Vote for Garden City initiative
Please consider voting yes on Initiatives A and B. The mayor and City Council incorrectly claim that the path must be paved at a cost of $1.14 million.
There are absolutely no governmental regulations whatsoever mandating any portion of the Greenbelt be paved. The existing bare ground is fine. Also, the arbitrarily established “bypass” exposes riders to 44 driveways and 28 intersections. Why? So a few landowners can claim their section of the Greenbelt over the rights of all commuting and recreational cyclists from the entire community. Remember, the Garden City mayor was one of the original developers of Riverside Village.
KEN HARRIS, Boise
Keep path for walkers
In regard to the Oct. 15 article “A path to division in Garden City.”
I’m not a resident of Garden City, nor do I use the path mentioned in the article. I would like to speak out in favor of keeping the path pedestrian-only. I am an avid dirt-bike rider and I’m used to dealing with trail closures (horseback/foot traffic only, etc.). It's that way for a reason and there are lots of other areas I can ride legally. I can respect that. Bicyclists have a lot of freedom and should also respect that there are certain trails that they cannot ride on.
BRIAN DUFORT, Meridian
No to initiatives
I do not live on the Nature Trail in Garden City, and I have no bias in the controversy swirling around it other than to factually inform Garden City voters on the notion of converting the trail into a bike path via Initiatives A and B.
Garden City Mayor John Evans, together with the City Council, secured a $727,000 federal grant to build the West Bridge to seamlessly connect the Eagle portion of Greenbelt with the completed Garden City Greenbelt. This relieves Garden City taxpayers of the bridge expense.
Now a small but vocal group has put Initiatives A and B on the ballot with the purpose of placing a mandate on Garden City to pave the Nature Trail. The trail dead-ends at Glenwood with no plan for making a safe bicycle transition across the Boise River. The new bridge, to be completed within one year, creates the perfect connection, making Initiatives A and B totally redundant, but extremely costly for Garden City residents in both higher taxes and reduced services. It is my opinion that Garden City taxpayers will come to regret paying to pave an expensive dead-end path. Vote no on Initiatives A and B.
HOWARD SATTLER, Garden City
Don’t allow bikeson nature path
Bike Rider Opposed to Garden City’s Initiatives A & B.
As an avid bike rider I think it is senseless to promote bicycle travel on Garden City’s Nature Path. A $727,000 taxpayers’ grant to build the West Side Bridge completes the bike corridor from Lucky Peak to Eagle. Constructing the bike lane over the nature path makes the justification for this expensive bridge a fraud. A vote for these initiatives represents a scandalous waste of money and a boondoggle bridge to nowhere. Limited funds should be invested in existing infrastructure needs and not squandered on a redundant bike route.
The guiding principle in comprehensive Greenbelt plans is to establish and maintain a diverse spectrum of recreational opportunities. These commitments supersede a 30-year-old developer’s plan. Protecting this path would prevent discrimination against the interests of underrepresented hiking/walking user groups.
Taxpayers have demonstrated overwhelming generosity for bicyclists in the Treasure Valley. Therefore, the demand to ruin a rare exclusive walking path on the Greenbelt seems intolerant and selfish. I trust these initiatives do not reflect the values responsible riders share in the community. I urge residents to vote no and rebuke these divisive initiatives and protect an endangered recreation resource.
GEORGE SOLVERSON, Boise
Sorting ‘needs’from ‘wants’
1. We are amazed our planners want to develop multiple bike paths when our economy dictates that all resources, both government and family, be applied toward “needs.” not “wants.”
And in this case, the “wants” are those of a small interest group at a cost of over $500,000 for the proposed Shamrock path alone, when cyclists already have good bike path availability. This at a time when at four families and taxpayers out of 10 in our Shamrock neighborhood have faced layoffs, with three losing their homes.
2. The actual on-street space we share with cyclists is our only access to our homes. We happily share what the fliers term our “lightly used” street with neighbors, teen and aging drivers, joggers, families with children, baby strollers and pets (our cul-de-sacs access a park), squirrels, school crossings, and on-street guest and church parking.
It is wrong to relegate our community to the use of $500,000 in crosswalks, in the hope we can avoid being run down by cyclists, who obviously will own the right of way.
3. Notwithstanding the above will probably impact our property values, just to satisfy the “wants” of an interest group.
SYLVIA J. ADAMS, Boise