Opinion

Exit 34 not needed for gravel mine

A letter last week ["Future preservation justifies mining"] stated that residents from North Bend should look at the big picture and be grateful that the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust is looking out for our interests.

My interpretation of this letter was:

A) The author, who lived some miles from the proposed mine site (Preston), couldn't understand why those of us living considerably closer would object to the lights, noise and pollution of the mine 24 hours per day;

B) If we wait only 25 years for the mine to extract all of the gravel from Grouse Ridge, the ridge - or what is left of it - will then return to nature and;

C) We should trust the people of the Greenway to only look at what their members regard as the big picture and, in the name of protecting the environment, try to bulldoze (no pun intended) their ideas upon the public.

Give me a break! Why didn't the author of the letter mention the danger to our aquifer since Cadman will be digging very close to the aquifer on the lower mine site? Why didn't she mention that there is a public school designated to be built in that area? Why didn't she mention that the Cascade Gateway Foundation wasn't trying to keep the gravel from being harvested from the ridge, but only opposed Cadman from using Exit 34 instead of Exit 38? This would eliminate the need to use the lower site and a conveyor to bring the gravel down the western face of the ridge. Why didn't she mention that Exit 38 was built specifically to harvest gravel from the ridge?

Now that the facts about the problems associated with the use of Exit 34 have been published, why haven't the Greenway members publicly expressed reservations about the proposed use of the site? If only these members would express something other than total satisfaction with the proposed gravel mine, maybe it would restore some degree of confidence in the Greenway by the public. In my opinion, the Greenway organization has lost its credibility.


A letter last week ["Future preservation justifies mining"] stated that residents from North Bend should look at the big picture and be grateful that the Mountains to Sound Greenway Trust is looking out for our interests.

My interpretation of this letter was:

A) The author, who lived some miles from the proposed mine site (Preston), couldn't understand why those of us living considerably closer would object to the lights, noise and pollution of the mine 24 hours per day;

B) If we wait only 25 years for the mine to extract all of the gravel from Grouse Ridge, the ridge - or what is left of it - will then return to nature and;

C) We should trust the people of the Greenway to only look at what their members regard as the big picture and, in the name of protecting the environment, try to bulldoze (no pun intended) their ideas upon the public.

Give me a break! Why didn't the author of the letter mention the danger to our aquifer since Cadman will be digging very close to the aquifer on the lower mine site? Why didn't she mention that there is a public school designated to be built in that area? Why didn't she mention that the Cascade Gateway Foundation wasn't trying to keep the gravel from being harvested from the ridge, but only opposed Cadman from using Exit 34 instead of Exit 38? This would eliminate the need to use the lower site and a conveyor to bring the gravel down the western face of the ridge. Why didn't she mention that Exit 38 was built specifically to harvest gravel from the ridge?

Now that the facts about the problems associated with the use of Exit 34 have been published, why haven't the Greenway members publicly expressed reservations about the proposed use of the site? If only these members would express something other than total satisfaction with the proposed gravel mine, maybe it would restore some degree of confidence in the Greenway by the public. In my opinion, the Greenway organization has lost its credibility.


Dan Goodrum

North Bend

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.
blog comments powered by Disqus

Read the latest Green Edition

Browse the print edition page by page, including stories and ads.

Oct 29 edition online now. Browse the archives.