GARDEN CITY GREENBELT
Mayor, council cater to narrow interests
Does anyone else find it curious that the Garden City mayor and council continue to resist extending the existing Greenbelt behind Riverside Village to bicycle traffic as was originally intended? It certainly seems like a case of the self interests of a few, imposing their will on the many Garden City, Boise, and Eagle residents who could benefit from opening up the path as it should be. Now, we hear, that the city has paid almost $10,000 for what may not be a totally impartial study, estimating the cost of opening up the path to bicycles at above $1 million. It amazes me that we can have almost 28 miles of Greenbelt running along the Boise River all the way from Barber Park to just outside of Eagle, except for this 1.5-mile stretch behind Riverside Village that just can't be economically developed for bicycle traffic. Could it be because our mayor participated in the development of Riverside Village? I'm just asking.
BOB DAVIS, Garden City
Voters need to consider a realistic price tag
The scuff-up between the Garden City City Council and those fighting for Treasure Valley biking corridors took an ugly turn when the citizens of Garden City spent a whooping $9,800 for a consultant study to find out that a complete reconstruction of 1.5 miles of Greenbelt would be expensive. Pick any section of the Greenbelt and assume you have to completely reconstruct it and the price is going to be sky high — you don’t need to spend 10 grand to get that answer.
In comparison, $106,333.62 was the price for 1.64 miles of the recently constructed unpaved section of the Greenbelt near Eagle (bridgework excluded). When you take into account the pro-bono donations and volunteer efforts, the cost drops to around $36,000. The Garden City City Council already spent around one-third of what it would take to get the job done. Voters need to know a more realistic price tag when going to the polls in November.
TODD FISCHER, Boise
PRESIDENTIAL RACE
GOP helps build case for Obama
As donors to the Obama campaign, we'd like to thank the Koch Brothers, Sheldon Adelson, big corporate oil, the pharmaceutical industry, the insurance industry, and of course Wall Street for further stretching our already tight household budget. We remain firm in our resolve to help restrain and counteract the power of big money and its supposed constitutional right to unlimited free speech under the Republican Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling in Citizens United.
The Republicans’ stated goal of ensuring that Obama's presidency fails is tantamount to treason, since the only way to make Obama fail is to make America fail as well, both economically and in terms of public health, education, and infrastructure. Who wants to vote for that?
The conventions showed that we have a real choice in this election: Selfish millionaires, white supremacists, and religious bullies who want womens' bodies to become government/church property the moment they get pregnant? Or a party that pretty much looks, acts and thinks like 21st century America: honest day's work for an honest dollar, everyone pays their fair share, and everyone's kid gets an equal shot at a good quality education and a chance to help make this already great country even greater?
CHRIS NORDEN, Moscow
REPUBLICANS
GOP distorts record, abuses language
As a ruckus representation of the democratic process, the GOP nominating convention was an enjoyable spectacle. Certain speakers, namely former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, have been surprisingly poignant to this liberal looker-on. Yet with each valid assertion many more “you didn’t build that” assaults are slung, nauseatingly, at our president. For the Republican Party’s blitzkrieg on language I offer the following analysis based on the president’s quote:
“... Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
As someone who once had a good teacher, I was taught to look for “buzzwords” that would help to clarify a passage. In this instance, the word "that" occurs twice as a demonstrative, each referring to the same antecedent. Since a demonstrative cannot refer to the subject (or subject qualifier) of its own sentence, “that” must refer to aforementioned publicly funded infrastructure.
To promulgate the notion that this president demonizes capitalism, discourages innovation, or seeks to deride the accomplishments of hardworking Americans is nothing less than intellectually dishonest. Republicans should be ashamed of themselves for their abuse of language and the disgusting misrepresentation of President Obama.
TYSON OLSON, Rigby
