Guest Opinion Daily Bee,

April 1

By Pierre Bordenave

According to a recent (3/16/04) article in the Bonner County Daily Bee about the stakes and flagging placed by the North Idaho Community Action Network (NICAN) to show the extent of walls and fills into Sand Creek, Larry Glahe from Glahe and Associates, conceded they “might not be too far off.” Glahe is the surveyor hired by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) for the Highway in Sand Creek project.

In a Spokesman Review article the same day, ITD spokesperson, Barbara Babic stated that the NICAN stakes “… are not accurate. I don’t know where they are getting their information.”

In fact, the ITD's plans which are hanging in their office for anyone to see and measure from, clearly show where the walls and fills in Sand Creek are proposed. ITD's surveyors have staked the centerline of the highway at regular stations in and along the creek. Those same stations are identified on the ITD project plans.

It required merely a scale and tape measure to then identify the location of the walls and the edge of the fills proposed by ITD. Just days after we staked the walls and fill locations, ITD's surveyors staked the proposed location of the trail in the creek from the same plans, and it is clear that the location of their stakes adhere very closely to our measurements as well. Thus if NICAN’s stakes are inaccurate, then the locations of the centerline and trail stakes by ITD would be equally inaccurate.

For Ms. Babic to declare them inaccurate in a knee-jerk reaction without ever bothering to check with ITD's own surveyor as to the inaccuracy of her assertions, should make us all wonder about the veracity of other statements and representations presented as fact by the ITD.

As is evident to everyone willing to see for themselves, the stakes reveal how far the proposed fill will extend and how far the highway wall will encroach on Sand Creek. Ms. Babic's statement: "The Road is going up Sand Creek” speaks volumes about ITD’s attitude toward the public and public input. At least in that statement we finally hear what ITD has been loath to admit. This is NOT a "byway threading its way along Sand Creek" as is so often euphemistically portrayed by ITD in their official project descriptions. It is a 3-lane elevated highway that has a very large retaining wall and fill footprint IN Sand Creek.

And yes, there WILL be a thousand linear feet of very high and very ugly retaining wall along the entire length of Sand Creek within Sandpoint. No matter how many plastic planting pockets or trees and grasses you grow in and next to the 20 - plus foot high walls, it is still going to be a huge cutoff wall topped with a highway along the entire eastern skyline of Sandpoint.

Ms. Babic is also quoted as saying the “…guts of the Byway proposal are no longer up for debate.” This statement, however, is then followed by her admission that ITD has not yet applied for any of the necessary environmental permits for the alteration of, and fill in, Sand Creek.

Nor has ITD issued the Environmental Assessment, which was promised 18 months ago, to address the major changes in the project since their Final Environmental Impact Statement. These are lengthy processes, which require the agencies to consider public comment, and address why building walls and placing acres of fill in the creek is the only alternative for a highway.

It is NICAN’s contention, and the reason these effort are being made to bring the reality home to the community, that ITD does not want the citizens of our community to see the real level of impact. Not the visual, environmental, economic, and even traffic impacts. Everything has been and continues to be mirrors and smokescreens.

We get pretty conceptual pictures of what it could look like in 15 or 20 years, but never a peek at what our creek and the waterfront will look like for the several years of construction, and several years following construction. They use terms like "shoreline extension" rather than acres of fill in the creek. They bury and spin the fact that, by their own economics studies, downtown businesses will be devastated, with the loss of many of our locally owned businesses, the ambiance of creekside dining, and other water oriented recreational activities.

Whenever the subject of traffic in Sandpoint comes up, all we can get out of ITD is “we're not sure, maybe, and we'll have to study the traffic once the Sand Creek Highway is in.” Is that the way one goes about spending 70 million dollars?

With "we are not sures," "maybes," and "we'll study it after the fact?" It does not require one to read between the lines. ITD's own studies show the traffic patterns in Sandpoint will not change and there will be no real reduction in traffic volumes.

Sandpoint has no commitment from ITD to get its streets back. Just a wait and we’ll see in a few years. If the streets stay highway, there is no revitalization for 1st, Cedar, 5th, Pine, or probably Church as well. Do we really think there will be any money for Sandpoint 4 or 5 years from now after this project is up to 100 million dollars as a result of the cost overruns? A pretty safe assumption based on the history of past highway projects in much easier construction conditions than the quicksand of Sand Creek.

In the end, Sandpoint will still have the same traffic issues, there will still be a need for routing the traffic of Highways 2 and 200 and 95 connectors either around or through Sandpoint, and we will have lost the water heart and beauty of our town forever.

How ironic that Sunset Magazine, in it’s January 2004 issue, identifying Sandpoint as “Best in the West,” chose to exemplify what makes Sandpoint so special, a picture of Sand Creek. This picture is from Bridge Street with boaters in the creek and the Cedar Street Bridge as a postcard backdrop. That exact location where the picture was taken and the entire view it shows will be the centerline of the highway and most of that section of Sand Creek will be filled based on ITD’s plans.

Perhaps Sunset Magazine should be invited back in 5 years and they could write another article entitled “How Sandpoint Messed the Best.”

Pierre Bordenave