Letters to the Editor 04/01/2015

To the Editor:

For three years I've not named any individual in any letter, I've purposely kept personalities out of the discussion. However, it is now time for an exception.

If you are curious why some of us can get pretty fired up over the paved-path issue, please read the following completely contradictory statements that have contributed greatly to feelings of bitterness among the interested parties.

The following excerpt is from the STA's formal objection letter that was submitted to the Forest Service on August 11, 2014. In order to be recognized by the USFS as an official objector, you needed to submit a formal objection letter that outlined your concerns. Obviously, the objection process was designed for objectors to the project. However, the STA, fearing exclusion from the objector group, made a mockery of the process by objecting to objecting, and then objecting to the delays caused by objecting.

STA President Chuck Humphreys wrote: "I would like to object to any further adjustments to the proposed alignment of this trail and (object to) any further delays in its approval." Humphreys continues: "I realize that a few in our community continue to voice shrill and strident objections...I am convinced that this opposition reflects the views of an insubstantial minority who oppose the trail for purely personal or ideological (reasons)...I think that their points of opposition remain unsubstantiated by fact...I would be distressed if the USFS continues to give their concerns attention unwarranted by their merits."

Fast forward to last week's Nugget article about the BBR paved path resurfacing: STA President Chuck Humphreys pledged himself to an "open, robust and very fair public process...I don't think anything is carved in stone." He indicated a willingness to "deal with some of the issues people have raised that are legitimate." Note the contradiction.

If the STA is now suddenly looking to bury the hatchet, and is indeed being sincere about completely changing its position in regards to the validity and legitimacy of the exact same objections that have been voiced for the past THREE YEARS, is it unreasonable to think that their first verse of "Kumbayah" should begin with an apology?

Steve Madsen