Councilman clarifies position on issue

After last Saturday’s article on a potential, temporary ban on drive-throughs I have found myself cast as the hero or villain in a dramatic battle for the future of our city, our planet and perhaps the entire universe.

Although I’m never one to step away from controversy (i.e. parking downtown), I’m afraid in this case I’m undeserving of either title (well, at least the hero part).    

Aspects of the proposal in the article, about a number of other changes to City Code, are not mine. I have not yet even read them. I suspect they originate with our planning director and/or Planning and Zoning Commission.

I do not support removing any current drive-throughs within the city of Sandpoint, many of which I believe are helpful to residents. Should a drive-through fall apart during this proposed temporary ban I would vehemently support their right to rebuild.

Let me state again: I believe some drive-throughs are helpful to residents and should be allowed.

That said, I also believe a temporary ban on drive-throughs is the smart thing to do. As I told the reporter, but didn’t end up in the Daily Bee, I believe such a ban should last no longer than a year (and I’d like to see it last considerably shorter).

The purpose of such a temporary ban would be to provide us time to consider where drive-throughs are appropriate and where they are not. The area I’m personally most concerned about are commercial zones that border residential neighborhoods.

I believe that as we enact our new comprehensive plan we need to be cautious about how changes affect our current neighborhoods.  

JOHN REUTER

Sandpoint