Who decides who gets a vote over bypass?

While starting  my daily fire with an old local newspaper I sometimes read parts of it again. I remain puzzled by certain aspects of the bypass. There is the matter of who gets to have a voice. Many took issue if the point of view was from someone who did not live here full time or was not born here or did not live in town, etc. So the question remains for me; who has standing to weigh in on issues like the bypass? A taxpayer; property tax or income tax?  Only voters; city or county or state? Who decides? How about the much used phrase “overwhelming community support” or “majority” when justifying one’s position. This concept cannot be substantiated by any valid measure. There was no real vote by those affected. Are there answers to these questions or do we have to go through such unnecessary meaningless discourse when the next major issue affecting the community inevitably arises.

Regarding the lawsuits against the project. This is a country of laws. It is a right to seek adherence to the law. I submit that it is a patriotic duty to question those who have authority to do things for which they will not have to take responsibility. As consumers we want satisfaction. This is self-interest. We get our pork. As citizens we contribute to a common good which includes the law. This I believe is a responsibility we have for the blessings that we have been given as citizens in this society. If ITD has broken existing laws, as some believe to be the case, ITD must be held to account. To malign and slander those who speak or act in doing so  demonstrates a lack of respect for the rule of law and the right/obligation of a citizen.

As a voter and taxpayer I have to question the way my tax dollars are spent. As we cannot pay for maintaining our current roads and bridges we are spending $50 million per mile on the bypass. This brings up cognitive dissonance for me.

I would love to see the cost/benefit calculations. As a businessman I have to think about such things. In my opinion this project is very disconnected from any meaningful contextual reality. Perhaps I will be found unworthy of voicing it, garnering ‘ad hominems’ rather than substantive responses. Anyway, I hope we can refine the discourse so that it is less corrosive and intellectually dishonest and move to a more productive future by learning from the past. One of those lessons might be, do not shoot the messenger. A price of freedom is informed vigilance.

CHRIS HECHT

Sandpoint