ineligible to receive federal funding. Federal funding is expected to play a role in the completion of the trafficway, which is estimated to cost $120 million or more.

Technically the community's Metropolitan Planning Organization - which is composed of the same members that are on the Lawrence-Douglas County Planning Commission - will grant final approval to the Transportation 2030 plan. City and county commissioners, even if they disagree with the route selection, don't have the ability to overrule the MPO, according to federal statutes.

Tobaben, a former Kansas Department of Transportation traffic engineer, stressed to the group on Thursday that completing the trafficway was an important piece of Lawrence's transportation puzzle.

"I think a four-lane South Lawrence Trafficway would solve the majority of your east-west traffic problems," Tobaben said.

Comments

lounger 7 years, 8 months ago

"more bang for the buck"

Yeah tell that to the animals you are bulldozing over.....

L-E-A-V-E the W-E-T-L-A-N-D-S A-L-O-N-E !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

Of course, what Pilgrim doesn't say is that a route south of the river would be "giving in" to hippies and Injuns, and the racist and inflated pave-it-all-over egos can't have that.

And if the city continues to grow as the cancer fans hope, then the congestion on 23rd will be unchanged within a few short years of the completion of the SLT, no matter the route.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

The wetlands issue is a non-issue. They aren't paving over the wetlands, or destroying them. They are actually creating more wetlands, so being against the SLT is in effect destroying the wetlands. I wonder if this is really about money. Baker is getting a nice chunk of change ($8.5 million) to allow the highway. Does Haskell get anything? Probably not, and that's what this is really all about, is that Haskell isn't getting their kickback.

Jean1183 7 years, 8 months ago

Build on the 32nd route! Widen 31st and extend it!

I live in the SE area and will be effected (possibly negatively). However, I recognize the need to get these roads done. Just wait until the new 59 highway is done, the traffic we have now is minimal in comparison to what Lawrence will have then.

deskboy04 7 years, 8 months ago

Build the SLT! The 32nd Street route is best!

haspas 7 years, 8 months ago

Kansas statutes clearly stipulate if anyone finds human remains and does not notify the county sheriff, then a felony has been committed. Perhaps the person who found the skulls and the professor who urged him/her to violate Kansas law should be questioned by law enforcement. I wonder if they would stipulate to their findings under oath.

This is pure anti-progress poppycock and we all know it.......

cowboy 7 years, 8 months ago

Think ahead , if the road was approved today it will be ten years in the making , add another 25,000 people to Lawrence by then , we have always waited in Lawrence till it's way past due. The city is a congested clusterfu$k in most areas. The ugly decisions need to made , build the SLT , cut 15th all the way thru town , we need a north south on the east side too. Put the bike lanes on them , build the trails at the same time. All of the transport needs need to be addressed. The city has no intelligeble master plan for the next 10-20 years. cars are going to be here , so are bikes and probably a lot of scooters , add horse and running trails too. Seems we all would rather fight about minutia rather than look at a total plan that addresses the needs of all modes of transport. and the T ,well that albatross is so 60's.

Godot 7 years, 8 months ago

Eichorn says that the difference between the 32nd and 42nd in the alleviation of traffic on 23rd is "marginal." That is poppycock. A difference of 25% is, by any perspective, substantial and meaningful.

Build it on the 32nd St alignment.

grimpeur 7 years, 8 months ago

And where will we build the road to serve the residents of future development between the Wakarusa and N. 1000 Rd? You know...south of the river? Should there be a road planned for that area? And if so, why not build it now?

A 32nd route serves nobody except through traffic. A SOR route serves through traffic AND the future residents of the Lawrence's southern UGA. Forward-looking planning would place the bypass south of the river.

cowboy 7 years, 8 months ago

there will need to be a road south also , but that is none of the city's business , that is county ground. Many of the owners of those properties will retire or pass in the next twenty years and i suppose the devo will follow accordingly as those large parcels are split up.

By then I'll be gone so to quote Walter the puppet , " I don't give a damn"

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

If the road is built on 32nd St., this city needs to be honest and admit that they don't like Haskell, and don't want the Injuns in this town. They should forget Farmland, and buy Haskell instead so that they can be a good, lily-white, town of "progress." (Cleaning up the contamination by Injuns is surely cheaper than cleaning up Farmland.)

JohnBrown 7 years, 8 months ago

The Baker wetlands have been "wetlands" for 300 million years. SOME of that ground had drainage tiles placed in it in the late 1800's and the drained land was farmed for a while, but it proved economically untenable and once the farming ceased the land returned to what it ALWAYS WAS: wetlands.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

bozo says: "if lawrence doesn't give in to any ridiculous request by Haskell, then that means lawrence is racist"

WRONG

Chris Golledge 7 years, 8 months ago

"...that fewer residents would use a route south of the river,..."

Uh, yeah. It took consultants to figure out that if you are going from point A, which is north of a road, to point some point B, which is north the same road, that you are less likely to use that road?

I've heard for years that the trafficway was largely to give a way around 23rd and Iowa for those traveling to-from-between (southern) KC metro area and Topeka. Residents would benefit from that regardless of the route.

Having said that, Lawrence will grow to the south; it's inevitable. So, IMHO, the southern route is just as viable as the 32nd street.

Wetlands-farmland-wetlands-prairie-whatever, what it was originally depends on how far back in time you want to go.

I suspect the wetland lovers are not convinced the deal to improve the wetlands will be honored to their satisfaction. Not sure how to fix that, but I think trust is the issue.

City and county planners, you are going to make some people mad no matter what you do. Not doing anything has been making some mad for decades. We've been stuck in a loggerhead for too long. Make a decision and go with it. Heck, if you want to pass the buck on to your constituents, put the issue on the next county-wide election ballot. (Lecture on tyranny of the majority saved for another time.)

newsreader 7 years, 8 months ago

I'm tired of hearing about this! Build it or don't!

Godot 7 years, 8 months ago

gee, johnbrown has found the only piece of land on earth that has not changed, except for the interence of man, in 300 million years. He should get a Nobel prize for that.

lounger 7 years, 8 months ago

458casul-

I dont say this often (maybe 2 or 3 times in my life) but your an idiot!

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

"35 percent of the projected traffic off of the portion of 23rd Street that is west of Haskell Avenue. A route south of the river would take 28 percent of the projected traffic off of the same stretch of road."

Is it just me, or did anyone else notice that this is really not that substantial of a difference?

samurai_5 7 years, 8 months ago

Has anyone ever been out to that small stretch or road during rush hour? I have, and it only lasts from about 4 pm to 6:30 pm on the BUSIEST of days. THAT'S IT. Now, I could see if we were a bigger city, like KC or something, I'm sure their rush hours puts ours to shame. But to build an entirely new route just to alleviate congestion that only takes up 2.5 hours a day seems like a bit much. People act like Haskell has so much to gain by holding up the works on this project, as if it's not about cultural preservation. Haskell hasn't benefitted from resisting the development (but they have withstood the negative repercussions from the lawrence community for years for their resistance) and even if the plan never goes through, Haskell stands only to gain the preservation of the wetlands. Does it really matter what the wetlands was before? Before it was the current wetlands, it was a farmland, and before that, guess what, it was a wetland! People died out there. Have some respect. If it's so important to build another road in Lawrence then let's build it through any of the neighborhoods that already exist, god knows those roads coulds stand to be paved. It's always okay when the opinions of minorities are discounted and invalidated but god forbid you let that happen to white men and women that insist that they know it all.

Godot 7 years, 8 months ago

Jonas, the difference between 35% and 28% is not 7%, it is a 25% difference. That is very significant.

Mike Ford 7 years, 8 months ago

What's to be expected from a development-aligned chamber of commerce leaning entity that doesn't give a hoot about the federal laws that will stop the project on 32nd street. Give the illogical non-thinking earth destroying frothing at the mouth mob of anti-environmental people what they want and do it NOW! How dare they be presented with the fact that they're advocating anything subjecting an ethnic group with federal rights prescribed in the U.S. Constitution to destruction of a religious area. Do it now and summon the Salem's Lot witches to stir the frenzy while you're at it.

Chris Golledge 7 years, 8 months ago

Andini (Anonymous) says:

"They build roads on wetlands all the time in Florida and everything is ok"

Actually, no, it isn't. Not that what is good for Florida is good for Kansas, or vice versa.

Look, roads are going to destroy habitat no matter where they are built. Build it in the wetlands and you knock out some frogs and ducks; build it through the woods and you knock out some squirrels and deer. But, unless you are willing to do something Draconian with population control or standard of living, more roads will be needed as time moves forward.

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

"And if the city continues to grow as the cancer fans hope,"

So let's make it grow quicker by buiding south.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

Samurai--people have died and been buried all over the place in this country, we can't just stop building roads. We have a policy for dealing with it respectfully, either the road is moved, or the remains are given to the tribe they belonged to for reburial. And 2.5 hours a day of gridlock is far too much, and needs to be relieved. Also, Haskell does have something to gain, they want a piece of the pie like what Baker got. Baker got $8.5 million, and Haskell didn't. As everything seems to do, this really comes down to money, and the suckers who think it isn't.

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

"Give the illogical non-thinking earth destroying frothing at the mouth mob"

Sounds like an angry red man.

Gonna let an angry red man tell ya what to do?

samurai_5 7 years, 8 months ago

So as long as the remains are Native Americans then it's okay to move those remains rather than move the road? And who determines what tribe those remains belong to? Seems to me that if it was a white cemetary the city wouldn't touch it. Haskell doesn't stand to benefit anything, they are a federally funded school and can only recieve funding from the government. Some things never change, people still view Native Americans as standing in the way of their precious development. If we supported it we would probably be considered sell outs too.

tjayhawk 7 years, 8 months ago

Obviously the people that don't want the SLT on a 32nd street alignment don't have to travel on 23rd street between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. on a daily basis. I live in the Southeast corner of the city and the SLT is LONG overdue! Given that, however, I have little or no confidence in the city even coming close to finishing this obvious solution to the city's traffic problems. I have a 22 year old daughter. The city has been discussing this proposed solution for her entire life. My hope is thay by the time my grandchildren reach 22 they will have an SLT to drive on.

samurai_5 7 years, 8 months ago

It has been proven that those graves are there. Sorry I can't bring you one to bull doze over. Would it change your mind even if I did show you one? Probably not.

Forget the SLT. I hope it never sees the light of day.

tjayhawk 7 years, 8 months ago

Samurai_5, Can I ask you a question? How much more disrespectful to a supposed corpse is it to be drowned? Where were all of the people demanding respect for the imagined dead when the MAN-MADE wetlands were built?

I agree with Pilgrim, BUILD IT!

samurai_5 7 years, 8 months ago

Taken from sacredlang.org

The school was located on wetlands to use land that white settlers did not want, yet the wetlands became a place of comfort and ceremony for many of the students forced into this harsh new way of life. The wetlands served as a place of farewells, where elders left children with words of advice and prayer, and a meeting place for students to reunite with their families and friends when they were homesick. Students often went to the wetlands to perform ceremonies, pray, commune with nature and the environment, and even to bury their dead. The children's deaths were caused by disease, suicide, sometimes the environment itself, as runaway students died of exposure in the wetlands. Students were secretly buried in the wetlands by their fellow students, who performed spirit release ceremonies using a lock of hair. Thus the area has always been a site of resistance, a fact recognized by school officials, who tried to "kill" the wetlands-cutting down vegetation and draining the water-in order to prevent the cultural activities which took place there.

However, decades later, the wetlands returned to life after being abandoned, "some believe as a gift from the creator, to honor the incredible transformation of Haskell from one of the nation's most notorious boarding schools to a true university," in the words of Michael Caron of Save the Wetlands. Various unknown and unmarked graves in the wetlands are a constant reminder of the brutal realities which boarding school forced on the children. Because of these graves, the history of the wetlands, and the experiences that these native children experienced as chattel of the United States government, many tribes consider this land sacred. Indian people continue to use the area for prayer and in 1992, Haskell students constructed a Medicine Wheel which is a site of ceremony. Its historical and cultural significance also makes this land worthy of protecting as a National Historic Site.

kujayhawk7476 7 years, 8 months ago

I moved out of Lawrence because the traffic is horrible and because the city should have built the SLT 12 years ago. New wetlands better than the dry ones will be built. Who cares where a burial ground from 150 years ago is? The odds are your house sits on one now, samuari_5. LOL

Build the road, and tell everyone to get over it or get out!

I wonder why Lawrence isn't growing as fast as it was? Hmmmmmm!

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

Samurai, "white" cemetaries are relocated all the time. There's several government regulations regarding how and when it's done. They aren't usually moved mainly because we know where they are and can plan ahead. With unmarked Native American burials that could be hundreds of years old, there's no way to properly survey every inch of land before we plan a highway. We have to look as we go. As for how do we determine what tribe the remains belong to, anthropologists who are experts in the field do their best to determine this in cooperation with the tribes who usually come forward to claim the remains. Haskell does stand to benefit, just because they get money from the government doesn't mean they would refuse more money from the government.

nell 7 years, 8 months ago

Dog, Godot, get with the elementary math - 35 is 25% more than 28, but you're talking in normalized terms. 35% is 7% more than 28%.

Think of it this way: Considering today's traffic, a 32nd st route would mean 65 of every 100 cars now on 23rd st would remain on 23rd st. With a 42nd st. route 72 cars out of every 100 now on 23rd st. would remain on 23rd. The difference between the routes is 7 cars per 100 now on 23rd.

For traffic now, this is a marginal difference, so it makes sense even from a utilitarian perspective to choose the more culturally respectful southern route. For traffic in the future, it seems that the 42nd st. route would be the obvious choice, even for the hard core racists.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

nell, no one's culture is being disrespected by the 32nd street route. And just because people aren't going to give in to everything Haskell demands doesn't make them racists, It does make you gullible.

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

"Jonas, the difference between 35% and 28% is not 7%, it is a 25% difference. That is very significant."

You'll notice, in this comparison, that it's only 20% not 25%, but that's window dressing, and I think that you know you're just cherry picking the larger percentage to skew the information. (You'll also notice that I never said 7%. That was someone else, but in all other things considered, not so bigga deal) The total difference to US, in any practical sense, is only 7%, the total sum of cars no longer on the road. The efficiency and effectiveness of the project, which is a difference of 25%, has a different and less direct, though of course no less real, final impact on us. But if the issue is traffic congestion, and up till now that's pretty much all I've seen this be about, the difference between the two road plans is only 7%.

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

Whoops, not to steal your fire, above posters who said as much already.

samurai_5 7 years, 8 months ago

Pilgrim, perhaps you should hold yourself to your own standards and show us where it says that there aren't graves there. Like I said before, it's all good when the opinions of minorities are being invalidated and I should add ridiculed, but god forbid we do it to white people. Just so you know, even the anthropologists aren't experts on locating which tribes the remains belong to and most tribal people would rather die themselves before wanting to desecrate a burial site. I actually spoke with the curator for the Nelson-Atkins museum in Kansas city a while back and he said that this was the main problem that they run into with their collections, the process with actual bodily remains would be far more complex. As far as looking as they go, I don't think that development can take place on a historic site thanks to the feds. What other development issue has Haskell ever raised a stink over in this town?

Godot 7 years, 8 months ago

Lets make this as simple as possible. Pretend that the traffic on 23rd street consists of 100,000 different car trips on the average day, as things stand.

Consultants say the 42nd street alignment will relieve that traffic by 28%, or 28,000. The 32nd route will reduce traffic on 23rd by 35%, or 35,000.

That is a difference of 7,000 cars per day. 7,000 more cars diverted by 32nd route than the 28,000 cars diverted by the 42nd route is an important and significant increase.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

100,000 trips a day, Godot? That figures out more than one car trip per second, 24 hours a day, or that every resident of Douglas County, whether they drive or not, makes a, separate, individual trip down 23rd St., every day.

Where did you get that number?

Godot 7 years, 8 months ago

bozo, I am so sorry I did not make it simple enough for you to understand. I used the figure of 100,000 because it is easy to add, subtract, multiply and divide from that number. Note that I said, "pretend." Regardless of what number you use, the result will be the same: 32nd street alignment diverts 25% more traffic from 23rd street than does the south of Waukie route.

someoneelse 7 years, 8 months ago

So, it was a wetland that was turned into a farmland and then back into a wetland? So, it is possible that there are burial sites? So, these possible remains were not disturbed by tractors and plows, but they will be by cars (albeit, the cars will require tractors and plows preceding them)?

Seriously, I'm all for the preservation of nature, and I'm all for the SLT. If the use of wetlands actually increases the amount of preserved wetlands, it sounds like a win/win to me. But, I really don't care where it traverses, as long as it gets done and we stop wasting tax dollars debating the issue.

Heck, I'm wishing I was in the consulting business so I could at least reap some of the rewards of my taxes.

samurai_5 7 years, 8 months ago

And who conducted that survey? Who were they working for? If they had a vested interest in having the road built of course they are going to say that there's nothing there. Regardless of who they worked for, the Haskell community will still resist the wetlands being built over and that has lasted for more than 20 years. Like you say, just because someone says that it's true doesn't make it so.

akuna 7 years, 8 months ago

How much traffic would building an east Lawrence by-pass alleviate from 23rd street? If 23rd street traffic is the main concern, then any option that helps alleviate the traffic from 23rd street should be considered.

samurai_5 7 years, 8 months ago

See, it's funny that the "Evidence. Hard evidence" doesn't seem to close the case. That happened in 2002 and this issue is still ongoing. The Haskell community will resist, regardless of what someone's survey may say. You know, this country does have a history of LYING to the Native American population for just this type of thing. And I think that burns the non "obstructionists" most of all.

kcwarpony 7 years, 8 months ago

"But Mike Rees, KDOT's chief counsel, said he didn't think the research would result in any spectacular revelations. And even if possible graves were found, Rees predicted the findings wouldn't stop the trafficway.

"There is a "good possibility" that there are Indian graves in the Haskell-Baker Wetlands, a highway department consultant conceded Wednesday.

Paul Brockington, a consultant hired by KDOT to assess the historical significance of the wetlands, told Haskell officials there was a "good possibility" of finding Indian burial sites within the wetlands. Brockington said he initially doubted there were graves in the wetlands, but he changed his mind after interviews with tribal elders. He said he now believes there are graves near the north side of the river."

In April of 2002 the state archeologist confirms what KDOT wants to hear.

"After turning 472 shovelfuls of soil in the Baker Wetlands, a state archeologist couldn't uncover any evidence of humans buried beneath the soggy earth in the path of the proposed final leg of the South Lawrence Trafficway." http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2002/apr...

And then so does the paid consultant,

"Paul Brockington, an archeologist and president of Atlanta-based consulting firm Brockington & Associates, spent several weeks in 2001 using ground-penetrating radar and other means to search for human remains in the wetlands. None were found." http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/mar...

Just how professional can this flip flopper be?

Something interesting two weeks ago...

Article published Sep 28, 2007 Unmarked graves found near Browning

More than two dozen skeletons of children have been found buried near the former Willow Creek boarding school, a facility described a century ago as a "gothic horror." The unmarked burial site atop a gentle knoll a few miles northwest of Browning was discovered last week when a contractor leveled ground for a home foundation.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007709280316

If this happens here it will be a large, time-consuming roadblock. Just what the SLT doesn't need. Build it south.

Mike Ford 7 years, 8 months ago

The Archaeological Resource Protection Act or ARPA of 1978, provided protection for indigenous people's burials before our land was invaded. Next in line was the Kansas Unmarked Burials Act of 1989 that allowed the atrocity known as the Salina Burial Pit be closed and the hundreds of Pawnee ancestors to be repatriated to that former Kansas tribe, courtesy of Attorney Lance Burr. Then, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was enacted in 1990. Grave robbers, oops, I mean anthropologists, howled because they were no longer able to treat our ancestors as immaterial objects for their study. They're howling again with all of the other racists over the Kennewick Man, trying to say that this person doesn't look Native. This coming from a bunch or creepy nerds who've gain financial funding for digging up our people and siding with development interests in moves that contradict their educated nature. Money talks.

The probing which I witnessed from 31st street on a Saturday morning five or six years ago was done in a limited area at a limited depth. it was done as a publicity stunt to give all of the uneducated people something to refer to even if it was a half-a?!ed attempt. The problem is, these people take that limited probing as the god's truth. A elder I know attended the Genoa Indian School in Genoa, Nebraska in the 1920's. The Nebraska Historical Society of Pawnee grave robbing put up a historical marker on the former campus stating that they acknowledged that graves were located all over the campus due to the unsanitary conditions and treatment of that day. From the sounds of some of these posters, the respect for indigenous peoples has never happened. What happened at Genoa pretty much happened at every Indian Boarding School 100 years ago. Maybe KDOT and all of these pro-SLT people should get ready to pony up cash for a lawsuit settlement like what happened when the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe was awarded $5.5 million and 19 acres of land from the State of Washington when the State Transportation Department desecrated 400 graves and made tribal members go to a wherehouse to identify their ancestors. This isn't Nazi Germany, right?

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

kcwarpony--seriously, you think that post supports your argument? You just proved that there are no graves out there! Brockington, a guy you say believed the native american elders' stories that there were graves out there (and where they are supposedly at) and when he goes looking for proof, comes up with nothing! And you say he's not a professional because he believes in the evidence he personally found over stories?! You give two pieces of hard evidence: the GPR survey and the dig survey, and you expect us to believe the stories over that? Come on! kcwarpony says there's nothing out there, let the bulldozers roll.

kcwarpony 7 years, 8 months ago

"...a former Haskell Indian Nations University student has filed a sworn affidavit stating he twice found human remains in the wetlands. The affidavit, submitted to federal officials by David Farve, is thought to be the first written, first-person account of someone encountering skeletal remains in the Baker Wetlands." "In the two-page affidavit, Farve wrote that while walking during 1998 in the wetlands after a heavy summer rain, he encountered "the bones of what appeared to be two children. I saw two sets of human spinal columns and two human skulls, one of which was broken." "On both occasions, Farve said, he covered the remains and reported his findings to Haskell biology professor Chuck Haines. Each time, Farve said, Haines told him not to tell anyone about the remains out of fear someone would attempt to disturb the site." "Haines said Haskell's early history was loaded with documented reports of student deaths and runaways. But, he said, records show many of those students' bodies were neither returned to their families nor buried at the Haskell cemetery. Haines does not doubt that many of those students were unceremoniously buried in the wetlands." "It was a fairly common and well-documented practice at other Indian schools, and I suspect it was here as well," he said. Haines cited a 1996 letter from the U.S. Department of Interior's Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance, in which then-director Willie Taylor wrote: "Our understanding is that the burials were done surreptitiously in the 19th century because of school officials' desire to understate the official mortality rate of the students." http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2003/mar...

I will believe Farve over Brockington any day. I don't believe Brockington had enough information to make a determination. Maybe enough money, but not enough information. Radar testing took place over a small area. We have no idea how accurate this testing was because the people doing the test refused to do a demonstration at a place known to have buried remains. Same can be said about the "472 shovelfuls of soil". Over a 573 acres area, 472 shovels of soil was suppose it give them enough information to make a determination about unmarked graves? Yeah, right...All they did was go through the motions.

"You on the other hand don't care to move your relatives graves..." Many of us believe that once someones remains are returned to Mother Earth they should be lefted alone. That is what I was taught. I know others who were taught this as well. This "burying with family" may be more of a white/xtian thing. Besides, how is one to tell what remains go to what family or tribe? Students from many tribes came to Haskell and after being stripped of all things tribal and put into uniforms, how could you tell which remains belong to which tribe or family?

kcwarpony says "Have some respect and save yourselves from a huge headache and build the SLT south of the river."

Mike Ford 7 years, 8 months ago

Kansas778, this Brockington person wrote a generalized high school level document on Haskell history in the EIS. I read it. Would you have as much fervor for a road if it was your relatives being threatened with being bulldozed by a bunch of argument-inciting dimwits. I'd hope not.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

tuschkahouma--If they were going to build a road through the cemetary where my relatives are buried, I would ask that the government pay to move them and buy new burials plots at a cemetary of my choosing. You on the other hand don't care to move your relatives graves, but would rather USE them to get whitey. You don't seem to give a crap about any people buried out there, because if you did, you would want to take their bodies away from a SWAMP and returned to where their families are buried. If my relatives were buried in unmarked graves in a swamp, I would want them returned to rest next my other relatives in peace, and not where they died, far away from home.

Scott Drummond 7 years, 8 months ago

"But, unless you are willing to do something Draconian with population control or standard of living, more roads will be needed as time moves forward."

Count me as willing.

Richard Heckler 7 years, 8 months ago

Most all other authorities in the past agree little chance for 23rd street improvement no matter what. The city and county can always find someone to agree with their inability to comprehend the truth.

What' best for future growth is not the obsolete choice on 32nd street butttttt SOR as was decided wayyyy back when. Why? Where do you see growth taking place. If any let's have only one bypass. My tax dollars say that is the only practical decision. Why is the city and county paying another consultant on this matter? I'd say that is evidence Lawrence and Douglas County commissioners are NOT great stewards of our tax dollars.

Fix the older existing infrastructure and stop wasting tax dollars trying to sway public opinion. Irresponsible and unacceptable spending.

kcwarpony 7 years, 8 months ago

"So, these possible remains were not disturbed by tractors and plows..."

They might have been disturbed. Just trying to prevent any further desecration.

"But, I really don't care where it traverses..."

I'm not picking on you, just using this as an example, but a lot of people say the same thing..."I don't care where it goes, just build it..." If people who are on the fence would commit to the south of the river route and let your voices be heard, the SLT might move alone faster.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

kcwarpony--well, it seems to me that the studies were done only over the area where the highway would be built. That's only 77 out of the 573 acres.

Anyway, as far as saving ourselves a big headache, if we give in on unsubstantiated claims about graves and baseless claims about environmental concerns, what kind of precedence does that create? If you don't like something, just be enough of a pain to get the government to give up? There are decisions made every day in government that someone somewhere disagrees with, and by given in the government would only encourage your behavior.

Something else that is not working in your favor: Haskell's complete silence on this issue for years. How can Haskell say that the land is sacred now, but said nothing in the late 80s when the SLT was being planned, and said nothing until three years after the project had been approved. In other words, what changed Haskell's mind? It wasn't the money that Baker was getting was it?

remember_username 7 years, 8 months ago

Somebody tell me if I'm not thinking clearly. Toboben suggests that the 32nd street alignment would reduce traffic volumes by 35% west of Haskell ave, and by 11% between Haskell and Louisiana St. (isn't Louisiana St. west of Haskell?). Doesn't that imply that the trafficway only mitigates traffic on 23rd by 11%?. Rush hour moving east between Barker and Haskell is the worst I've seen in Lawrence and that will improved by 11% for - what are we up to now - 120 million dollars? This article should have said 35% west of Louisiana and 11% east of Louisiana to present a proper perspective - of course if you're pushing for the SLT 35% sounds much better.

That paragraph is for SLT opponents...the following paragraph is for SLT proponents.

And how do those figures work on rush hour traffic? Assuming Haskell and Louisiana connect with the trafficway. Are westbound commuters on K-10 in this study choosing to travel west to Louisiana before moving north to the bypass and on to west Lawrence? And eastbound commuters dropping back onto 23rd at Louisiana instead of moving further east to Haskell or the proposed K-10 SLT interchange? Clearly these figures must apply, without confirmation, to total traffic load. Thus the impact during commuter rush hour might be much more significant that 35%, or 28% if you're in favor of the south-of-the-river route. Which I hereby dub "the South...South Lawrence Trafficway, or SSLT.

Assuming I'm not missing anything from the article and confusing my compass directions - of course.

50YearResident 7 years, 8 months ago

Kansas778 posted: Haskell's complete silence on this issue for years. How can Haskell say that the land is sacred now, but said nothing in the late 80s when the SLT was being planned, and said nothing until three years after the project had been approved. In other words, what changed Haskell's mind?

Also add into this that the famous "sweat lodge and prayer circle" were not even built until after Haskell decided to protest the bypass and it was added to the reasons not to build. This protest turned out to be a class project for students that had no roots in Lawrence, Ks.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

As this thread clearly demonstrates, those who are adamant about the 32nd St. route don't give a damn about what Haskell wants or thinks. They would be pleased if Haskell just disappeared altogether. So I repeat, if the city and county choose to ram this down Haskell's throat, they should be completely honest and admit that they don't really want Haskell Indian Nations University in this town.

I'm sure there are many communities who would be thrilled to have such a university, so all you pavement lovers should step up to the plate and buy out Haskell so they can go to a community where they would be welcome, and Lawrence can contiune its "progress" to the vanilla bedroom community you desire.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

remember username--it would be expected that the farther west on 23rd you go the greater the reduction in traffic would be. If you were coming into town on K-10 and was headed to Haskell, you wouldn't take the SLT, you would take 23rd. But if you were headed to a piont farther west, like southwest junior high, you would take the SLT.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

So how about it, kansas778? Will you be honest and join the campaign to rid Lawrence of the Haskell Menace and Blight?

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

bozo--that doesn't make any sense. Lawrence has to give in to Haskell's every demand, or else that means Lawrence doesn't want the university there? What? And what about Haskell being a good neighbor for a change? Don't they care about this community at all, or are they determined to dictate how the city is run? You don't think these things out at all, and you are completed biased by race. Would you feel differently if the land was owner by a private individual who was white? Would you feel differently if Haskell was in support and Baker was against the road? Would you feel differently if Wal-Mart owned the land and was refusing to give in? If the answer to any of these is yes then you are a bigot.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"And what about Haskell being a good neighbor for a change? "

Given all that Haskell has been required to do over the years "to be a good neigbor," the question arises purely out of ignorance. There is a major sewer line running through the south end of Haskell's campus (north of 31st street.) 31st Street, Broken Arrow School, South Junior High, Broken Arrow Park, and the Wakarusa Township Fire Dept all sit on land that once belonged to Haskell.

The wetlands now in question once belonged to Haskell, too, and were transferred to other entities in violation of the laws governing such transfers. As long as Baker was restoring them and using them as an educational tool, and Haskell had full access to them, it was a more or less moot point. But now that Baker has chosen to sell them to the highest bidder who intends to destroy them, the disrespect involved couldn't be any clearer.

As far as your list of 20 questions-- all irrelevant. The land rightfully belongs to Haskell, and you either respect their wishes or you don't. Since you clearly don't, then admit that you really don't want them here at all, which is the only logical conclusion that can be drawn from such obvious disrespect for them and their wishes.

thebigspoon 7 years, 8 months ago

You guys think the wetlands is a problem. Did you know that Flower is now dead? Where is your compassion? Or do you want to continue with your liberal, kneejerk reaction and ignore the tragedy her death represents. How absolutely unkind of you all.

samurai_5 7 years, 8 months ago

This is what I hear in my head from the people who support the SLT

"I want more roads. I don't know why I want more roads but I want them now. And I want them to go through your backyard. I need to get to wal mart faster. And I need to get home faster. Sure I could have left later or earlier to avoid all the traffic, but no, I just want more roads. And I don't know why. You could even build it over my grandmothers grave, just pay me money and move it where I want to move it, and make sure I can get to wal mart faster."

:)

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

and samurai is saying: "I want to live in the dark ages, I don't know why but I do. And people who drive cars can sit in traffic all day because I'm in denial of what century it is."

remember_username 7 years, 8 months ago

kansas778 - My point was also a shot at how the data was presented - it should have used Louisiana as the dividing line 11% (0r 7%) east and 35% (or 28%) west on 23rd. The way it was presented was slightly biased and implied to me a greater benefit than might actually be realized by much of the community. I'm convinced the traffic difference of 35% versus 28% will be similar to the difference we will see on Louisiana. If you build along 32nd expect a considerable jump on Louisiana, south of the river and Louisiana shouldn't change much. Those west of Iowa would benefit just fine along either alignment.

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

"That is a difference of 7,000 cars per day. 7,000 more cars diverted by 32nd route than the 28,000 cars diverted by the 42nd route is an important and significant increase."

Oooh oooh! Suppose that there were 1,000,000 cars on 23rd street! That would be a difference of 70,000 cars off the road every day from one plan to another! That's a huge and significant increase! Almost the size of our population! It's just simple math, it has to be truly relevant!

Please.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

remember_username--well, I don't get why you are assuming that 11% applies to anything more than what is stated in the article, or why the 35% would apply to less than what is in the article. If Home Depot says they are cutting costs by 35% that doesn't mean that each and every store will cut its costs by exactly 35%. Some will be 11%, some will be more, but the aggregate will be 35%. Would Home Depot be deceiving their stockholders if they say they've cut costs by 35%?

So I guess my question is: you say they are being deceptive by citing an overall reduction in 35%, because one segment is less than that, but why would you expect every segment to have exactly 35% reduction in traffic?

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

jonas, you would avoid sticking your foot in your mouth if you read all the posts. He was using the number 100,000 because it is a round number that's easily divisible. Should he have used 35,297 instead?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

Tell me, kansas778, what is the texture of the straws at which you grasp?

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

kansas778: I read that post, and you know what, it's still stupid. My point was: as long as we're just making @#$% up to prove points, then you might as well go whole hog into it. As it stands, it's simply a weak example of making @#$% up to prove an illusory point.

"Should he have used 35,297 instead?"

Is that the actual number of cars on the road in any given average day? I mean, I know that using actual REAL numbers in these situations is haring way off into left field, but it does seem to be the tactic that would, well, provide us the most realistic data.

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

So, is that real, or did you just throw that one out randomly? Where'd you get it from?

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

2470.58 cars off the road difference. I suppose the question is whether that's a big number or not, but I think we can equivocally state that whoever gets stuck with the .58th of a car is going to say that this is not the way it should be.

remember_username 7 years, 8 months ago

Kansas778 I see your point and I didn't mean to imply less than 35% except in comparison to the 28% mentioned in the article. Just felt it would be better to have complete information, better presented. As you said if the study indicated 11% reduction east of Louisiana to Haskell, and 35% west of Haskell to (assuming Iowa) for overall, then that would imply a greater than 35% reduction west of Louisiana. But that's only half of 23rd unless we are to assume Clinton Parkway was included and a drop of greater than 50% or more on Clinton wouldn't surprise me a bit. In any case if I must travel from Iowa to points east of Haskell on 23rd I won't see much difference in traffic backups east of Louisiana - half of 23rd street only shows an 11% reduction? For 120 million I get that? Let KDOT use the money repairing bridges.

Mike Ford 7 years, 8 months ago

Kansas 778, I'll give you what I'm becoming known for on this post; A HISTORY lesson. The Bureau of Indian Affairs up until Indian Preference was enacted in 1968 was essentually a puppet organization ran for the effort of being paternalistic and exploiting indigenous peoples. Three Native people ran the BIA between 1870 and 1970, Eli Parker, Seneca, Robert Bennett, Wisconsin Oneida, and Louis Bruce, Mohawk/Lakota. Any tribal person who spoke up was threatened with jail time. This was the case when female members of the Kickapoo and Prairie Band Potawatomi Nations spoke up against the governmental efforts to terminate their tribal recognition in the 1950's in Kansas. The White BIA people like Dillon Myers saught to give away everything they could in Indian Country in the 1950's, including the HASKELL wetlands. It wasn't until the 1970's that NATIVE BIA officials said something against the transfer of the wetlands because they'd fought for our voices to be heard and federal laws not to be opportunistically swept under the table so that WHITE people could resume stealing our lands without a fight. We fight now and we fight hard. We will no longer let the fox guard the chicken house and steal as they wish with impunity. The fox is the federal government, especially when it's ran by state's right's republicans who only pay attention to the U.S. Constitution when they want to or when we beat them in court and make them pay attention to THEIR OWN LAWS! In 1886, the federal government passed a law outlawing any tribal worship or languages spoken at boarding schools like Haskell. These laws finally became outmoded and done away with in the late 1980's. That's why the medicine wheel came into existence. It was no longer outlawed by government policy. The timing had nothing to do with the road project and everything to do with the U.S. government ending it's oppresive ways of treating indigenous peoples. The Haskell wetlands were surplused out by WHITE BIA officials before Indian Preference phased most of them out to their friends as political favors. This has been going on for over a century and it's time it stopped and justice was done; the wetlands being returned to HASKELL!

Godot 7 years, 8 months ago

If the SLT were to serve only to re-route the semi-truck traffic around Lawrence, it would be worth it, wherever it is located.

Mike Ford 7 years, 8 months ago

Kansas 778, our people were here for thousands of years. We bury them where they lie. Choctaw people who were forced to remove after the signing of the Dancing Rabbit Creek Treaty of 1830 in Mississippi carried their ancestors bones with them as a Choctaw practice from Mississippi to Oklahoma. When the bones became too heavy to carry as more people died en route across Arkansas, the Choctaw people left them where they lied. This land is ours. Whether it's Kaw, Osage, Pawnee, Shawnee, Delaware, Choctaw, Lakota, Creek, or Kickapoo land. Christianity wasn't here. It came here with the original immigrants on boats. People three hundred years ago buried their ancestors according to their tribal customs. They never invisioned thousands of vehicles and callous people invading their lands. When those Haskell students died of European diseases in the 19th century, they were treated as less than human by the governments that relocated their people and the churches that exploited them. The people whose hands they died at thought of them as less than human when they dumped them in the wetlands hoping they'd never be found. This country sweeps a lot under the carpet. And now, they're paying for it.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

tuschkahouma--enough with the lies. The more posts you make, the more you contradict yourself. I don't doubt that the government tried to stamp out religious practices in 1886, but you are lying if you say that law prevented Haskell students from participating in religious activities and that's why the political, err, medicine wheel didn't come into existence until someone wanted to put a highway out there. 1. the first and fourteenth amendments would make such a law unconstitutional, and while a judge in 1886 might have upheld such an unconstitutional law, no judge from the 1930s on would have, and 2. there have been documented religious ceremonies going back to the 1920s. When I was a kid we would go watch the religious dancing at the pow wows. This is nothing more than a political game to you and you'll lie lie lie for your cause. Stop making stuff up, until then, I won't take anything you say seriously.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

For anyone who's interested, there was a Supreme Court case that was very similar, where the state was building a highway through lands used by Native Americans for religious purposes. Here is the holding of the court: Incidental effects of government programs, which may interfere with the practice of certain religions, but which have no tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs, do not require government to bring forward a compelling justification for its otherwise lawful actions. The Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can exact from the government. Even assuming that the Government's actions here will virtually destroy the Indians' ability to practice their religion, the Constitution simply does not provide a principle that could justify upholding respondents' legal claims. The case was Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association 485 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1988).

geological_musician 7 years, 8 months ago

What people are forgetting is that the trafficway will not actually go through Haskell lands. The city does care what Haskell thinks, but it doesn't effect them directly. It goes through Baker lands, that's why Baker is getting paid, as reimbursement. Don't flaunt racist accusations blindly. There are plenty of us who do care about Haskell but still want the trafficway.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

One last thing I found, in addition to any such a law prohibiting free exercise of religion being unconstitutional, and also obviously not followed, the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) 46 U.S.C § 1996 would have defintely made it legal. So best case scenario you are lying on the date, but either way, you are lying.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"bozo-then you are a bigot"

And your powers of logic are about on par with a banana slug.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

just_another_bigot--simple, would you change your opinion if Wal-Mart was the owner of the land? If so then you are basing your opinion on prejudice, because it's not about property rights to you, but race, hence that makes you a bigot. Might as well just admit it.

lunacydetector 7 years, 8 months ago

kansas used to be an ocean millions of years ago. we need to go back to what we once were, an ocean. of course we will need the 50' sharks that swam here as well as all the freaky fish/dinosaurs they ate. an LHS science teacher now deceased told our class that mt. oread is an extinct volcano. shouldn't we be tunneling deep within KU to resurrect the magma flows of yesteryears?

wouldn't mother earth be pleased?

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

just_another_bigot--same texture as your racist straw man

Mandie Eutsler 7 years, 8 months ago

face it people. this town is full of two different types of people. those with money and those without money. the people with money are going to build wal-marts and such. they are going to build useless businesses and places for other rich people to live. traffic will become ridiculous. this town will grow to the south. those without money want lawrence to stay the same and downtown to continue to be a slum and haven for transients and homelessness. it's going to grow so get used to it. the wetlands are manmade and only 12 percent will be used. the wet lands will continue to go unused. those complaining the loudest have no rights to the land. lawrence is increasingly becoming a bedroom community and there is nothing that can be done about it. bottom line is, commuters need to get off 23rd and 31st street , let's not forget 19th street, and go around. there are too many schools with kids who walk, ride bikes and drive. reducing idiot drivers in a hurry by 35 percent sounds good to me. those drivers seeking highway 10 will use the slt. if you build it, they will come.

jonas 7 years, 8 months ago

sundancewierdo: "those drivers seeking highway 10 will use the slt. if you build it, they will come."

That's true, and so will more of them, most likely.

I also think, though cannot confirm, that the likely most ardent resisters of the Walmart (and the reason it was delayed for so long) are the more affluent people living around 6th and Wak, who didn't want it and the extra traffic in their neighborhood. The anti-elites who seem primarily to hate all things corporate are, I believe, a much smaller relative faction than the cacophony they can create would tend to suggest.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"same texture as your racist straw man"

And yet you've been extremely busy expressing your disdain for Haskell on this thread. Perhaps you should be more careful in displaying your true personality on internet forums if you don't want to be called for what you are.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

just_another_bigot--again you prove how much of a bigot you are. Race has no effect on my decision making, only yours. If I were to criticize KU for moving the MU-KU football game to KC, what are you going to say then? That I'm racist against KU students? You haven't answered the question yet: would it make any difference to you if the race of the people at Haskell was different?

Just because Haskell is a minority institution doesn't mean they are above criticism. That's the intolerant stance of a bigot. Can you imagine someone saying an all-white institution was above criticism because they were white? You seem to think saying that exact same thing is perfectly OK, and it's not racist when you do it.

And by the way, you need to take some lessons in academic writing. Your posts are full of conclusions without any reasoning. It's very simple, add a because at the end of a sentence, and then figure out the because.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

You want to steal their land-- land that was "granted" to them as a very paltry recompense for the land that had already been stolen from them. And you want to portray yourself as the "reasonable" one. Pathetic.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

Haskell does not own the land. Baker owns the land. Haskell is not trying to recover the land. There is no pending litigation about the title to the land. Baker is being compensated for the 77 acres that are being used for the highway. Now those are facts. Here's a conclusion, and watch how I supporting it with reasoning: no one is stealing anyone's land--BECAUSE--the owner of the land willingly sold it. Now you try it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

Your "reasoning" is perfectly reasonable only by ignoring history. But you're obviously uncomfortable with your racism, or at least having it identified for what is, so I don't blame you for your desperate wallowing in denial.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

More idiocy by a bigot. Trying reasoning out what spews from your mouth for a change. I'll do it for you: "Haskell doesn't want to reclaim legal title, but we should still let them decide how the property is used because I think they should get special treatment because of their race."

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"I'll do it for you:"

Talk about idiocy. Why do you even bother coming on this forum if you're merely going to be arguing with yourself? Why don't you just lock yourself in a room and let all your multiple personalities have it out in private, and spare the rest of us?

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

just_another_bigot, ahh, you don't like it when your argument gets exposed for how silly it is, do you?

Godot 7 years, 8 months ago

"kansas778 (Anonymous) says:

just_another_bigot-simple, would you change your opinion if Wal-Mart was the owner of the land? If so then you are basing your opinion on prejudice, because it's not about property rights to you, but race, hence that makes you a bigot. Might as well just admit it."

kansas778; actually, if you read through the voluminous blog history on this subject, you realize that the underlying motive behind the most vitriolic of the anti-SLT posts is revenge.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

You know, K778, putting words in my keyboard is an intelletually lazy and ineffective way to make an "argument." The only thing that it "exposes" is that you don't have anything to offer except bald (and racist) assertion.

"the underlying motive behind the most vitriolic of the anti-SLT posts is revenge."

Really? "Revenge" would imply that there was some sort of wrong done. What is the wrong for which vengeance is sought, Godot?

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

sorry, bigot, but you refuse to answer if your opinion would be different if the race of the people at Haskell was different. What are you, taking the fifth? Well this isn't criminal court, and refusing to answer is seen as a sign of admission in the most negative way possible. So I'm not putting words in your mouth, you've admitted that you base your opinion on race.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

If the land had belonged to someone of another race, and it had been taken from them wrongly, I would support the return of that land to them. In this particular case, the land was given to the Indians of Haskell (per treaty obligations) as partial recompense for what was done to them because of their race (confiscation of an entire continent. )

But you want to ignore that bit of history, and you oppose returning the land to its rightful owner. Why is that? Because you want to use that stolen land for your own purposes? If so, I guess maybe you aren't necessarily racist-- you're just a thief.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

just_another_bigot--the land wasn't stolen it was put to other government uses because Haskell wasn't using it. Now do you want the "stolen" land where South Junior High and broken arrow park is built to be given back to Haskell too? This isn't a case of the government stealing hereditary lands from Native Americans, like you seem to think it is. Haskell was founded using money from the people and businesses of Lawrence, and it was given land and money from the government. Haskell used the land for several decades, but stopped using it in the 1930s. The government simply took it back since they weren't using it, and used it for schools, a fire station, a park, a fishing and wildlife area, and a biological research area. Now they want to use it for a highway too. Unless you are against schools, parks, fire stations, and highways, why wouldn't the government take back unused land that it gave to someone in the first place?

Haskell is not a tribe, it's a school. The lands they owned were not ancient territory that was stolen from them. They were lands that were given to them that were taken back so they could be used productively, which they were, and which is perfectly within the rights of the government to do. Again, you want to color everything with race. This is not about race, this is about property because the same thing would happen no matter what publicly funded school was using the property.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

What a convenient and tidy rationale for your larceny.

"They were lands that were given to them that were taken back so they could be used productively,"

Translation: "Indian-giving" in reverse.

Your song remains the same, "Hey, as long as my perceived needs are met, screw the Injuns."

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

And if it was KU you would have no problem with it you bigot.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

Lawrence is looking to build a new sports complex. According to the 32nd/SLT logic, Haskell should just turn its stadium and grounds over to the school district "in the interest of the greater good."

And I'm sure that Alvamar will do the same with its golf course, and Dolph will cede all WorldCo's downtown property to the city in that same spirit, and in the frenzy of philanthropy, Compton and the Fritzels will immediately follow suit. KU will even allow many of the major buildings on the central and west campuses to be bulldozed so that 15th and 19th Streets can become thru streets all across town (including what's left of Alvamar.)

Don't you love the smell of progress?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

You're really stuck on that hypothetical irrelevancy, aren't you? The complex history of this country, which includes the outright theft of an entire continent and accompanying genocide, means that you can't just toss out an utterly simplistic "But what if it was KU?!" KU is owned and operated by the white settlers' descendants-- the same people who operate the state government, and send representatives to the federal government in Washington. They are the winners who got all the spoils.

The folks at Haskell are the descendants of the losers, who lost nearly everything. The grounds of Haskell are among the crumbs that were tossed them in the many, mostly meaningless, peace treaties. But they are meaningless because people like you have no integrity, and refuse to respect either the letter or intent of those treaties. If you covet a piece of Indian land, just create some legal fiction and steal it from them just one more time.

It's despicable, and if this country survives long enough that history gets to judge us, the behaviour of the white community in Lawrence towards Haskell will be considered truly shameful, the SLT debacle being one more of a long line of insults.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

Well bigot, your analogies fail because the difference is that Haskell was not using the property for decades. KU is using those buildings that would be bulldozed. And Alvamar is private property. Big swing and a miss there.

Oh, and loony is it to compare genocide with redistributing federally granted school grounds?

And what is with this idea that Haskell was part of some peace treaty? You are caught up in a nightmare of cliches. Haskell was founded on donations of those evil white people and businesses in Lawrence. Oooooooo, eeeeevil. Peace treaty? God damn you are completely ignorant.

How is it despicable to use land from a school, and build a junior high, a park, an elementary school, a fire station, and a highway on it? That's just barking mad. I notice you don't care about SJHS being on "stolen Indian land," why? The SLT oooohhhhh! Scary!! But a junior high school? eh.

You have no frickin idea what you are talking about. Peace treaty? PEACE TREATY? Quit watching some much TV, it's frying your brain.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"Haskell was not using the property for decades."

You're a never-ending fountain of convenient, self-serving analysis, aren't you?

"I notice you don't care about SJHS being on "stolen Indian land," why? "

It'd be nice if they'd tear down all the buildings and return that land, but it's probablly not gonna happen, is it? On the wetlands, there is nothing built, so the land could easily be returned to the rightful owner, and the highway built south of the river. Nearly everybody would be satisfied except those of you whose main goal appears to be making sure that the damn hippies and Injuns don't "win" one over you self-righteous paragons of "progress."

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

"Haskell was not using the property for decades."

You're a never-ending fountain of convenient, self-serving analysis, aren't you?

You see, that's my bad. I assumed you were not ignorant of the relevant laws that control this situation. One of the elements is that the property needs to be considered surplus property. But you think Haskell is part a (hehe) peace treaty! You really have no idea what the law is or the policy behind it. Oh, and BTW, it's 2007, you need to drop the racial slurs, it's offensive not funny.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

" the relevant laws that control this situation."

And for you, the only relevant laws (even if they have to be stretched to the breaking point) are those that serve your desired purpose, which in this case is the theft of Haskell property.

Your dishonesty, lack of integrity and willful ignorance is truly disgusting.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

just_another_bigot--clearly the ignorant one here is you. You think Haskell is part of a peace treaty, you have no idea what the controlling laws are, you have no idea how laws even work, you didn't know SJHS and broken arrow are part of the same deal, you're ignorant of the controlling Supreme Court case, you don't know the history of the property, and you don't know the history of Haskell. You don't have a single clue what's going on. The ONLY thing you know is that Haskell is opposed to the SLT, and because of a racial divide you are taking the side of the minority. Now that is a lack of integrity and that is why you are a bigot. You are completely clueless, you don't have an interest in this debate, you are just a bleeding-heart dimwit who can't see past your cliched view of the evil white majority oppressing the powerless racial minority. That is a cliche, and you just aren't smart enough to see it for what it is.

QED

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

What I see is an arrogant a**hole and you are so focused on what you want that nothing else matters. You want Haskell's land, so you create some self-serving narrative to support it, and then throw out some absurd, up-is-down notion that poor oppressed white people are getting screwed by the evil Indians. You're pathetic.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

It isn't Haskell's land, but just_another_bigot lives in a dream world of cliches where there are villains and heros. The much more boring world of property rights doesn't interest him. He'd rather have the arch-villain stealing the land of the racial minority, with him as the defender of justice to right the wrong.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"with him as the defender of justice to right the wrong."

Then there are a$$holes like you who obviously don't understand any difference between right and wrong. You only understand taking whatever you want, however you have to, no matter who gets screwed in the process. Pathetic.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

just_another_bigot's next crusade will be to defend contingent remaindermen's future interests in a prematurely ended finite estate by lassoing the evil arch-villain owner with a reversion in fee simple absolute. Screw the law, that poor remainderman is a minority!

Mike Ford 7 years, 8 months ago

Dear Kansas 778, I'm glad I saw two days worth of your ignorance before I replied. The Snyder Act was passed in 1924, giving Native peoples the rights of U.S. Citizenship. Prior to that, Native peoples had no recourse in American courts unless they renounced their tribal membership. The Native American Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 undid all of the cultural prohibitions that the federal government laid upon the Native Chidlren it took from their parents and families for years at a time. After the passage of this act, signed into law by President Clinton, the medicine wheel was built. You see, in Indian Country, we not only have to fight non-Indians who are clueless, we have to fight Christian Native people who consider us heathens due to their assimiliation. Not all Christian natives are this way but twenty years ago, a number of them were. You nver cease to amaze me with your defiantly uneducated tone. It's a shame that there is a mob of people who think like this

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

tuschkahouma--LOL, again, you are lying. That act has to do with religious activities, not sacred sites. But even if it did, it would not support your argument. Have you actually read the act? It reinstitutes the "Sherbert Test" which states that the government cannot ban something unless there is a compelling public interest. Since building a road is by default a compelling public interest, this act doesn't help you at all! This law was designed to protect Native Americans who used drugs in their relgious ceremonies. Some states tried to ban the use of these drugs, but according to this act, since banning drugs from religious ceremonies has no compelling public interest, that law would be overturned. tuschkahouma, I've shown you to be a liar over and over again, and it's so easy because you don't know a thing about the law.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

tuschkahouma--oh, and another legal concept of which I'm sure you are completely ignorant, is adverse possession. Even if the land should have belonged to Haskell, if Haskell does nothing to regain possession, they lose the title after the statute of limitations has run out. So in other words, you can't wait 40 years, and then all of a sudden try to regain control of a property. The title has passed on. South Carolina took possession of an island that belonged to Georgia. Georgia did nothing about it, and even though the island had been given to Georgia in the treaty of Beaufort (1787) Georgia lost ownership of the island once the statute of limitations had run out. You haven't got a legal leg to stand on, and you are clearly not a lawyer, so you'll never win this debate with me.

Mike Ford 7 years, 8 months ago

firstly, it seems as if you referenced the Wikipedia site on the law I referred to. Great site for accuracy?, read the real bill. GOTCHA! Secondly, Congress has plenary powers over Indian Affairs under Article One, Section Eight, Part Three, of the U.S. Constitution. No tribal land is transferred without an act of congress. If you really have a clue, read title 25, chapter 7 section 293a, or the federal Indian schools surplus lands act of 1962. No more than 50 acres of land are to be transferred. That law was broke by over 520 acres when Baker acquired the land in 1968. Native Haskell officials have asked for the land back since the early 1970's. Laws dating from either the articles of confederation or dealing with states have no bearing in Indian Affairs. Stop writing so angrily and do more research. You might not sound like such a tool.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

I have access to LexisNexis and Westlaw and that is where I read the act. Here is a part:

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA) (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000bb et seq.), was enacted to restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v Verner (1963) 374 US 398, 10 L Ed 2d 965, 83 S Ct 1790, 9 BNA FEP Cas 1152, and Wisconsin v Yoder (1972) 406 US 205, 32 L Ed 2d 15, 92 S Ct 1526, and to guarantee the application of the Act in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened since the Supreme Court, in Employment Div. v Smith (1990) 494 US 872, 108 L Ed 2d 876, 110 S Ct 1595, 52 BNA FEP Cas 855, 53 CCH EPD ¶39826, CCH Unemployment Ins Rep ¶21933, had virtually eliminated the requirement that the government justify the burdens on religious exercise imposed by laws neutral toward religion, and provide a claim or defense to those persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government(42 U.S.C.A. § 2000bb(a) (4), (b) (1)-(2)).

I have read the act, so gotcha--you haven't read it because you clearly don't understand that this act is in favor of building a road, a compelling public interest. Thank you for adding to my case.

And K.S.A. § 60-503 says that the statute of limitations (SOL) for adverse possession is 15 years. Now you say Haskell "asked" for the land back, but if you ask Baker for the land and they say no, and you don't take it to court in 15 years, then the SOL has run. I don't think you've done any research, but are relying on what you've been told, because you seem to have all the relevant laws but you don't understand them at all.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

Anyone with any knowledge of relations between the US Govt and Native American tribes knows that there has been a long tradition of creating a "legal" basis for whatever screwing the US Govt wanted to administer.

And anyone who has dealt with the US legal system knows that if you have enough money and influence, you can pretty much do whatever you damn please. That has quite clearly excluded Native American interests for most of the history of this country.

Facts:

  1. The US Govt, in exchange for land and other concessions, agreed among other things to provide for the general welfare and education of the Indian peoples who had ceded most of their land and nearly all of their sovereignty.

  2. Haskell was established with the purported intent to provide educational opportunities guaranteed in numerous treaties, but in its early years, it provided primarily indoctrination, torture, disease and forced isolation from native cultures. Haskell had more similarities to a concentration camp than an educational institution.

  3. Until quite recently, decisions about Haskell's campus were made by people who didn't consult anyone for whom the institution was supposedly established. As a result, land was "surplussed" according to the greed of local movers and shakers, not the needs of the native constituency who should have had final say.

It would be nice to be able to say that things have changed for the better. But paternalistic a$$holes like K778 demonstrate quite well that racism is alive and well, and they'll strain themselves into legalistic hernias in order to justify their bad faith and outright larceny, just make sure they stay on top.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

Interestingly enough, Baker was given the property by a quitclaim deed. Of course just_another_bigot won't know what that is, but the point is that Haskell clearly could have recovered the property and chose not to, which was because the land was indeed land that they were not using and didn't want. So don't argue with me, ask Haskell why the land was worthless to them then.

And it isn't a "legalistic hernia," this is common law and happens all the time. When my grandpa died, we found out that he had built his garage on what was technically his neighbor's property. Now the neighbor didn't care and deeded that portion to my grandma for $1. But, if he had decided to fight it, my grandma could have said that it was hers since the garage had been on the land for 50 years, and the statute of limitations had run on the other person doing anything. This is the law bigot, and it's not used by whites to "steal" property from minorities. The purpose is to support productive use of property. If someone isn't using a property for years and years and years, and someone else is putting it to productive use...ah who cares. just_another_bigot doesn't care about the law, just being the hero in his epic battle of good and evil that is playing out in his imagination.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

and bozo, can you answer me this one question, just one time...please. As you seem to be such an expert on my motivations, do you think that if it was KU's former land, and not Haskell's that it would make a difference to me?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

The legal fiction you want to hang on to is that those who gave the wetlands away in any way represented those for whom Haskell was purportedly established. The transfer of the land was done strictly for the benefit of those who recieved the land. Haskell's native consitiuency was not even consulted. So it's completely disingenous to say that "Haskell" didn't want the land when "Haskell" really wasn't even involved in the transfer.

The leadership of Haskell of today much better represents its students and the tribes who sponsor them. That's not to say that they don't have to take into account that they are federally funded, and that funding must be approved by legislators who are as hostile to Indian education as you are. So for Haskell, which is chronically underfunded, trying to reclaim the wetlands has not been the best way to spend its limited resources, especially as long as Baker is restoring the wetlands, and making then available for educational purposes. If the construction of the highway moves forward, I expect that we will see Haskell decide that it's time to reclaim their property, although they could easily succumb to political pressure (from Pat Roberts, for example) not to do so, or they could see retaliation through reduced federal funding.

"do you think that if it was KU's former land, and not Haskell's that it would make a difference to me?"

The institutions and their histories are so different that it's a totally meaningless question, so I really don't care whether it "makes a difference" to you.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

just_another_bigot--I see the argument is going way over your head. No one claims that "those who gave the wetlands away in any way represented" Haskell. The government did that, not Haskell. You following so far? Haskell could have gone to court and fought to retake the property, but they did not. They had 15 years to do so, and they failed to act. If they failed to act, then that is their own fault. The law offers them a remedy and they failed to take it, don't try and blame that on anyone else. The quitclaim deed is evidence enough that Haskell could have done something. Since the SOL has run, Baker has a clear title now. End of story. That's not a "legal fiction," you don't even know a single thing about the law.

"The institutions and their histories are so different that it's a totally meaningless question, so I really don't care whether it "makes a difference" to you."

What does make a difference to me? Don't back out now! You said I was a big mean ol' racist. Have you lost your backbone?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

Yea, yea, yea, the fox was guarding the henhouse, so the death of the hens is their own damn fault. Your logic is impeccable.

"That's not a "legal fiction," you don't even know a single thing about the law."

Perhaps a better term would be "legal cover" for the theft of the land through "legal" means.

"What does make a difference to me?"

Quite clearly, what makes a difference to you is gaining control of Haskell's land, no matter what means are necessary.

Mike Ford 7 years, 8 months ago

kansas778, I've put 13 years of research into my work, not to be called a liar by a denialistic hothead that doesn't even realize that the 1,103 acres that comprised Haskell campus in 1903 was paid for with funds deducted by the U.S. Treasury Department from tribal accounts held in trust by the U.S. Government and the Department of Interior for recognized Indian Nations. Did you research the Surplus Lands Act of 1949? Do you know about the termination policies of the Eisenhower Adminstration and the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the 1950's? It doesn't look llike it. Who did you learn to call names from? Bill O'Reilly? All of the land transfers for the parks and the schools followed Public Law 47's decree of 20 acres at ONE time. The Baker transfer of 572.68 acres was in violation of Public Law 87, which became Title 25, Chapter 7, Section 293a, which I referenced earlier. Only 50 acres was allowed to be transferred under that public law. You can call names all you want. Lexis-Nexis doesn't have everything on it, much to your amazement. Sometimes, you actually have to study to find things. You do study? right?

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

tuschkahouma--"That's why the medicine wheel came into existence. It was no longer outlawed by government policy. The timing had nothing to do with the road project and everything to do with the U.S. government ending it's oppresive ways of treating indigenous peoples. " This is a complete lie, and I've proved you wrong. You were completely wrong about The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, you haven't read it, and you are lying. The medicine wheel was put there for political reasons to try and block the SLT.

How many acres taken doens't matter this many years after the fact. The SOL has run and Haskell has no recourse left. When you say you've put 13 years into research, what you mean is you've tried to find anything that might support your obstruction and not actually analyzed all the relevant laws. Now I've read 25 U.S.C.A. § 293a and it does say 50 acres. However, in your 13 years of "research" you seem to have completely avoided K.S.A.§ 60-503, Lyng v. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Association 485 U.S. 439 (U.S. 1988), or the 1978 American Indian Religious Freedom Act (airfa) 46 u.s.c § 1996.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

If the money ever appears to actually build this thing, (looking less and less likely) the legal issues will be decided in a courtroom. I'm not a lawyer, but even if I were, that wouldn't mean I can predict how the courts will eventually rule, nor can any other of the idle speculators and self-professed legal experts on this thread.

But regardless of any legal issues, what's clear is the process that transferred it out of Indian hands was very flawed, and there was no attempt to clear that transfer with any of the Indian owners of that property. Now that Indians have gained some level of control over their assets, the vast majority of Indians throughout the country who have an opinion on this issue want the wetlands at the very least preserved, if not returned to outright to Haskell. If the history of Haskell and the struggle for survival by the Indian peoples in this country mean anything to you, then you have to oppose this route.

And the converse is equally true. If you support the 32nd St. route for the SLT, then that support automatically comes with the clear statement that you have nothing but utter contempt for both Haskell and the Indian peoples for which it was established, regardless of any legal justifications you can conjure up (such as a statute of limitations) for your theft of Haskell lands.

So the choice is yours-- oppose the SLT on 32nd, or send a big FU to Haskell, with all the racist connotations that go with that.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

"I'm not a lawyer, but even if I were, that wouldn't mean I can predict how the courts will eventually rule, nor can any other of the idle speculators and self-professed legal experts on this thread."

The whole point of the legal system is that it is predictable. What is OK today cannot become not OK tomorrow, or else people would not know what they can and can't do. The lawyer's job is to make predictions and advise their client what to do. You watch too much TV and think every case can come out either way depending on some good "gamesmanship" by tricky lawyers. When the outcome of a case is in doubt, some element of the case is in question as to the facts or to what is required to mee that element. Here's K.S.A.§ 60-503:

No action shall be maintained against any person for the recovery of real property who has been in open, exclusive and continuous possession of such real property, either under a claim knowingly adverse or under a belief of ownership, for a period of fifteen (15) years

Now which part is in question? Nothing. Since you are not a lawyer, you really should not be commenting on something that you know so little about. I certainly would not argue with an architect on the best way to build a building, and I won't argue with you on how to cook french fries.

And your reasoning that " If you support the 32nd St. route ...you have nothing but utter contempt for both Haskell and the Indian peoples for which it was established" is typical liberal drivel. If I don't support SHCIP I must hate children right? And if I want to change social security it must be because I hate old people and want to steal their money right? Grow up.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"Can't come up with a reason why Haskell could not take some action to recover the land could you?"

That answer has been given numerous times-- those who turned over the wetlands to begin with were not representing the interests of the Indians for whom Haskell purportedly established. They turned it over because their mover-and-shaker cronies around town wanted to raid Haskell, one more time.

And as far as why they didn't try to reclaim it? Probably for some of the same reasons "they" gave it up to begin with.

The problem with your "legal" argument is that it doesn't take into account the corruption that was involved and the betrayal of the Indian peoples by the leaders of "Haskell" for so many decades.

But clearly, corruption and theft aren't a problem as long as you can put a legal "shine" to the theft of the land you desire so much.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

Your self-servingly idealistic view of the legal system ignores the huge elephant in the room.

The decisions that turned over the wetlands were made by people who didn't represent the interests of the people for whom Haskell was purportedly established. And while you cheer the expiration of the statute of limitations because it serves your purpose of confiscating the wetlands for your preferred purpose, it doesn't explain why no attempts were made to recover according to your neat and tidy plan. But examining that doesn't serve your purpose, so you just ignore it.

"Since you are not a lawyer, you really should not be commenting on something that you know so little about."

Since your opinions are so clouded by being such a greedy, racist a$$hole, you are clearly disqualified.

" If I don't support SHCIP I must hate children right?"

I'd say that's a fair assessment.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

"it doesn't explain why no attempts were made to recover according to your neat and tidy plan"
That's not how the law works, I don't make your case for you. The way it works is this: You make a claim: "Those lands belong to Haskell." I make an answer: "Baker has had open, exclusive and continuous possession of such real property, either under a claim knowingly adverse or under a belief of ownership, for a period of fifteen (15) years." Now you two options: 1. you can contest one of the elements of adverse possession, for example you could said that Baker did not have exclusive possession and so without that element the adverse possession argument is invalid, or 2. you could offer a defense such as permission: You could say Haskell was permitting Baker to use the land, but not to keep the land. Of course you would have a hard time proving that, but that is a proper defense. A little research and you could find these basics. Your quote that I posted above seems to be saying that there could be some legitimate reason why Haskell did not bring the suit. If that is your defense, then that's what it is--YOUR defense, and YOU must provide evidence to support it. You must come up with a compelling reason why Haskell could not take some action to recover the land.

"Since your opinions are so clouded by being such a greedy, racist a$$hole, you are clearly disqualified." Hmm, well since you like to scream such invective, I'll tell you what an appropriate method of discerning good public policy is: the balance test. What are the benefits compared to the costs? Some of the benefits are stated in the primary article that spawned this discussion, not to mention that the 32nd street route is less expensive to build and maintain. What are the costs? What harm will this have to the people at Haskell? Whether they should own the property or not, they haven't used it since the 1930s. This highway won't deprive them anything they need, and to say that it'll be too noisy is not an argument, as 23rd and 31st border Haskell's campus as it is. The damage done to the wetlands environment will be mitagated by the additional acreage of wetlands that the project would create.

Now you may disagree with my reasoning, but the point is, this is what I believe, and nowhere does it have anything to do with greed or racism. Your continued insistence that race is somehow a motivating factor cannot be substantiated. This is about creating a sound transportation plan with the greatest benefits and the least costs.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

27 February 2006 at 8:56 a.m. just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says: "I agree- it is time for Haskell to take this to court"

A clear admission that it is up to Haskell to take the case to court.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"Now you may disagree with my reasoning,"

You have no reasoning. You want Haskell's land, and you're busy creating a rationale for taking it. Clearly, nothing else matters to you.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

Swing and a miss. Can't come up with a reason why Haskell could not take some action to recover the land could you? Your failure to provide an adequate defense leads to a dismissal of your claim. Case closed, the land belongs to Baker.

It's clear you want to steal Baker's land, which they rightfully posess. Why do you want to steal their land?

gr 7 years, 8 months ago

"Probably for some of the same reasons "they" gave it up to begin with."

So why is this somehow different than the original white man taking land?

So why is this somehow different than when the indians originally took the land over?

usesomesense 7 years, 8 months ago

While at 31st or 32nd street alignment may alleviate congestion more today on 23rd street it does little for future growth. The retail sector in this town has been growing to the south as a result of the SL(Unfinished)T. There will be NO development along the corridor between Louisiana Street and Haskell because of the wetlands and Haskell. Development WILL occur no matter what, so placing the road on the very edge of where it is needed NOW would be a waste. By the time it is finished we will have traffice problems South of the Wakarusa anyway. Furthermore the resistance on that route will continue to be a problem. 31st street need to be significantly improved - it needs to continue to be 'in-town' driving.

Haskell needs to allow for 31st Street improvement in exchange for the 42nd street route and just get the dang thing done. The first leg of the road will be 20 years old by the time they get started on the East leg!

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

Bozo, why do you want to steal Baker's land?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"Bozo, why do you want to steal Baker's land?"

I guess in your twisted "legal" world, return of stolen property to the rightful owners is considered "theft." Tony Soprano is looking for lawyers like you.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

BTW, k778, one likely reason "Haskell" didn't try to get the property returned was because Baker chose to restore the wetlands and use them as an outdoor laboratory available to all educational institutions. But the $8 million bribe Baker succumbed to to allow them to be destroyed by 10 lanes of pavement has created an entirely new circumstance (and is the latest betrayal of Haskell by local non-Indians.)

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

Holy Turnaround Batman! bozo can be taught, that's actually close to a legitimate defense. Of course you run into two problems: 1. evidentiary--how are you going to prove such a claim about Haskell's intent from 50 years ago, and 2. unless you can provide specific written language that says the entire property must be used so, the property is still being used for educational purposes, only 77 acres would go to the highway.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

There is no turnaround. I really couldn't care less about the supposed, technical legality of the theft of the Haskell Wetlands. History is replete with corrupt and depraved but perfectly legal actions. And each time there has been plenty of corrupt and depraved lawyers who willingly closed their eyes to anything but the technical details of the corruption and depravity that pervaded their puny little lives.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

ahhhhh, no I meant a turnaround in that you aren't a moron, I guess it didn't last...

You are so melodramatic it's hilarious. Are we talking about a highway or slavery?

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"Are we talking about a highway or slavery?"

You're right, it's just a highway. So I'm sure you're ready to back a return of Haskell's property to them. After all, it's just a highway.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

Yes, it's just a highway, and won't hurt anyone to build it.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"Yes, it's just a highway, and won't hurt anyone to build it."

You mean no one you care about.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"No, I mean no one at all."

I need to remember that yours is always very narrow legalistic newspeak. In such newspeak, it's true that no one is ever truly "harmed" by theft.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

There is no theft, Baker agreed to give up the 77 acres, and they are being paid for it too.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

Wow, that newspeak is so ingrained in you that you can't speak in any other way.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"There is no theft, Baker agreed to give up the 77 acres, and they are being paid for it too."

Just FYI, in common parlance, this is what would be known as a "fencing" operation.

kansas778 7 years, 8 months ago

Newspeak? LOL, you're the one doing mental gymnastics to try and say that building a highway is racist! Baker is the title holder, and has agreed to the deal. That's nothing more than a statement of the facts. Your newspeak would hold that building highways is a racist "white" activity that is "done" to minorities.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 7 years, 8 months ago

"Baker is the title holder, and has agreed to the deal. "

If someone offered me $8 million for property I don't really own, I'd be tempted, too.

What's in it for you?

Commenting has been disabled for this item.