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.

DanHahn

North Bend