Sand Creek needs a park, not a highway

In response to Lawrence Fury's recent letters to the editor — he seems to suggest "saving" Sand Creek from the wrath of condo development by building the byway. I've been clear with him that those backing the tunnel support a regional park and preserve for the east bank of the creek. The trail system remains a requirement for the re-aligned byway and can anchor the new park on the land currently owned by ITD. Building the trail on dry land will have a significant cost savings while the current plan for pathway fills in the creek and an extensive boardwalk structure. The park could tie into the city-owned waterfront property north of the water plant and the railroad station could finally get the respect it deserves as one of park's focal points.

It seems that Mr. Fury's chief objective is to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt on any alternative to his pet project. He seems to make up whatever serves his agenda with little regard for facts. It does not matter how badly he or anyone wants the Sand Creek alignment of the byway — I believe that in the end the environment regulations will require development of a through town route. As to "saving" the creek — a regional park with improved waterfront access would be a gift to future generations, a three-lane elevated highway would not.

STEVE POTTER

Sandpoint