Where is consistency for height proposal support?

I am surprised by the Bonner County Economic Development Corporation endorsement of the raising height ordinance in the Harold's IGA area of downtown Sandpoint. I do believe this area should be allowed higher buildings. However, using the potential loss of jobs from Panhandle State Bank should not be used as a threat for our making a decision. Is BCEDC trying to hold Sandpoint hostage with PSB's threat for leaving the city? It has been my understanding that BCEDC would not be a political animal figuring that politics would polarize the directors' views and result in indecision on their parts, making the corporation impotent.

Where is the consistency of BCEDC's part when taking a view or non-view on the impact of the Sand Creek bypass? "Scenic integrity, economic vitality, historic preservation" are some of their stated goals. While Idaho Transportation Department has stated in their economic analysis that downtown Sandpoint will lose jobs with the building of the bypass, and these jobs will be relocated in the county, what is BCEDC's stance? None!

Again, where is the consistency? Why does PSB have special influence over the BCEDC? The rest of the downtown business future pains have been defined by ITD with the building of the bypass. Shouldn't all the downtown businesses also have special influence over BCEDC? Why has BCEDC been mute on the bypass?

Is this small town politics? Please, let's have some consistency or is the potato too hot?

SCOTT GLICKENHAUS

Sandpoint