Byway doesn't hinge on 'parking lot' gift

Statements made in the Daily Bee articles concerning a proposed agreement between the city and ITD regarding a so-called "gift" from ITD to the city are in need of correction and/or clarification.

The "park" being offered would amount to a parking lot next to an elevated freeway, since this transaction will not occur unless the Sand Creek highway is built. What a swell addition to Sandpoint's park system!

The agreement would require the city to take on the responsibility for forever maintaining the proposed bike path and the extensive (and expensive) landscaping planned for the "shoreline extension" and the habitat enhancement" areas within Sandpoint city limits. The city would not own the property on which these amenities are located and the cost of the long term maintenance is a complete unknown.

The agreement also requires the city to "approve" construction plans for the entire Sand Creek bypass project, even though the council has neither the expertise nor authority to approve federal-aid highway construction plans.

Lastly, the statement that the city/ITD agreement is required in order for the Corps permit to be issued is completely false. There is nothing in the federal regulations that would require any part of the agreement to be in place.

What is required is a determination that the Sand Creek bypass is the "least damaging" to the aquatic environment — which ITD has yet to demonstrate.

LIZ SEDLER

Sandpoint

NICAN