Motivation, not ideas, of opponents is at question

Mr. Temple, I agree that recent debate on the byway in the paper has been interesting.

However to suggest that byway opponents have been maligned in any way is simply not true.

You suggest that opponents should challenge the idea (tunnel) based on its potential cost and local impact. A picture is worth a thousand words. Please access Mott MacDonald's Web site and see for yourself what a tunnel entails.

On the site are pictures of actual "local impacts" when a tunnel boring machine is used. Likewise, a west side route would cause extreme "local impacts" to homeowners and their properties. Attempting to purchase right of way would be costly at best, if not impossible.

Any investigation into alternatives started now will only be inadequate once they are implemented. Time marches on and so does population.

I do not question or deny that newcomers to this area can have good ideas. What I do question, in this case, is their apparent motivation behind proposing such ideas.

I do agree that the "tone" of recent opinions — mine included — has taken the path of levity to make a point. A bit of humor is surely not meant to insult anyone, and if it does, one should ponder why it makes them feel defensive.

In the past, opponents of the byway have called us "sandcreekers" and "unsuspecting pawns," and we've been asked if we "got milk?"

Phrases like "git 'er done" and "times a wastin'" could infer that the writer is attempting to communicate with us on a level we can understand, suggesting that none of us ever made it past the fourth grade in spelling.

Do I take offense?

No, I just smile.

They have chosen a bit of levity to get their point across.

LAURIE WADKINS

Priest River