Comments on: G.C. Bike Ban Lifted By Voters

By: joki

joki — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 18:01:08 +0000

So much obfuscation going on re roads, bikes, paths, and developers especially……what a pain in the b–t. If there IS an electoral commission in this county, they need to hire a lit. prof from BSU to go over the language of initiatives for grammar, punctuation, and above all, clarity. Various lawyers who get involved in these efforts– being used to obfuscating in the first place– can’t be relied on to do it right.

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 09 Nov 2012 08:50:10 +0000

If you want to look at voter intent and not wording, I think many voters looked at Initiative A votes as against the (false) staggering $1.1 million figure attached by the city to it passing. That figure isn’t accurate at all (the stretch doesn’t even need to be paved) but that’s what was sold to the people. So yeah, who wants to vote for $1.1 million to open up a mile and a half stretch to bicycles? Far fewer people than want the area freed up as a “bike path” as originally intended. So, A failed and B passed.

In reality, unless there’s some kickback involved, there’s zero incentive for the Mayor (who was the developer of the homes on the river in the banned stretch by the way) and the homeowners there to support a paved path when a gravel path is acceptable and discourages bike traffic. They don’t want the $1.1 million path between their backyards and the river any more that the taxpayers want to pay for it.

By: bikeboy

bikeboy — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 18:58:07 +0000

What does Diane’s comment have to do with the Riverside Village “natural path”? Did I miss something?

By: TF Boy

TF Boy — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 18:26:30 +0000

The votes haven’t been canvassed by the County. The path is not open immediately.

By: erico49

erico49 — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:58:19 +0000

Bikeboy.. spot on. I contributed too, mostly because I don’t like being lied to by the Mayor. I also voted Yes on both.

By: bikeboy

bikeboy — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:25:29 +0000

A majority of Garden City’s voters want to keep the Riverside Village path closed to cyclists. (Although it should be noted that 43% wanted it opened.)

Even though I wish it would be opened – and have worked with the COG group toward that end – I feel it would be “underhanded” to use the wording of the initiatives to get it opened.

But – on the other hand – King John Evans has used slimy, underhanded tactics from the beginning:
1) He represented the land as being private property, until the State of Idaho sued him. (Being the developer of the property, he knew all along!)
2) With the cooperation of his Council toadies, he enacted a law to ban cyclists from that stretch, when he had to take down his private property signs.
3) He falsely represented that the entire path would have to be paved, at a cost of $1+ million to the taxpayers, in order to lift the bicycle ban.

Evans should be ashamed. (If he had any shame.) So should the Greenbelt-going speeding bike riders who don’t exercise any courtesy, and generate hostility. YOU are a large part of this whole mess! (And yes, I know there are just as many discourteous pedestrians, dog-walkers, skaters, etc. But they don’t scare the other greenbelt-goers as much as you do.)

My 2 cents.

By: Diane Sower

Diane Sower — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 17:04:29 +0000

As we speak right now, legislators right here at home are figuring out ways to spend the Prop 1, 2, and 3 money just for those purposes. Nobody ever seems to care that the people they elect, because they are the same religion, don’t pay attention to elections, or to polls. The insanity has not ended, and the fact that Mr. Luna will not budge, nor teach a class, not one, speaks volumes. Since he became king, 62 additional items of work have been added to the teacher’s duties, and yet, we never see him leading the charge. Get in touch with your representatives. They are in the process of screwing you.

By: erico49

erico49 — Thu, 08 Nov 2012 15:43:23 +0000

I have to wonder why they wrote the initiatives the way they did. It almost seems as if they did it to obfuscate the issues. If that’s true.. they aren’t any better than the City. If it’s not true.. they need to get new lawyers. The old ones didn’t anticipate this outcome, and should have. Either way, I don’t think you can base policy on what you think the voters meant to do. Only on what they actuall did.