Your recent March 13, 2014 article about the proposed bridge project in Mt Index Riversites by Chris Hendrickson was one of the most biased articles I have read in many years. As an owner in Mt. Index Riversites who lives above the slide and has to suffer with the hardships of dealing with access to my home I was dismayed by the lack of balanced reporting in this article.
The facts are as follows:
1.-á-á-á-á 250 owners are affected by the slide. No access for three months and limited access by ATV for the three months.
2.-á-á-á-á No deliveries of propane.
3.-á-á-á-á No septic services.
4.-á-á-á-á No Emergency Services.
5.-á-á-á-á More than 90% of the owners above the slide are in favor of the bridge. Those against it are against it because they do not want to pay for it. These are the same owners who do not want to pay to maintain the roads.
6.-á-á-á-á MIRCC was deeded these roads in 1963. The BNSF was sold lots in 1968 to realign their tracks. MIRCC was granted easements across their land where our road existed. These were reaffirmed in 2002.
7.-á-á-á-á The bridge existed across the river for 50 years and MIRCC owned or has easements for the approaches to this bridge. They did not go away when the bridge was removed.
8.-á-á-á-á The new bridge is going exactly where the old bridge was.
9.-á-á-á-á The supposed other access over the hill and slide area was looked at. In winter there is constant snow fall and an attempt to traverse this area in February was stopped by over 20 inches of snow. The cost would be far greater that the suggested $100000.00. Perhaps those from G-Section should front the cost for this. Then when the bridge is in and we have this other road in they can honor the agreement with the owners that have granted easements across their land so they can access highway 2 and stop using those owners land.
10.-á G-Section is not involved in the bridge and will not pay for it.
11.-á G-Section was granted by MIRCC the right to maintain the road in-áG-Section in 2005 in exchange for not being charged annual road dues by MIRCC because of the unique access they faced without the bridge. They were not granted ownership of the road in G-Section.
12.-á This agreement was rescinded by MIRCC in 2012. Negotiations over a new agreement stalled because G-Section refused to negotiate.
13.-á G-section has enjoyed a private gated community since the bridge was removed. They now believe this is being threatened and that is why they are opposing the bridge.
14.-á The Canyon Falls Home Owners Association, while a registered corporation in the State of Washington, is not a legal homeowners association for the same reason MIRCC is not a HOA. See the 2004 and 2009 Snohomish Superior Court rulings.
15.-á As far as those quoted in the article not one quote was from an owner affected by the slide or who lives above the slide. No executive officer of MIRCC was interviewed. If they were they were ignored.
16.-á As far as two board members voting against the bridge project, the vote to proceed with SNOPUD was 11-0. The vote to proceed with the purchase of the bridge was 13-1. The vote to authorize the entering of the contract with the installer was 12-2. Hardly a conflicted board.
Your writer or perhaps someone not biased should write an article from the other viewpoint and you should give the same newspaper space to an article that tells the truth.
Bill Stehl
MIRCC Owner and Past President
Comments
Use the comment form below to begin a discussion about this content.
Sign in to comment