Also serving the communities of De Luz, Rainbow, Camp Pendleton, Pala and Pauma

Re: 'Supervisors reject Merriam Mountains project' [Village News, 6/10/10]

Is anyone else puzzled by the appearance on the front page of the June 10 issue of an article regarding a meeting which took place on March 24? I searched the article to find a reason why this story, which had been covered pretty thoroughly by the press in March, would again come up. I found no explanation in the article.

The ongoing discussion of the proposed location of the widened SR76 has been interesting. Without addressing any position on the issue, and I’m sure there is merit in various viewpoints, I find the shifting terminology strange. When the project was discussed in public meetings several years ago, there were three options presented: northern, southern, and existing. The northern option was deemed too invasive by residents of the area north of the current road, and, for a number of reasons, was dropped from consideration. That left two options: southern and existing. Right? Apparently not right. The “existing option” has morphed into the “northern option.” Is there some perceived PR advantage to renaming it? It still goes along the existing route. As long as there is apparent community disagreement, can we stick to accurate descriptions?

Helene Brazier

 

Reader Comments(0)

 
 
Rendered 04/07/2024 23:14