Quick-and-dirty solution will only add to problems

A pivotal point in the twists and turns of the Sand Creek byway history was the July 1994 ITD public meeting attended by about 300 people.

A vote was taken from that group in regard to the ITD proposal. Eighty-three percent voted for. As a result, the press, ITD and many community leaders concluded the majority of the county was for the ITD proposal and proponents have used this sound bite as truth to promote the byway since that meeting.

The more factual version of the truth is that voters at that meeting didn't have any options other than the Sand Creek route. The ITD agenda was clear — sell the people on the Sand Creek route or bring your bag of marbles back to Boise.

Everyone at the meeting was concerned about the city's traffic problems and whether they favored the Sand Creek route or not, they voted "for" the only choice that was provided. In political terms, this result does not constitute a majority.

It is, in fact, a vote by default. An elected political candidate can't brag he had the majority vote if he had the majority vote if he is the only one running. Why should ITD be allowed to deceive the public in this way when they only allowed one option, an option that is quick and dirty and benefits their agenda at the city's expense. It is an option that doesn't address east-west traffic — an option that will cost $93 million now and hundreds of millions of dollars in 10 years.

ITD's quick-and-dirty solution is not a solution for this time it will only prove to compound the problem. There are other options that make more sense for Sandpoint and the state of Idaho. Let's get serious, get it done right, and not throw millions of taxpayer dollars at an already outdated solution.

DANIEL HEINTZ

Sagle