Treemont raises too many red flags
October 3, 2008 · Updated 1:21 AM
I grew up in one of the fastest-growing counties in the country.
All things green and good like farm fields, wildlife,even blackberries, are now
just a foggy notion.
Prosperity breeds increasing suburbanization. Even if our
burgeoning overpopulation and resulting developments are a given, must we
continually repeat the same mistakes? The Redmond-Fall City Road is
strewn with sterile, cookie-cutter subdivisions. (I think of it as
the Issaquahization of Fall City).All this in a Growth Management Area!
The more daunting question remains, though. Aside from those who are
obscenely wealthy, what other viable, lucrative alternatives can we offer
a highly taxed landowner? Few, at best. (Certainly not agriculture, which
we pay lip service to, but is next on the chopping block.)
As an impacted neighbor, Treemont is full of red flags, such
as flooding, landslide, traffic overload, traversing a salmon stream,
septic tanks instead of sewer, etc. I've talked to neighbors in the adjacent
developments who say things like, "We used to have a deer problem; now I
wish we had a deer problem," or who are delighted to see Treemont delayed
and consider it a blessing every day the trees are still standing. (A more
apt title would be "Treelessmont"
say it isn't so!)
Treemont is another "bad idea whose time has come."