The position of Cadman et. al. on Exit 34 over Exit 38 as the
preferred alternative is symptomatic of the disease of arrogance. It is clear that
Cadman’s primary interest in the North Bend Gravel Operation is
maximizing return on investment, and that serious environmental consequences,
while presented as concerns, take a back seat. Cadman cannot be said to be
heartless, but its heart skips thousands of beats every time it glances in
the direction of its bottom line. This is the conclusion that must be
drawn from its advocacy of Exit 34 over a variety of Exit 38 alternatives.
Robin Hansen’s letter in the Record the other week represents
a predictable mouthpiece for this primary interest, spun as reasoned
environmental concern. Much of her letter is a rehashing of an argument
advanced by Mountains to Sound Greenway in its response to
the NBGO-DEIS. That agrument’s primary interest is getting the land
in 25 (or so) years (thousands more heartbeats are skipped). Both the
letter and the argument present enough tortured reasoning to show once
again that such reasoning is the refuge of parties so wedded to a narrow
primary interest, they cannot see alternatives that can be shown to have more merit.
Letters from Sean Donnelly and Ken Hall in the Record this past
week show some of the fallacies of the argument in Hansen’s letter.
Responses to the DEIS, available on King County’s Web site, show others
and bolster Donnelly’s and Hall’s points of view.
What has not been stated succinctly enough in all the public
discussion since the DEIS was issued in June and responses to it were
issued in October is this: For all the public-relations efforts over the past
couple of years and all the posturing as the good guys, Cadman, Mountains
to Sound Greenway and other parties to building the NBGO, particularly
at Exit 34, continue to offer deliberate closed-mindedness and zero
flexibility to the citizens, visitors and businesses of the Upper Snoqualmie
Valley, present and future.