Potter short on details on tunnel proposal

Mr. Potter, as you are a newcomer to this area, I wonder whether you have had enough time to acclimate yourself to your new environment. The very reasons that attracted you to Sandpoint should be your motivation to keep it as much as possible like it was, before all the development started. Or, perhaps you see opportunities to change it to suit your personal agenda. I hope your investment in The Seasons proves equitable. Under the circumstances, it's understandable that you would not want the byway in your backyard. Perhaps you should have considered the reality of a byway before you made your purchase.

I have visited your Web site. You have spared no expense on your artist's Disneyland renderings of what a tunnel might look like. It would be helpful if the "Preliminary Scope of Work" document was accessible. Mott MacDonald, in their partially disclosed reply, raised some viable "we just don't know yet" concerns about the tunnel. It is apparent that they would be interested in collecting the $100 million to build the tunnel, and similar tunnels that would be needed for you to realize your vision, away from your project, at a like price tag for each.

You have put considerable effort into dwelling on the perceived negative aspects of a byway, and little rhetoric on what is really involved in constructing a tunnel. It reeks of a like negative political campaign. But at this point, if you could discuss your submitted "Preliminary Scope of Work" document, or at least make it available, that would be appreciated., Also, the document entitled, "Tunnel Qualifications" from Mott MacDonald is not accessible.

As you probably know, I am not a big fan of your tunnel proposal. If you insist upon trying to win us over, at least approach it from the viewpoint of addressing issues about what the construction of the tunnel(s) will entail. Unless, of course, you just don't want us to know.

LAURIE WADKINS

Priest River