- About Us
- Local Savings
- Green Editions
- Legal Notices
- Weekly Ads
Exit 34 solution poses problems
I wanted to comment on Cadman's letter of Nov. 9, (their response to
the editorial, "Come on Cadman, the writing is on the wall"). After studying
all the issues surrounding this proposed mine, I am convinced that
Cadman's singular goal is to extract gravel at the most economically feasible
location (Exit 34) regardless of environmental impacts or residents concerns.
All signs point to Cadman's manipulation of information to achieve their goal
of acceptance of their original proposal (which includes a two-mile-long
conveyer belt up Grouse Ridge).
I do not see any indication that Cadman is willing to seriously
evaluate how to use Exit 38. Don't be fooled. Cadman is not worried
about stream crossings and impact to forestlands. Their biggest concern is
how much more costly it would be to extract and deliver gravel from Exit
38. If they really want to co-exist with local residents and to "be a good
neighbor," like their slick PR efforts claim, they would demonstrate an effort
and then implement a solution at Exit 38. They could devise a plan that
would not use the Fire Training Academy Road, however, it just isn't as
There are reports, studies and experts that can show just as much
(if not more) environmental damage and adverse traffic impacts at Exit 34
as there are for Exit 38. The statistics Cadman uses to justify their
position can be used to justify the position of residents who have lived here
for years. In either case, huge gravel mining operations using either exit
will negatively impact the Snoqualmie Valley for generations to come.
Cadman's letter indicates that Exit 34 is already "one of the busiest
truck stops in the state." If you know nothing else about this proposed
project, think of what 900 additional truck trips per day would do to the exit at
the state's busiest truck stop. Nowhere does Cadman acknowledge the
increased probability of fatal accidents with that much truck traffic in
one small location. I am convinced that no amount of (yet undisclosed) "road
improvements" by Cadman would make this area "a better and safer traffic
flow than now currently exists."
Their letter goes on to state "Cadman does not want the
community to simply look at this project in terms of Exit 34 vs. Exit 38."
Well sorry Cadman. Exit 34 vs. 38 IS the main issue to the community.
The problem is that you and Weyerhaeuser don't care. I think we all
understand that you both have stockholders to satisfy.
Both companies need to revise their economic forecasts and
scale back the original proposal and be satisfied with the profits earned
while using Exit 38.
Come on Cadman and Weyerhaeuser! Do the right
thing. Work with the existing gravel operation at Exit 38. Find a way to make
it work. You should listen to the locals.