Garden City mayor: It makes no sense to 'destroy' nature path

Converting 1 1/2 miles of walking path to a bicycle path is unnecessary, costly — and would compromise a rare amenity, Garden City Mayor John Evans said.

Evans submitted a rebuttal to our editorial endorsing Garden City's Initiative A, which would open the city's "nature path" to cycling.

Here's an excerpt:

"The Statesman does not once mention that turning this into a multi-use traffic corridor will destroy one of only three walking paths along the Boise River. Boise has the Dallas Harris Walk and the Bethine Church Nature Path and we have our 1.5 mile Nature Path. The cycling community has over 30 miles of paved, multi-use paths to enjoy. It makes no sense to destroy this path."

Here's the link to Evans' guest opinion. And a link to Tuesday's Statesman editorial.

Get Twitter updates on my blog and column and Statesman editorials. Become a follower. You can also get updates on Facebook's Idaho Statesman Opinion Page.

John Evans just wants his way at all costs

Since when does opening it up to cyclists "destroy this path"?


IS John Evans a megalomaniac?

It took me 30 seconds to spell it. I doubt he is, but he's not keeping the jumprope either.


Celebrating five years and one screen ID >|<

Evans already destroyed nature

By building dozens of homes right up against the river, Evans destroyed a whole lot more nature than paving the path at Riverside Village will destroy. Incidentally, much of the path is on a levee and not in front of houses as the residents disingenuously claim. And the levee itself is not natural.

Hey RV Village residents, if you want to walk, then walk on Riverside Drive. According to you, it's safe for bicyclists so it should be safe for walking, right?

The big difference here is that bicyclists may want to travel much further, all the way to Eagle. To do that they have to take a convoluted and confusing route. What about the children? Some child is going to get lost in that maze of streets making their way from Glenwood to Eagle.

I don't think it has ever been posted, but here are the directions to get from Glenwood Bridge to Merrill Park in Eagle:

West on Riverside Drive
Stay on Riverside Drive even though it curves away from river and curves some more
North on Arney Lane
West on Stoneham
West on Wakefield
South on no name street
West on a bike path
North on a bike path
South (180° turn) on Ulmer (completely unmarked) ESP required
West on Sultana
West on a somewhat hidden bike path at end of Sultana
North on Yaquina Head Way
West on another poorly marked bike path
Dogleg around twice
Don't miss the next left or you'll end up totally lost on Heceta Head Way
Follow dirt path to dirt road
Dont follow dirt road, veer west on dirt path
Path now continues to Eagle's Merrill Park with little confusion

There you have it folks. If you've never bicycled this crazy route then you're not qualified to comment on any of this controversy.

Greenbelt use

Two members of our family have been hit and injured while walking on the greenbelt by bicyclists going full speed around blind corners. It was obvious that they considered it and used it as their own territory and pedestrians need to get the he!! out of their way. So we don't use the greenbelt and couldn't care less if the whole thing is turned into a nature path. In fact, that would be nice to be able to use it since we help pay for it.


runners- mothers with double strollers- DOGS---

I have WAY MORE problems with dogs on the Greenbelt and foothills trails than I do with bikers.

Running along and someone's dog decides to 'greet' me. Trip trip trip. And that can be on the nature path.

So if I tell a story of I was hurt on the nature path when a dog on a leash crossed my path and I was tripped by the leash... let's ban dogs????


Maybe the dog owners should be more RESPONSIBLE for their animals. After all, the dogs are just being dogs so its the owners you have problems with, no? Same with bicycles. I guess by your way of thinking we just need to expect to be taken out by irresponsible bike owners now and then. Where do you see the word "ban" anywhere but in your own post?

in between your lines

Ban is implicit when you write, "care less if the whole thing is turned into a nature path".

Yes, be more responsible.
It has nothing to do with prohibiting bikes (since you are adverse to the word ban). It has to do with allowing all users and encouraging them to be responsible users- walkers included.
Walker walking 3 abreast, or more and taking up the whole width, and then complaining about a runner overtaking them, (they didn't say on your left)... etc.


Vote to open the Greenbelt for all users.

Maybe you should be responsible for thinking before you post!

What comes around goes around and doesn't turn left on a dogleg.


Celebrating five years and one screen ID >|<

You're right...

Had I thought more about it, maybe I could have come up with an incredibly clever, arrogant and ignorant remark like you did. Next time I'll run my posts by you first. Thanks for your input!